Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan, I strongly agree with those who recommended a separate hand-held meter. It is--to me--a much better option. Besides, I think the meter on top of the camera looks awful. I love my old Luna Pro, but there are lots of good meters, some of them not too costly. Happy metering Joe Stephenson - -----Original Message----- From: InfinityDT@aol.com <InfinityDT@aol.com> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: MR meter for M3 >In a message dated 10/1/98 5:55:40 PM EST, dkhong@pacific.net.sg writes: > >> Hi friends >> >> I am exploring the possibility of attaching a working meter on my M3. >> Which models are suitable for this camera? >> >> I understand that some of the old meters use mercury batteries and some are >> selenium types. Would it be preferable to get a selenium model since >> mercury batteries are no longer available in many countries? >> >> Dan K. > > All the Leicameters designed for "M" models will >couple to the shutter-speed dial and work. Finding a selenium meter that >still works is getting harder and harder. Then, they have about 1/2 the low- >level sensitivity of the later CdS models. They made a booster cell attachment >for it, to some avail, but it was not very ergonomic to say the least. The >selenium models also read a large angle of coverage, so they're easily fooled >by contrasty light. Unless you keep them covered when not in use, they >fatigue from prolonged exposure to bright sunlight, and [temporarily] become >inaccurate. You are certainly better-off with a MR or MR-4 meter (both CdS >types) which read an area equal to the 90mm frame-lines in the .72-finder M's, >so probably the 135 frame in your M3 would be a rough approximation. I >understand that the on-switch of the MR (switch is small, T-shaped, on the >meter's flat side) is not longer obtainable, so it's more difficult to repair. >The MR-4 (last one made, up until the mid 80's) has the top-mounted switch, >which is nicer if you ever use it with the M4-series as it leaves room for >working the rewind crank. CdS meters are slower-reacting than the more modern >silicon cells, but they're just as accurate. Using the Leicameters, you still >have to take the camera from your eye to read the meter and set the aperture; >also, you can't mount a shoe-flash or accessory viewfinder along with the >meter. One in good shape will run close to US$200. All of them took mercury >batteries. They can be adjusted for the voltage of the alkaline replacements, >but not for the discharge curve. Mercurys are linear, i.e. they maitain >constant voltage until they die. Alkalines lose power as they discharge, >which without a regulator means the meter readings become less accurate. The >zinc-air "Wein" cell replacements don't have that problem, but they are >expensive and short-lived. There's a company in Arizona called CRIS that >sells an adaptor the size of a PX13 or PX625 into which you put a MS76 >(silver-oxide) battery. They say it has micro-circuitry that matches the >mercury performance exactly. >After all, I have to say that I much prefer a handheld meter. I use the >Sekonic L-408 digital that reads 5-deg spot and incident, ambient and flash, >shutter or aperture-priority, and it has a memory function for multiple >readings. It takes one AA cell, fits your hand, and it's splashproof. I use >it even with the M6 whose metering area is often too large especially with >wideangle lenses.