Do you believe that you have succeeded in your objective in the first 2 sentences? If on hearing others' experiences and knowledge of such meters which have been given by them then that knowledge suggests to me that there is little enthusiasm for resurrection of the SE1 so do you believe resurrection still has a future?
Finally any signs that someone was actually doing the proposed idea already?
Thanks
pentaxuser
It seems only Bill Burke had tried one. Ish.
The problem with this kind of meter was always calibration. That would not be an issue with a LED source. And LEDs would greatly simplify and lighten (sic) the design.
I have no idea who reads this thread or who is enthusiastic. It will pop up for years in searches, and that is where it will do its work. Who reads it now and how they reply is of lesser significance.
Yes, but it does require you to visually match the appearance of two lights, which is why I didn't really like it.
It is the visual matching part that concerned me.
This
is completely different from this
It makes a world of difference whether the lights are completely adjacent to each other, touching, or with a border between.
The human eye has pretty terrible absolute ability to gauge light levels and differences, but with relative contrast differences it is
very good, especially with completely adjacent fields, and with superb range too.
That said, I have no trouble seeing the point of null with the lights. It would have been much better if they where touching though.
There is also a huge difference between a meter where there is a clear divide between detector and display, like other null meters such as Luna-Pro F and the directly read meters such as the SEI, where detector and readout is one and the same.
Separate display meters tend to give a false sense of certainty and absoluteness. Something antithetical to the actual act of metering light for photography. You might actually end up with worse results, especially with unforgiving film if you take such a reading as gospel.