SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted September 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh - You seem to think that the value you read off the needle is the EV value. It is not. Therefore, you should turn the outer disk such that the number read off the needle is apposite the white dot on the top right corner (at two o'clock). Your needle reads "11" in both pictures. In the left one you have set the dial (the round disc) to "6" while in the right one it's properly set to "11". Again: the needle does NOT show EV values. It's an arbitrary scale which just shows a number you are supposed to set on the circular dial (the "disc"). Edit: do not throw it into the ocean. Some fish might get the hiccups. Besides, it seems to be working. The white dot? Seriously? OOOOOOOOOH! D'OH! Let me go try that again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Hi SiMPLiFY, Take a look here Which meter reading seems correct?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted September 10, 2012 Thanks pop! You fixed it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 10, 2012 Share #23 Posted September 10, 2012 Good work, Philipp. That meter does not work intuitively. Kathleen, I deleted my post. I am glad you were not near the river. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 10, 2012 Share #24 Posted September 10, 2012 You are now entering the lofty state of a two light meter household. Not everyone can claim that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 10, 2012 Share #25 Posted September 10, 2012 Maybe my meter really is broken or just a cheap piece of junk. Well I can't say if your meter is working but I think I know what you are doing wrong. The meter scale numbers and the EV indicator mark are two separate things. Just make sure you turn the large outside dial to rotate those numbers to align with the indicator mark. At which point the EV#, f-stop, shutter speeds can be read based on whatever ISO you set. There is a high (yellow) and low (white) setting to be used depending on whether you pushed the top or bottom of the rocker switch when taking your reading. This meter is sort of a very very "poor man's" version of a Lunasix from the 60s. OOh I see you finally go a photo up. I'm late to the party. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/187587-which-meter-reading-seems-correct/?do=findComment&comment=2109799'>More sharing options...
pop Posted September 10, 2012 Share #26 Posted September 10, 2012 That meter does not work intuitively. Thank you, pico. As a matter of fact, it does work exactly like the Lunasix. I should have paid more attention reading this thread. Kathleen clearly stated just a few posts ago that she transferred the reading into the E.V. value. Only after seeing the picture did I realize that this was exactly what she did. Such is life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #27 Posted September 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you, pico. As a matter of fact, it does work exactly like the Lunasix. I should have paid more attention reading this thread. Kathleen clearly stated just a few posts ago that she transferred the reading into the E.V. value. Only after seeing the picture did I realize that this was exactly what she did. Such is life. Except you get to use a yellow triangle and I have to use a white dot. Mine didn't come with a manual so I was reading the manual for your meter from butkusorphan camera website. I just kept getting more and more flustered because they never mentioned a white dot! Thank you so very much for everything. Sigh of relief! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 10, 2012 Share #28 Posted September 10, 2012 My first year in college, every student was required to have a Luna Pro. (Lunasix 3) I guess the college bookstore sold a few hundred the first week. In our Materials and Process class we measured and charted all of those meters and made standard deviation curves. A few were way off and even for the rest there was some variability. I would not rely on anything the Bower indicates until you compare it with another meter. And then I'd still put it in a drawer or throw it in the river. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #29 Posted September 10, 2012 You are now entering the lofty state of a two light meter household. Not everyone can claim that. One for fancy dress and one for more risky occasions such as going to the river. No, I won't throw it in but if I drop it accidently I won't waste a lot of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 10, 2012 Share #30 Posted September 10, 2012 My first year in college, every student was required to have a Luna Pro. (Lunasix 3) I guess the college bookstore sold a few hundred the first week. In our Materials and Process class we measured and charted all of those meters and made standard deviation curves. A few were way off and even for the rest there was some variability. I have a lot of old, 'working' light meters and once I considered selling the lot of Westons on that auction site. So I set them up on the picnic table, tipped up side-by-side reading the grass in front. The variation was not huge, and the median was correct, but the earliest ones were off a ~stop because Weston changed their standard later. I thought I could explain it in the copy and was thinking of that when one meter just failed, needle fell to the left. Enough, already! They are all in a big box in storage now, by the cases of flashbulbs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #31 Posted September 10, 2012 They would sell. I'd put them up. If I had known I would have bought one. Those are really nice old school meters! Let me know if you do because I may get a battery independent one in future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMPLiFY Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #32 Posted September 10, 2012 One failing doesn't mean they'll all fail. I see lots of people online using those with their Leica. They're so cute! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 27, 2012 Share #33 Posted September 27, 2012 I recently picked up a Weston V. It seems in good working order. I tested it against my Digisix by placing a evenly lit object on a table and measuring the light with both meters and got the same results. I chose a low light because I had heard the cells got weaker as they got older. The question comes from actual use. I notice that the Weston is 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower than using my M9/7's internal meter. I am trying to figure out why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted September 27, 2012 Share #34 Posted September 27, 2012 Hello swamiji, What do you mean by "lower"? Does it indicate that you should give additional exposure or less exposure? If the M meter says F4 @ 1/whatever @ ISO whichever, what F stop (the Master V has a lot of divisions) does the Weston read w/ the same shutter speed & the same ISO? Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 28, 2012 Share #35 Posted September 28, 2012 Buy lower I mean less exposed, by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. As I said, I did a controlled test against my Digisix and found them identical. It's just my internal M meter that appears different. I compared my Digisix against my internal M meters, and found them to be closer in results, but it was not controlled, just in regular use. I am now thinking that the wider spread of light cells would give slightly different results than a single or narrow spred of sensors. Now I know, that many M digital users set there EV value to under expose 1/3 stop, so I don't know if its a problem, but I just want to get a handle on it, so I can get better consistency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 28, 2012 Share #36 Posted September 28, 2012 (...) It's just my internal M meter that appears different. I compared my Digisix against my internal M meters, and found them to be closer in results (...) Now I know, that many M digital users set there EV value to under expose 1/3 stop. Your hand-held light meter measures light from a roughly circular area of view, possibly with a slight emphasis on the center. I am quite confident that the M9's meter sees a smaller area and I presume that the area is chosen such that in a normal landscape image the sky is not taken into account very much. In order to to compare the two measuring systems you should test your meters and the M9 against a uniformly lit wall which is large enough to cover the viewing angles of all meters to be tested. I have taken to set my M9 to "underexpose", too, but for a completely different reason. When exposing the frame in the "traditional" manner, there are bound to be places within the image which are darker and brighter than the average measured by the light meter. The M9 being digital, it will underexpose the darker parts and clip the brighter ones. Clipped parts is a no-no for most images, so I use the meter with a bias. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 29, 2012 Share #37 Posted September 29, 2012 In order to to compare the two measuring systems you should test your meters and the M9 against a uniformly lit wall which is large enough to cover the viewing angles of all meters to be tested. I tested against an evenly lit wall, and was surprised that the Gossen Digisix and the Weston Master V had identical results, and the M9 w/Summilux 50 ASPH was 1 f-stop brighter. The Weston and Gossen ISO1600 F/2.8 was 250sec. The M9 at ISO1600 F/2 was 250sec. I tested the Weston and Gossen against each other with and without the Diffuser/Invercone, and in both cases they were identical. Without the Diffuser/Invercone came closest to the M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 29, 2012 Share #38 Posted September 29, 2012 (...) Without the Diffuser/Invercone came closest to the M9 There you are. The M9 measures the light reflected off the scene you are about to photograph. So does the external light meter when used without the diffuser. All try to expose the frame such that the part of the image they measure will be rendered as a nice average 18% grey. That's, by the way, the brightness of your palm. When using the external meter with the diffuser you stand at the place you want to photograph and you point the meter towards the camera. The meter then measures the "incident light", i.e. the light falling on the scene you want to photograph. That way, black things remain black, white ones white and grey ones grey in your picture. Please excuse if you know all that. However, the phrase I cited above appears to indicate differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 29, 2012 Share #39 Posted September 29, 2012 There you are. Not quite. Without the diffuser/Invercone came closest but still was 1 f-stop off. I was never able to get the M to match the hand held meters without adjusting the EV. To get things to match I adjusted the M by -1 EV... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 29, 2012 Share #40 Posted September 29, 2012 Sorry, then. I thought you said that the difference was one f-stop when using the diffuser and smaller without it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.