erl Posted October 12, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm intrigued here. The M9 is a FF camera just like the M7 so why not go back to the spot? Jeff Technical problems, or economics, with painting a 'spot' on a multiple leaved shutter maybe? Interesting question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hi erl, Take a look here M9 metering. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted October 12, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 12, 2009 Would be interesting to know how a 'round' shape is determined from the particular 'paint job' on the M9 shutter. I suppose that would be the characteristics of the light sensor multiplied by the reflectivity of the shutter blades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 13, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 13, 2009 Would be interesting to know how a 'round' shape is determined from the particular 'paint job' on the M9 shutter. Just to add to what Michael said: The grey stripes are added above and below the white one, making the area metered taller. The M8 meter already had less sensitivity toward the edges, probably because of the lens configuration. So the only thing the additional reflectivity could do is make the metered area less elliptical. I'm intrigued here. The M9 is a FF camera just like the M7 so why not go back to the spot? Jeff-- The M9 doesn't have the same shutter as the M7. You can't paint a white spot on these blades as you can on fabric. As Stefan said, installing the grey blades is already an attempt to duplicate the metering of the M7. What's of more interest to me is: Since M8 and M9 have the "same shutter," once Leica runs out of M8-configured shutters, will they start to offer as substitute the M9 configuration? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 13, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 13, 2009 Howard, ALL meters work differently with wide angles than with teles, because they tend to take in more sky, or at a minimum, more different things with different reflectivities -- and a few extra light sources too! I had to be careful with wide angle lenses on my M6TTL. Certainly. I remember seeing a lot of instructions to M8 users to "be sure to point the camera down" with the Voigtländer 15mm. Since I wasn't reading the film forum at the time, I don't know whether the same advice was being given there as well. The chorus seemed a lot louder than I'd have expected for a person simply moving to a new wideangle, since the reason for a wider lens is to bring in more of what's in front of the camera. Seemed as if something more was at play to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 13, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 13, 2009 Certainly. I remember seeing a lot of instructions to M8 users to "be sure to point the camera down" with the Voigtländer 15mm. Since I wasn't reading the film forum at the time, I don't know whether the same advice was being given there as well. The chorus seemed a lot louder than I'd have expected for a person simply moving to a new wideangle, since the reason for a wider lens is to bring in more of what's in front of the camera. Seemed as if something more was at play to me. Howard, I agree with Lars about the W/A issue in general. Areas of sky always 'over read' on the meter and W/A lenses tend to see more sky. Simple logic. The M6/7 has one sensor 'staring' at the white spot. The M8 & M9 both (appear to) have three sensors 'staring at the three stripes. This suggests to me that their relative sensitivities can be controlled to give a true centre weighted metering effect. Not identical to the M7 which I describe as a 'fat spot', without any weighting. For this reason I believe the M9 is a more general and user friendly meter. Whereas I always saw the the M7 as more accurate if the user understood the principles of using a spot meter. The M8 is similar but probably not the same. I suspect the M9 may be more general in its scope, but depending on the 'weighting' of the three sensors (as I see them) could be more sophisticated. OTOH, I could be completely wrong! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 13, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 13, 2009 Erl-- I agree completely. The M8's meter was new; because people complained, Leica is attempting to get a more M7-like meter with the same (?) technology from the M9. My understanding was that only a single cell in the M8 lens cavity reads the ambient light, with two additional cells to read the flash. (Manual p 110 mentions the flash cells, and I think I heard somewhere that only the center one is used for non-flash metering.) At any rate, the metered field of the M9 is supposed to be more like that of the M7 than that of the M8. But we might as well speculate, right, till we have something in hand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 13, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard, you are ahead of me! I haven't read the manual for either the M8 or M9 yet. Maybe I should. I am wondering why the 'flash metering' needs two sensors. Very likely there is no difference here between the M8 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 13, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 13, 2009 Howard, you are ahead of me! I haven't read the manual for either the M8 or M9 yet. Maybe I should. I am wondering why the 'flash metering' needs two sensors. Very likely there is no difference here between the M8 and M9. If the center sensor is already occupied with reading ambient light, then a single sensor for flash would have to be placed to on side of it, leading to an asymmetric metering pattern. So two symmetrically placed flash sensors were needed. My M6TTL had just two sensors, one in the floor and one in the ceiling of the chamber in front of the shutter. There were probably reasons why this arrangement was not possible with the M8 and M9. The old man from the Age of Franklin's Flashlight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 13, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 13, 2009 If the center sensor is already occupied with reading ambient light, then a single sensor for flash would have to be placed to on side of it, leading to an asymmetric metering pattern. So two symmetrically placed flash sensors were needed. My M6TTL had just two sensors, one in the floor and one in the ceiling of the chamber in front of the shutter. There were probably reasons why this arrangement was not possible with the M8 and M9. The old man from the Age of Franklin's Flashlight Lars, you are exactly right! I just looked at my M6TTL. Previously I was looking at the plain M6. Of course only one sensor there, on the 'roof'. As you observed, the TTL has one on the 'floor', clearly that one is the flash 'eye'. I remember flash powder and expendable globes (and burnt fingers), but never heard of Franklin's Flashlight. (I had a sheltered life it seems. ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 13, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 13, 2009 ... I ... never heard of Franklin's Flashlight. (I had a sheltered life it seems. ) Same here, Herr Doktor Bergquist! Info, bitte? Is Franklin's Flashlight a Swedish Air Force device? (Maybe that's why Erl and I were in the shelters? ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 13, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 13, 2009 Same here, Herr Doktor Bergquist! Info, bitte? Is Franklin's Flashlight a Swedish Air Force device? (Maybe that's why Erl and I were in the shelters? ) They didn't supply one with any of my Hasselblad's ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.