Using an external meter by choice

My first proper camera was a 1960's Praktica Nova with no meter, and as soon as I could I bought a Soviet (cheap) Leningrad 4 selenium meter, which perhaps wasn't very good, but was better than my teenage guesses. But since I simplified my camera holdings (in theory, to an F6 and a Hasselblad, although the 4x5 didn't sell, and I never offered the Olympus Pens or OMs), I have used a handheld meter an awful lot. Not with the F6, you understand, as part of the beauty of that camera is that it does things for me, and does them well. That includes its matrix metering, which has only very rarely made a mistake. But with many meterless 35mm, medium format and large format cameras along the way, I have gradually found myself not only comfortable with a handheld meter, but actually preferring it sometimes, even when the camera has its own internal meter. The meter I've settled on is a Polaris SPD100 which I bought simply as a corded flash meter for large format. But it does reflective and incident metering without flash, and also has the option of displaying EV which is good for the old Hasselblad lenses. It doesn't seem to be available anymore at B&H, so as a backup I have a Sekonic L-308XU, which is so similar I suspect Sekonic must have bought Polaris in order to market their version of the design. I only use it as an incident meter, flash or not, and it never seems to let me down. I compared it to a Gossen Digisix, an Adorama 1º spotmeter (Pentax clone) and a Sekonic L-758, and sold all of them as I found the Polaris was giving better exposures.
I've been having an extended fling with Olympus cameras lately, both half and full frame, and find myself choosing to use the OM-1 and OM-2n with the external meter just because - well, because of what? Because I can, because it feels like more control (which I know I can do with the internal meters by overriding them), and because I'm not photographing the kind of subjects that require lightning fast choices about exposure. But ultimately, it's because I find incident metering easier to get right than reflective metering plus adjustments based on the subject and the lighting. It looks harder and more complex, but it's actually a lazy and quick way to the desired result. Given that the OM-1 needs no battery except for the meter, and the OM-2n's need a pair of batteries just to make the shutter work, it won't be a surprise that the OM-1 is beginning to be picked up more often - I don't even need to remember to flick the switch on the top plate, and I have wasted film in the OM-2n's by forgetting to do that and assuming the manually set shutter and aperture would be correct. BTW, the original OM-1 is a great buy at present if you don't need the hot shoe connections of the OM-1n for the proprietary Olympus TTL flash - and who does? They all need a visit to Huntington, NY whatever the designation, so may as well not pay for things you don't need.

Does anyone else find themselves using a handheld meter even when their camera has a functional internal meter? If I'm just a throwback, a dinosaur or an atavist, I'm pretty sure there are others here to keep me company.

I have a Gossen Lux Pro SBC that worked well as a reflectance and a incident meter but was not meeting my needs for a spot meter with the 5 degree/10 degree attachment so I switched to a Pentax Digital Spotmeter and a Sekonic L308-S. Most of my needs are still met with built in light meters.

I'm with you on this. I've never trusted an onboard meter (well not since I grew up). Call me paranoid or obsessive but I like to meter twice before I fire the shutter, if conditions allow it. I've always carried a meter with both incident and reflected metering capabilities and I read the light both ways when I shoot. If I'm doing street shooting and this isn't a realistic option for each and every shot, I take a general incident reading and maybe a reflected light reading if I can spot an object that looks like it's close to 18%. My meter of choice for many years was the Gossen Pilot (or Pilot 2) because I could meter one-handed with them. When Sekonic came out with the L-208 I pounced on it and retired the Pilot (s). The Pilots were battery-free and I began to get inconsistent readings sometimes so the Twinmate (L-208) came along at the right time. Same size and easier to use one-handed.

To answer your question, I have several Nikon F2s and I can't tell you how many have working meters, because I never bought the batteries!

I always have, although every camera I own has a built-in meter, except for my 4x5 monorail! Hand held meters possess capabilities not found in the camera meter, that's why. There are always things not possible via in-camera meter, for which a handheld meter is of benefit, particularly for professional tasks.

None of my film cameras have a built in meter. Leica M4, Nikkormat FS and a Retina IIa. I have two Reveni meters and a Sekonic 308x that work exceedingly well. I like film photography because it makes me work for the image. Reading the meter makes me feel more involved.

I've done a number of tests with a spotmeter and going through the whole zone system exercise to determine an exposure and then compared to the matrix metering on my Nikon. Every time the Nikon gave the correct reading, so I have just used it. The only time I use a hand held meter if if I am using a large format camera exclusively and have left the 35mm at home.

Craig said:

I've done a number of tests with a spotmeter and going through the whole zone system exercise to determine an exposure and then compared to the matrix metering on my Nikon. Every time the Nikon gave the correct reading, so I have just used it. The only time I use a hand held meter if if I am using a large format camera exclusively and have left the 35mm at home.

Click to expand...

Agree. I and others have posted about how good this system is in the N75 and F6 (others too).

Sirius Glass said:

I have a Gossen Lux Pro SBC that worked well as a reflectance and a incident meter but was not meeting my needs for a spot meter with the 5 degree/10 degree attachment so I switched to a Pentax Digital Spotmeter and a Sekonic L308-S. Most of my needs are still met with built in light meters.

Click to expand...

I should add that those meters and the meters in my Hasselblad and Nikons have all been calibrated and read the same.

I find that matrix metering, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma matches my variety of handheld meters, on rare occasion in very tricky lighting I will pull out my incident meter. With my older 35mm with standard average or bottom weighted TTL metering about half the time I use a hand held meter. When shooting MF and LF I sometime use one of my 35mm or DSLR with metering rather than a spot meter.

I also learned on a meterless camera (Pentax H1a) and used a handheld meter back then. While the metering on my Pentax PZ1p is really good, I use an external meter with my P645n and, of course, LF. The P645n's meter is pretty good, but I use the incident meter to figure out if/how I'm going to bracket.

I use handheld a lot. Even with some of my 35mm SLRs that have accurate metering, I often carry a handheld to act as referee. I am finding myself using more incident metering,as I get fewer underexposures in contrasty lighting where I care about some of the shadow areas. In a lot of scenes it is easy to reconcile incident and reflective readings. If I cannot reconcile quickly, I will tend to go with the incident reading. I mainly use a Gossen Luna Pro SBC plus a couple of older Luna Pros that run on Wein cells. The Luna Pros are a bit more compact, and generally accurate enough, but you have to keep an eye on the Wein cells. I intend to be playing more with spot meters as I ramp up usage of my Mamiya TLRs.

I always use a hand held meter with any camera I have on a tripod, even if it has it's own meter. I like to compose the shot and in waiting for the light, or for a cloud to appear, and wander around nearby taking readings to make my choice. Of course with a camera that doesn't have a meter I use a meter, I've always liked 'facts' rather than Sunny 16, although I find after all these years a meter simply confirms what I've already set the aperture and speed to.

Well don’t we all look like smart arses when using a handheld one? It’s - just be cool man, use one. Or not. Sugar in a cappuccino? Never.

VTLD said:

Well don’t we all look like smart arses when using a handheld one? It’s - just be cool man, use one. Or not. Sugar in a cappuccino? Never.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine anyone that sees me using my Sekonic 588 spot meter would know what it is or what I'm doing with it.

If I'm not in a hurry to take a photo (buildings or I'm waiting for clouds or whatever to move into shot) I always guesstimate then check against phone app just to keep myself amused.

If I'm in street or at event I will just let camera sort it out.

I always like to have an external meter or phone app tho for cameras with centre weighted meter as I find those can be tricked sometimes or I'm never quite sure just what they are metering.

ic-racer said:

I can't imagine anyone that sees me using my Sekonic 588 spot meter would know what it is or what I'm doing with it.

Click to expand...

That is what makes you the smart arse on the streets or in the woods. Looking cool man, others just drool. But do look at the whole thing I wrote: effectively saying whatever you fancy, handheld or not, whatever works. Sometimes in camera meter is beyond good enough.

I have and use a little Sekonic L208, purchased new, vastly overpriced for what it is. But, it seems accurate enough, will do incident and reflected, and is very small and light weight.
I find that for a spot meter my mirrorless, bought used, cost less than a spot meter and is handy for that purpose.

When shooting photo paper as a negative a meter gives me only a starting point, what with different sensitivity based on how much blue there is in the light.

I use my meters a lot but I rarely bring them out of the house. If the camera I bring with me doesn't have a meter or a meter I don't trust I would rather guess the exposure than bring the meters with me.

VTLD said:

Well don’t we all look like smart arses when using a handheld one? It’s - just be cool man, use one. Or not. Sugar in a cappuccino? Never.

Click to expand...

The problem today with using the handheld meter to impress people, most will think you're just looking at your cellphone.

Using an incident meter separately makes sense if it works for you. It does slow you down though if you're in a hurry an have the option of using a camera's onboard metering.

Lately, instead of a handheld meter for measuring light for my 4x5 and 6x7 non-metered cameras, I've been using a micro 4/3 digital camera's meter to do it, kind of the obverse of what you're doing. I use it's center-weighted or spot mode.

Alan Edward Klein said:

The problem today with using the handheld meter to impress people, most will think you're just looking at your cellphone.

Click to expand...

This is not a serious topic for me, so I will keep kidding around.

When I got into photography in the early ‘70s I had 2 Minolta SRT bodies and relied on their internal meters. When the military shipped me to Germany I bought a Rolleicord VB and a Gossen Lunasix 3 (the Euro version of the Luna Pro) to go with it. Some years later I picked up a Mamiya 645 system and used the internal meter and the Gossen with it.

After a bit of a hiatus, I started shooting again and discovered that the mercury batteries were no longer available. I used the Wein cells for a while and then tried a phone app before opting for the MR-9 adaptors from Criscam. I put those in my Gossen and am quit happy with them. I can move them to my Minoltas but I just go ahead and use the Gossen for everything.

YMMV but it works well enough for me.

VTLD said:

This is not a serious topic for me, so I will keep kidding around.

Click to expand...

As you will. I started it in a serious vein, as I was surprised to find myself preferring the handheld meter even when there was the option of an internal meter. And that can be boiled down to whether reflective or incident metering is better. But you just carry on and be you.

drmoss_ca said:

As you will. I started it in a serious vein, as I was surprised to find myself preferring the handheld meter even when there was the option of an internal meter. And that can be boiled down to whether reflective or incident metering is better. But you just carry on and be you.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not mean in that way. I guess these kind of topics need to revolve and then again, time after time. I spoke up before my last though, whichever meter suits anyone is fine. If results are sufficient for a situation, that is all, IMO. There is still a lot of inconvenience with handheld and lots of in camera meters that excellent (and I don't mean "infinite" cell count in F6 or similar systems).

And by saying "not a serious thread" I jabbed at responses to my posts that were meant to lighten up the rhetoric, but clearly failed at that.

Thank you. Between us, we have achieved a first. Civilised APUG is possible!