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.
hahahaLuck of the draw.
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
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.
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'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.
Actually pixies are included in the theory.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?