MP vs M5 meter area

[Jodad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

On my M5 you could clearly see the metering area marked in the vf and this changed depending on the lens length. Smaller on longer lenses and larger on wider.

On the MP (film) how do you identify the area being metered so that you can specifically point it somewhere an meter for one point/area in particular?

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

The MP meter isn't something you can point at one small area with any degree of certainty, it is biased towards the centre but bright/dark objects at the edge of it's circle can confuse the reading. You use it like any other reflectance meter that doesn't have a spot attachment, you either point it at the overall scene for an average reading (compensating for any extremes with your photographers knowledge), or you look for something in the scene that you can find nearby and read off that. So if there is some grass over there in the scene, point your camera at the grass you are standing on and read off that to make the reading more specific. Same for concrete or walls, bushes, trees, etc. but for that you need an appreciation of the reflectance of each object, not it's tone (in terms of B&W rendering). Grass is the easiest thing to meter from as this usually gives you an 18% reflectance average reading.

[a.noctilux]

MP metering is not as easy/accurate to "point" as the M5's .

In the MP manual ( downloadable here ...) page 88/89, we can see the pattern depending on the MP finder type and lens in use.

In my use, 1/3 of the field center is accurate enough for most use.

[Ste_S]

Why does the MP have centre weighted metering instead of spot? Centre weighted was fine for auto-exposure cameras until the Nikon FA changed everything. 

Seems a bit of a strange choice for a modern manual only camera. Spot meter for manual, matrix metering for auto-exposure. 

Love the M5 meter btw.

[andrew01]

It’s more like a semi-spot pattern in my opinion.  It takes 100% of the reading from the painted circle on the front shutter curtain, so it is good practise to make sure you place the RF patch on a representative mid tone when taking the reading.  Typical SLR centre-weighted patterns have a higher bias to the peripheral areas.

[250swb]

9 hours ago, Ste_S said:

Why does the MP have centre weighted metering instead of spot? Centre weighted was fine for auto-exposure cameras until the Nikon FA changed everything. 

Seems a bit of a strange choice for a modern manual only camera. Spot meter for manual, matrix metering for auto-exposure. 

Love the M5 meter btw.

How would the spot follow the rangefinder? As you focus the rangefinder patch moves diagonally, it isn't always in the centre of the screen. I suppose Leica could etch an extra mark on the screen to show where the spot is pointing to, but I think Leica users would rebel against that on the basis of more clutter. In any case a camera ostensibly made for fast easy use is far better suited to an average meter reading than trying to find something in the scene that is 18% reflectance to meter accurately. I have an Olympus OM4Ti that can switch to spot readings, you can take up to seven readings and the camera will average the result, trust me, you can be faffing about all day wondering if you pointed it at enough of the right things, and besides, any photographer should understand when to take control and override an average reading anyway.

[Ste_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

45 minutes ago, 250swb said:

How would the spot follow the rangefinder? As you focus the rangefinder patch moves diagonally, it isn't always in the centre of the screen. I suppose Leica could etch an extra mark on the screen to show where the spot is pointing to, but I think Leica users would rebel against that on the basis of more clutter. In any case a camera ostensibly made for fast easy use is far better suited to an average meter reading than trying to find something in the scene that is 18% reflectance to meter accurately. I have an Olympus OM4Ti that can switch to spot readings, you can take up to seven readings and the camera will average the result, trust me, you can be faffing about all day wondering if you pointed it at enough of the right things, and besides, any photographer should understand when to take control and override an average reading anyway.

 

The M5 has metering marks around the rangefinder patch.

I certainty don't use a spot meter in the M5 in the way you describe. Look at the scene, determine what I need to meter for, meter once and shoot.

[Charles Morgan]

29 minutes ago, Ste_S said:

 

The M5 has metering marks around the rangefinder patch.

I certainty don't use a spot meter in the M5 in the way you describe. Look at the scene, determine what I need to meter for, meter once and shoot.

The same - it's the essence of simplicity. I love spot meters, don't mind centre weighted as long as I know where they are metering, but always prefer me being in control.

[250swb]

54 minutes ago, Ste_S said:

 

The M5 has metering marks around the rangefinder patch.

I certainty don't use a spot meter in the M5 in the way you describe. Look at the scene, determine what I need to meter for, meter once and shoot.

I was answering your question about the MP. It has no way for the meter to follow the rangefinder because it doesn't use an arm with the meter on it. How you meter with an M5 is another thing but it's a 'misguided' question to assume the MP can physically perform the same operation.

[a.noctilux]

Here is the clever indication to "know which area is covered by the M5's meter".

 

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!

 

...from the M5's user manual

[aesop]

On 8/7/2020 at 9:04 AM, Ste_S said:

 

The M5 has metering marks around the rangefinder patch.

I certainty don't use a spot meter in the M5 in the way you describe. Look at the scene, determine what I need to meter for, meter once and shoot.

 

      ...this approach applies to all exposure metering systems, Ste_S.

Metering systems are tools employed in the quest for an optimum exposure reading - a reading which the photographer should hopefully be able to interpret as correct for the shot s/he wishes to capture. No system is perfect, so it is essential you understand your meter and how it works. Few photographers (through experience, hard work or pure luck) possess the skill to read light without a meter - it is the one skill I wish I already had. The key thing is to remember that even though metering systems are now widely used as crutches, ultimately, all exposure meter readings are merely suggestions.

I mean, why on earth would any thinking photographer want to cede an important creative decision such as metering to an algorithm?🙄