Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Consistent Underexposure with M
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:44:04 +0200

From: Deborah Dion <dkdion@home.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 15:09
Subject: [Leica] Consistent Underexposure with M


> I got my M6 about 9 months ago. One of the first things
> I noticed was that the exposure was almost always perfect.
> Maybe one or two shots per 36 exp roll that was slightly
> off. So I'd check the accuracy of the meter as advised
> on the list.

I bought a spot meter today and I have checked all my cameras.  I aimed against
a gray card (the one that Leica kindly provides--I can't find my Kodak gray
cards), full frame, with ISO = 100 and shutter speed set to 1 second:

- - Leica M6 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . = f/11
- - Spot meter (Minolta Spotmeter F) . . = f/12 (f/11+1/10 stop)
- - Nikon FG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = f/9 (!)
- - Nikon F5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = f/13

The Leica doesn't indicate intermediate stops, so I suspect it actually agreed
completely with the spot meter.

The Nikon FG is too far away to be correct.  I don't know where it got that
reading!

The Nikon F5 looks like it may be right on the money, also, particularly since
the spot meter hesitated between f/12 and f/13.  It gave exactly the same
reading in all meter modes (matrix, spot, center-weighted).

Since three of the cameras agree to within not more than 1/10 stop, including
the Leica, hopefully this excludes any meter weirdness on my Leica.  It must be
me.  Maybe I should stop trying to second guess the meter and just shoot by
following its recommendations directly (?).

  -- Anthony