batmobile Posted October 13, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, No major issue, more of a curiosity. My two MPs (very different serial numbers) both agree in their readings down to the same 1/3 stop with ZM lenses. However, they both underexpose by 2/3 stop compared to all of my other cameras (both in terms of meter indication and negatives), whereas the other cameras all agree. This means that I need to set a lower EI in order to get the right exposure for me. This is no problem, but I am wondering whether these cameras (or m7 included) do tend to be a but more optimistic in their meter readings compared to other cameras. I say this, because I would generally rate TriX at 320-400 with my other cameras when using Xtol 1+1 or DDX, but with the MPs I need to rate it at 200-250, which fits in with the meter indicated reading being 2/3 faster on the MPs compared to my other cameras. I guess it does not matter one bit, but just curious as to whether this is a trait of these Leica meters. I have heard of people having their meters out by more than this and needing to send them in for calibration, but seems a bit odd for both cameras to be like this if it is not the way Leica sets them up. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Hi batmobile, Take a look here MP Meters - Tendency to underexpose?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest leica_mage Posted October 13, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 13, 2008 I don't know if this is relevant, but my MP (bought new in 2006) agrees in its meter readings with my Gossen Digisix. Another thought: the MP's framelines, as we know, are tighter than the M3/M2/M4's. Leica claim that they did this in order to 'optimise' the camera for slide photography. Might the underexposure of 2/3 of a stop be in the same vein? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted October 13, 2008 Alex, maybe! Both of my cameras are relatively young (under 18 months). Both mine were bought new too. 1/3 stop or something would be within expected variations, but a full 2/3 stop slower than the other cameras is quite significant. Its no bother as they are both consistent but it does seem odd. If one downrates the film on ends up with the right exposure, but with DDX and Xtol diluted both providing very full speed, having to downrate the film appreciably suggests the issue is very much with the pair of MPs rather than the other cameras I own. For example, Delta 100 makes 100 very comfortably in DDX and Xtol 1+1 in my other cameras (including when shooting sheet film and using a spot meter). This film is well known for being very well rated for practical use - better than many in reaching its rated speed. I have to rate it at 64-80 max in Xtol 1+1 or perhaps just nudging 100 in very low brightness ranges where I need some blacks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waileong Posted October 13, 2008 Share #4 Posted October 13, 2008 Unless your cameras are defective, they will meter exactly as they are supposed to, ie 13% gray off their center spot. Thus it depends on the lens you are using and the scene you are shooting. If the centre spot is large relative to the whole frame perspective (ie you are using a telephoto), the metering will be more center-weighted, and vice versa. If the scene you are shooting has very different lighting conditions in the centre and the edges, then your MP is less likely to be correct. In short, the MP is a tool that demands thinking, ie you should know where to point your camera when metering. Hi, No major issue, more of a curiosity. My two MPs (very different serial numbers) both agree in their readings down to the same 1/3 stop with ZM lenses. However, they both underexpose by 2/3 stop compared to all of my other cameras (both in terms of meter indication and negatives), whereas the other cameras all agree. This means that I need to set a lower EI in order to get the right exposure for me. This is no problem, but I am wondering whether these cameras (or m7 included) do tend to be a but more optimistic in their meter readings compared to other cameras. I say this, because I would generally rate TriX at 320-400 with my other cameras when using Xtol 1+1 or DDX, but with the MPs I need to rate it at 200-250, which fits in with the meter indicated reading being 2/3 faster on the MPs compared to my other cameras. I guess it does not matter one bit, but just curious as to whether this is a trait of these Leica meters. I have heard of people having their meters out by more than this and needing to send them in for calibration, but seems a bit odd for both cameras to be like this if it is not the way Leica sets them up. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_donatellobirsa Posted October 13, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 13, 2008 I also have to MPs but i couldn’t notice different readings compared to my other cameras (Nikons). I have heard that many users lament a light tendency to underexpose of their M cameras (M6, Mp, M7). I think in some specific circumstances it could happen (back light situation or white skies even if outside the theoretical reading area of the exposure meter - the central dot); don’t ask me why, but the M6’s meter in particular is quite influenced by oblique rays outside the reading area, sometimes. But if you put the meter down to the ground this is not a problem. But if your MP’s readings are different from all the other cameras even if you measure a gray (or white) wall, and the differentces are costant, as you say and do, set a lower EI. I do not think your MPs need a calibration. Some years ago all the professionist who have more bodies had to rate differently differently every bodie to have the same exposure readings… Go on vith your MPs: thy are beautiful cameras. Sometimes a spot meter could be usefull… Ciao, Donatello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted October 13, 2008 Share #6 Posted October 13, 2008 Tendency to underexpose? No If anything the tendency (in bright sunlight) is toward the opposite extreme Maybe Mr. Lamb will pipe up here, as he knows how awfully overexposed my shots were for a period until I learned how to work with the 'finicky meter' as he calls it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share #7 Posted October 14, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unless your cameras are defective, they will meter exactly as they are supposed to, ie 13% gray off their center spot. Thus it depends on the lens you are using and the scene you are shooting. If the centre spot is large relative to the whole frame perspective (ie you are using a telephoto), the metering will be more center-weighted, and vice versa. If the scene you are shooting has very different lighting conditions in the centre and the edges, then your MP is less likely to be correct. In short, the MP is a tool that demands thinking, ie you should know where to point your camera when metering. This is not an operator error issue and I understand metering pretty well having spent a lot of time with LF using spot meters, transparency film etc. The meters in the two MPs underexpose by 2/3 stops compared to other cameras both in terms of their readings and the resultant negs - that's clear as day. This is the same no matter which uniform subject I meter off. I am not talking about complex lighting, but any averagely illuminated subject or just plain concrete under an overcast sky, or a light box or anything with even lighting which is suitable for comparing the cameras at the exact same even scene. I guess they just read 2/3 out and thats that. Its no bother, but I wondered if it was normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted October 14, 2008 Unless your cameras are defective, they will meter exactly as they are supposed to, ie 13% gray off their center spot. Thus it depends on the lens you are using and the scene you are shooting. If the centre spot is large relative to the whole frame perspective (ie you are using a telephoto), the metering will be more center-weighted, and vice versa. If the scene you are shooting has very different lighting conditions in the centre and the edges, then your MP is less likely to be correct. In short, the MP is a tool that demands thinking, ie you should know where to point your camera when metering. This is not an operator error issue and I understand metering pretty well having spent a lot of time with LF using spot meters, transparency film etc. The meters in the two MPs underexpose by 2/3 stops compared to other cameras both in terms of their readings and the resultant negs - that's clear as day. This is the same no matter which uniform subject I meter off. I am not talking about complex lighting, but any averagely illuminated subject or just plain concrete under an overcast sky, or a light box or anything with even lighting which is suitable for comparing the cameras at the exact same even scene. I guess they just read 2/3 out and thats that. Its no bother, but I wondered if it was normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted October 14, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 14, 2008 Not letting Leica off the hook about the MP meter (which is a real *itch to use in some circumstances) but I doubt if there's many photogs out there using an MP that really need it to set exposure. I mean at this point in my photographic life I can pretty much judge the light and get it right without ever looking at the meter. I'll bet most other MP users are the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted October 14, 2008 Share #10 Posted October 14, 2008 I use an MP (3 years old) and an MP3 (1 year old) and both agree with each other and with my M6TTL, M7s, and Minolta and Megatron (Weston clone) meters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted October 15, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 15, 2008 ........ If the centre spot is large relative to the whole frame perspective (ie you are using a telephoto), the metering will be more center-weighted, and vice versa. ....... The white area (the centre spot) is on the shutter curtain and thus always the same relative size of the whole frame. Wide angle or telephoto does not matter. The area measured is always a circle with a diameter of more or less 2/3rds of the short side of the frame. I guess your problem is that you measure too much of the sky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 15, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 15, 2008 Its no bother, but I wondered if it was normal. No, that is not normal. If the ISO setting is correct (sorry for mentioning the bleedingly obvious), they should be spot on if directed towards an evenly lit area (such as clear blue sky etc.). My M7 matches exactly with a Minolta CLE, a Pentax LX and other cameras. Funny though that both of your cameras behave the same. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leica_mage Posted October 15, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 15, 2008 The white area (the centre spot) is on the shutter curtain and thus always the same relative size of the whole frame. Wide angle or telephoto does not matter. The area measured is always a circle with a diameter of more or less 2/3rds of the short side of the frame. Not so! I refer you to pp. 88-89 of the downloadable PDF document comprising the MP's instruction manual in German and English, available through a link here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted October 15, 2008 Share #14 Posted October 15, 2008 Not so! I refer you to pp. 88-89 of the downloadable PDF document comprising the MP's instruction manual in German and English, available through a link here. Well; I guess that depends on what on means by "frame". If one takes it to mean the frames in the viewfinder, then you are correct. If one uses frames to mean negative area, then I am correct. If one wants to judge whether or not the exposure suggested by the internal meter needs adjusting, I think the white spot in relation to the negative area is more relevant of the two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 15, 2008 Share #15 Posted October 15, 2008 Hi, No major issue, more of a curiosity. My two MPs (very different serial numbers) both agree in their readings down to the same 1/3 stop with ZM lenses. However, they both underexpose by 2/3 stop compared to all of my other cameras (both in terms of meter indication and negatives), whereas the other cameras all agree. This means that I need to set a lower EI in order to get the right exposure for me. This is no problem, but I am wondering whether these cameras (or m7 included) do tend to be a but more optimistic in their meter readings compared to other cameras. I say this, because I would generally rate TriX at 320-400 with my other cameras when using Xtol 1+1 or DDX, but with the MPs I need to rate it at 200-250, which fits in with the meter indicated reading being 2/3 faster on the MPs compared to my other cameras. I guess it does not matter one bit, but just curious as to whether this is a trait of these Leica meters. I have heard of people having their meters out by more than this and needing to send them in for calibration, but seems a bit odd for both cameras to be like this if it is not the way Leica sets them up. Any thoughts? A meter in a camera is only meant as a guide and it is up to the photographer to equate that through knowledge of same and skill to arrive at the perfect exposure for any particular shot. I use the word perfect as opposed to correct because a correct exposure for your requirements may not be the correct exposure for how I might see the shot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted October 15, 2008 Share #16 Posted October 15, 2008 A meter in a camera is only meant as a guide and it is up to the photographer to equate that through knowledge of same and skill to arrive at the perfect exposure for any particular shot. I use the word perfect as opposed to correct because a correct exposure for your requirements may not be the correct exposure for how I might see the shot Well said, Kenneth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.