I got my Vivitar 45 light meter today. I need to do more testing but I believe it's fairly accurate. It tends to match up with the phone app for the most part. I have to put the phone app on "average". My X-570 seems in agreement. My SRT101's are off. Maybe the 201 as well. Kind of a bummer, but using the light meter with them isn't the end of the world.
I like the needle and lollipop on the Vivitar 45. Very easy to line up quickly and the scale isn't too difficult to read.
I got my Vivitar 45 light meter today. I need to do more testing but I believe it's fairly accurate. It tends to match up with the phone app for the most part. I have to put the phone app on "average". My X-570 seems in agreement. My SRT101's are off. Maybe the 201 as well. Kind of a bummer, but using the light meter with them isn't the end of the world.
I like the needle and lollipop on the Vivitar 45. Very easy to line up quickly and the scale isn't too difficult to read.
Check if the Minoltas have a different weighting (often bottom weighted). If they are center weighted even, it can be a bit different as most handheld meters are not weighted by default at least (excepting spot meters).
Perhaps the SRT101s need to be sent out for light meter recalibration.
The SRT-101 was the first with 'Contrast Light Compensation'
"Minolta’s innovation was to use two meter cells, one for the lower portion of the photo, the other for the higher area (which was often that bright sky).The camera would compare the output of the two Cadmium Sulfide photo cells. ...rather than use some complex circuitry to calculate an ideal exposure, the cell metering the bottom of the photo was twice as sensitive, so when the output of the two cells was averaged, the foreground had approximately one stop more weight than the sky."In my earlier suggestion to meter an evenly illuminated featureless target, even CLC is negated in its effect, any built-in biasing in meters or narrowed metering angle area are all EQUALIZED and should result in the same exposure (within 1/6EV) from reflected light meters conforming to the international standard for meter calibration.
Your various meters can only be compared when they are reading the exact same thing.
If your phone is taking a 75 degree view of a scene, it will be different than the Vivitar 45 that might be reading 40 degrees of the scene (In refectance mode), and, as mentioned, the SRT cameras are BOTTOM weighted (when the camera is held horizontally) -- and what the SRT reads depends on what the lens sees.
You can't compare apples and oranges.
That's a great point which raises the main issue about meters. Which one is actually giving you the correct reading?
Assuming the meters are functioning correctly, they are all correct -- for what they are reading. It's up to the photographer to decide which is correct. If one meter is pointed at a black dog, it will give you an exposure to create a grey dog. If the meter is pointed at a white dog, it will give you an exposure to create a grey dog. If the meter is pointed at a grey dog, it will give you an exposure to create a grey dog.
On the other hand, if the meter is switched to INCIDENT mode, no matter what dog you are metering, it will come out white, grey or black. The meter will give you the same exposure settings regardless of which dog is the subject -- so a white dog comes out white, a grey dog comes out grey, a black dog comes out black.
That's a great point which raises the main issue about meters. Which one is actually giving you the correct reading?
#182 Your various meters can only be compared when they are reading the exact same thing.
If your phone is taking a 75 degree view of a scene, it will be different than the Vivitar 45 that might be reading 40 degrees of the scene (In refectance mode), and, as mentioned, the SRT cameras are BOTTOM weighted (when the camera is held horizontally) -- and what the SRT reads depends on what the lens sees.
You can't compare apples and oranges.
That's a great point which raises the main issue about meters. Which one is actually giving you the correct reading?
Define “correct”. (Rhetorical, not a personal challenge, Alan).
Your question reminds me of a book, “Perfect Exposure “ by Roger Hicks. After much discussion and illustration of meters, metering and photography he never really says what “perfect exposure “ is or means.
Whatever you meter with a reflectance meter will come out an 18% mid-tone -- so the correct exposure is to meter something in the scene that is an 18% mid-tone. That's why grey cards are sold. Barring a grey card, you need to be an expert in finding 18% areas in the scene. A lot of people buy spot meters to try to do this, but soon find out it's not easy -- because the human eye automatically adjusts to ambient light.
My problem and I admit it, is where to aim the reflective meter, let's say one with a wider angle of reading.
There does not exist any meter that will always give the correct result on its own. All meters depend on the user, and their judgment.
My problem and I admit it, is where to aim the reflective meter, let's say one with a wider angle of reading. A little this way or a little that way, and you get a different reading. Sure, in the middle of the day when the sun's out, it's easy to get a more"correct" reading. But once the light is difficult, or you are into the magic hour before sunset, it's difficult. That's why I started to use my digital camera for metering.
And this is where the skill and experience and knowledge comes in.
There does not exist any meter that will always give the correct result on its own. All meters depend on the user, and their judgment.
Some meters employ complex data gathering systems and algorithms ("Matrix metering") to increase the success rate for those who want to just point a meter and hope that it's suggestion is the right one. Unfortunately, those meters make it harder for those who do have the requisite skill and experience and knowledge to apply it to the subject at hand.
And this is where the skill and experience and knowledge comes in.
There does not exist any meter that will always give the correct result on its own. All meters depend on the user, and their judgment.
Some meters employ complex data gathering systems and algorithms ("Matrix metering") to increase the success rate for those who want to just point a meter and hope that it's suggestion is the right one. Unfortunately, those meters make it harder for those who do have the requisite skill and experience and knowledge to apply it to the subject at hand.
Whatever you meter with a reflectance meter will come out an 18% mid-tone -- so the correct exposure is to meter something in the scene that is an 18% mid-tone. That's why grey cards are sold. Barring a grey card, you need to be an expert in finding 18% areas in the scene. A lot of people buy spot meters to try to do this, but soon find out it's not easy -- because the human eye automatically adjusts to ambient light.
Matrix metering is much more than a hope…
I really do not like digital meters; I can see so much more information at a glance with a tradional wheel calculator on an analog meter, but that just may reflect my age, and what I'm used to.
My Nikon and Nikormat had center metering which I would aim so a small piece of the sky was picked up by the meter but most of the reading would be from other parts of the scene. That would give me better average readings to shoot with.
I still do that today with a digital camera. If the exposure looks wrong on the back screen, I'll move the camera around until the screen value look correct. Then, I'll press the shutter halfway down to lock in the exposure setting, re-aim the shot to frame it, and squeeze off the shot.
Using your digital camera and interrogating its data is fine if that gets you the images you want. In addition to discussing exposure and metering on forums it might be worthwhile for you to read Roger Hick’s book. It’s very inexpensive. I think I paid a couple of dollars plus five more for shipping. Check ABE or Alibris used book sites. It really is a worthwhile book to read to understand the multitude of trade offs with pictures showing the various options.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?