Why do some cameras give you perfect exposures (and why don't the others)?

[gone]

I've owned only a few cameras that gave me perfect negs on every frame nearly all the time. The kind that stand out from the others as soon as you see them. A Rolleiflex T, a Minolta Autocord, a Leicaflex SL, a 1938 Zeiss Ikonta 6x4.5 folder, and a Kodak Retina Ia. None had been CLA'd except the Leicaflex, and that had been performed years before I owned the camera. None of these cameras had built in meters, except for that Leicaflex. So how come they gave noticeably better exposures than all the legions of cameras that I've used over the last few decades? Even the little Ikonta w/ it's uncoated Tessar delivered snappy, contrasty negs every shot.

I've been using a shutter tester for a long time, so I know what speed the cameras are actually firing at, and essentially the same hand held meters, so it's not that. Same film and developer (mostly Tri-X and D76 w/ those cameras, but some w/ other films and developers). Strange.

 

[RobC]

You have a choice. Either ask the camera or ask the photographer, it'll be one of those two causing the problem. My bet is on the latter.

 

[summicron1]

some cameras do have crappy lenses, you know, but I suspect it is mostly a factor of comfort -- cameras you are comfortable using, that meld with your mind so to speak, are going to give you what you want more than one that is just, well, a camera.

 

[zanxion72]

Different lenses deliver different results. Also, you might be underexposing your slides or overexposing your negatives with your Ikonta and getting a bit more of color saturation. Considering that your metering technique is consistent, it might be that your shutters aren't accurate and some of them by that much that you get notable variations in saturation.
Since your Ikonta stands out like this, I would suggest to have its shutter checked. At least statistically, and considering that your metering is pretty much consistent, it is most likely your Ikonta is the "bad" one.

 

[darkosaric]

but I suspect it is mostly a factor of comfort -- cameras you are comfortable using, that meld with your mind so to speak, are going to give you what you want more than one that is just, well, a camera.

+1

 

[TenSpeed]

Luck of the draw.

hahaha

 

[benjiboy]

Dunno, where do all the flies go in winter ?

 

[removed account4]

its kharmic

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

lens designers kharma.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

A case for in camera metering. The relationship between meter and camera is tested/refined when developing the camera. When no such thing exists wouldn't that be a scenario for testing E.I. of a particular film?

 

[R.Gould]

I've owned only a few cameras that gave me perfect negs on every frame nearly all the time. The kind that stand out from the others as soon as you see them. A Rolleiflex T, a Minolta Autocord, a Leicaflex SL, a 1938 Zeiss Ikonta 6x4.5 folder, and a Kodak Retina Ia. None had been CLA'd except the Leicaflex, and that had been performed years before I owned the camera. None of these cameras had built in meters, except for that Leicaflex. So how come they gave noticeably better exposures than all the legions of cameras that I've used over the last few decades? Even the little Ikonta w/ it's uncoated Tessar delivered snappy, contrasty negs every shot.

I've been using a shutter tester for a long time, so I know what speed the cameras are actually firing at, and essentially the same hand held meters, so it's not that. Same film and developer (mostly Tri-X and D76 w/ those cameras, but some w/ other films and developers). Strange.

I use these type of cameras for all of my photography, I only have a Werra Matic with a built in meter, and that is accurate, I believe that the answer is simple, using hand held meters, so that the photographer is in control not the camera, as many modern cameras with built in meters tend to take over, I use old weston meters and find that the accuracy is superb
Richard

 

[fotch]

Do all the cameras have a lens hood?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I use these type of cameras for all of my photography, I only have a Werra Matic with a built in meter, and that is accurate, I believe that the answer is simple, using hand held meters, so that the photographer is in control not the camera, as many modern cameras with built in meters tend to take over, I use old weston meters and find that the accuracy is superb
Richard

What film speed ratings do you use? When using my Master II I take 1/3 stop off box and am pleased with the results. Even works well with digital.

 

[ic-racer]

I've owned only a few cameras that gave me perfect negs on every frame nearly all the time. The kind that stand out from the others as soon as you see them. A Rolleiflex T, a Minolta Autocord, a Leicaflex SL, a 1938 Zeiss Ikonta 6x4.5 folder, and a Kodak Retina Ia. None had been CLA'd except the Leicaflex, and that had been performed years before I owned the camera. None of these cameras had built in meters, except for that Leicaflex. So how come they gave noticeably better exposures than all the legions of cameras that I've used over the last few decades? Even the little Ikonta w/ it's uncoated Tessar delivered snappy, contrasty negs every shot.

I've been using a shutter tester for a long time, so I know what speed the cameras are actually firing at, and essentially the same hand held meters, so it's not that. Same film and developer (mostly Tri-X and D76 w/ those cameras, but some w/ other films and developers). Strange.

Some cameras seem to be designed to purposely make you forget to set focus, f-stop or shutter speed. Others almost force you to set them before you push the button.

 

[R.Gould]

What film speed ratings do you use? When using my Master II I take 1/3 stop off box and am pleased with the results. Even works well with digital.

I use either the Master 5 or Euromaster, uses asa and din, I tend to set box speed, I just feel I have so much more control over my exposures with a hand held, and I have yet to find a weston that is in accurate, or not working, not saying they don't quit, just I haven't yet come across one.
Richard

 

[zanxion72]

I would not trust an old selenium meter that much! Also, check with your cameras if their shutters are accurate. Underexposure and overexposure affect the saturation too.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I've had my Master II reconditioned by George Milton of Quality Light Metric. It is accurate.

 

[BrianShaw]

They are still in the phone book.

 

[pdeeh]

I've owned only a few cameras that gave me perfect negs on every frame nearly all the time... [others] ... gave noticeably better exposures than all the legions of cameras that I've used ...? Strange.

The thing all the theoreticians and sensitometry freaks forget to take into consideration in this discussion is that pixies live in all our cameras.

And sometimes the pixies are cooperative, and sometimes they are not cooperative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get virtually all [some extreme lighting requires manual setting] photographs properly exposed on my Nikon N-75 and Nikon F-100. The same goes for my Hasselblad with the PME however there is not automatic exposure control.

 

[pdeeh]

Actually pixies are included in the theory.

Well I've looked through the index of my copy of Dunn and Wakefield, and there's nothing between "photo-Voltaic cell" and "point, speed" ...

 

[Peltigera]

I would not trust an old selenium meter that much! Also, check with your cameras if their shutters are accurate. Underexposure and overexposure affect the saturation too.

I have a number of selenium meters which agree with my modern digital camera. I have no problems with trusting them - I have had more problems with more modern CdS meters.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

Is Quality Light Metric still in business? I would like to have my Minolta Spotmeter F looked at since it is about 20+ years old and I'm not sure if it has retained calibration/linearity.

No idea who is still around that is qualified.

If you have a light source of known Lux output then you should be able to adjust with the provided adjuster in the battery compartment. BUT note you should never touch that adjuster from factory setting if you want to be able to use it to measure EV accurately and convert to candelas/m^2. See pages 40 and 43 of the manual.

Calulation of EV is usually rounded from the candela reading that it gives so its nigh on impossible to do it 100% accurately becasue you don't know how much rounding was done but you should be able to get it to 0.1 of EV accuracy which is all that is required anyway.

I would suggest that since you know is uses K=14 that you can take it to a shop or someone you know with a new Sekonic and just compare readings and adjust for difference of K from 12.5 with sekonic to 14 with minolta.

If you bought the minolta used then you don't know if anyone has ever adjusted from the factory setting.

 

[R.Gould]

I would not trust an old selenium meter that much! Also, check with your cameras if their shutters are accurate. Underexposure and overexposure affect the saturation too.

My Weston meters have all been checked for accuracy against a sekonic that I got when I got into studio work with flash, they are all spot on, my cameras shutters have all been checked and are within specs, I get better looking negatives when I use my weston's when out and about than when I used the sekonic, I did try it out and about, I believe that with a weston meter you are able to interperet the readings to some extent, I don't know, but I will stick to my Westons,

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think this is about the first lens design move , it is seidel aberrations. Lens designer set the tonnality of the pictures here. And if he uses expensive glass , he is an leica , zeiss designer , only you have to find is a good photograph.