Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem

[Norcimmus@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/19/99 9:04:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
anthony@atkielski.com writes:

<< I agree.  And now that you've said that, you might want to go back and 
read my
 posts again.  You'll note that I never said that Leica defrauds anyone.  And
 that I never said that there was any problem with my camera at all; in fact, 
I
 never even postulated it.  I leave the conclusions to be derived therefrom 
as an
 exercise for the reader. >>

Anthony, when I recommended that you subscribe to the LUG, I also indicated 
that the group would be very helpful provided you didn't get in their face. 
Now you have gone and done it. The group has been very helpful in trying to 
pinpoint your exposure problem, but you have certainly not gone out of your 
way to be diplomatic in this environment of dedicated Leicaphiles.

I think this entitles me to be somewhat undiplomatic. You are a notorious 
defender of the F5's matrix metering system. I believe you have stated that 
the hit rate is 99%, and you use it almost all the time. I.e., you are using 
the F5 as a point and shoot because that works well enough for you. I think 
your skills in determining exposure have deteriorated from lack of use. (If 
you don't use it, you lose it.) In hindsight, it would have been better for 
you to have practiced with the F5 in spot or center-weighted mode before 
purchasing the M6 in order to test your exposure skills with a more familiar 
camera and thus have a better basis for evaluating the new camera.

IMO you are screwing up your exposures. It is your fault. You have timidly 
entertained the notion that it might be the fault of the camera. Wrong song! 
You are in complete control of your M6. 

Please let's get off this silly philosophical discussion of QC and back to 
something substantial like photography, single-malts, Rolex, Waterman, etc.

Norcimmus (can anyone decipher my nick?)