Group Experience with Minolta Light Meter Longevity

What is the general experience with the longevity of light meters? I have
been using a Minolta Autometer (the original one!) for many satisfactory
years -- at one point it had been very carefully calibrated. Keep fresh
batteries in it, handle with care, etc.
But lately the stuff coming back from the lab seems overexposed, regardless
of which lens was used -- and occasionally, in the field, I get 'funny'
readings that are intuitively just not right. Could the mechanicals in the
motor dial be dying? Tired measuring cell? Time to put the old tool out to
pasture (or under it)? Any thoughts? (My old Weston Master V is still
working fine, though much older!)

thanks,

--
Gregory Latiak
Technology Strategists, Inc.
http://www.tekstrat.com/
Tel: (416)540-7384
Images http://members.rogers.com/greglatiak/

"Gregory N. Latiak" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
What is the general experience with the longevity of light meters? I have
been using a Minolta Autometer (the original one!) for many satisfactory
years -- at one point it had been very carefully calibrated. Keep fresh
batteries in it, handle with care, etc.

It would be surprising to find enough responses here to have a meaningful
sample. My general experience after thirty-something years has come to the
practical stand - when it's unreliable it goes into the trash.

There are MTBF figures which are good for risk analysis and for creating
backup strategies, but manuacturers are not responsible for publishing them,
nor even calculating them (if they can.)

But lately the stuff coming back from the lab seems overexposed,
regardless
of which lens was used --

I realize that you know that you can adjust the meter's zero or reading, but
it's risky, isn't it? Sounds like another meter for the trash.

"Gregory N. Latiak" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
What is the general experience with the longevity of light meters? I have
been using a Minolta Autometer (the original one!) for many satisfactory
years -- at one point it had been very carefully calibrated. Keep fresh
batteries in it, handle with care, etc.

It would be surprising to find enough responses here to have a meaningful
sample. My general experience after thirty-something years has come to the
practical stand - when it's unreliable it goes into the trash.

There are MTBF figures which are good for risk analysis and for creating
backup strategies, but manuacturers are not responsible for publishing them,
nor even calculating them (if they can.)

But lately the stuff coming back from the lab seems overexposed,
regardless
of which lens was used --

I realize that you know that you can adjust the meter's zero or reading, but
it's risky, isn't it? Sounds like another meter for the trash.

Gregory N. Latiak wrote:
What is the general experience with the longevity of light meters? I
have been using a Minolta Autometer (the original one!) for many
satisfactory years -- at one point it had been very carefully
calibrated. Keep fresh batteries in it, handle with care, etc. But
lately the stuff coming back from the lab seems overexposed, regardless
of which lens was used -- and occasionally, in the field, I get
'funny' readings that are intuitively just not right. Could the
mechanicals in the motor dial be dying? Tired measuring cell? Time to
put the old tool out to pasture (or under it)? Any thoughts? (My old
Weston Master V is still working fine, though much older!)

I had a Pentax 1/21 light meter that worked well enough when it worked,
but sometimes it would not work at all. I assume poor contacts inside or
something. I took it apart several times and cleaned and jiggled things
and it would work again for a while. I gave up after a while and got a
Zone VI modified Pentax Digital spotmeter and it has never failed me. Its
sensitivity did drift about one stop off after several years, involving
long airplane flights (I do not know if the vibration had anything to do
with it or not: quite possibly a coincidence), so I had Zone VI
recalibrate it, which they did. It has been holding well ever since.

I do not know if two data points are any use to you.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:10:00 up 20 days, 1:47, 3 users, load average: 4.06, 4.17, 4.17

Gregory N. Latiak wrote:
What is the general experience with the longevity of light meters? I
have been using a Minolta Autometer (the original one!) for many
satisfactory years -- at one point it had been very carefully
calibrated. Keep fresh batteries in it, handle with care, etc. But
lately the stuff coming back from the lab seems overexposed, regardless
of which lens was used -- and occasionally, in the field, I get
'funny' readings that are intuitively just not right. Could the
mechanicals in the motor dial be dying? Tired measuring cell? Time to
put the old tool out to pasture (or under it)? Any thoughts? (My old
Weston Master V is still working fine, though much older!)

I had a Pentax 1/21 light meter that worked well enough when it worked,
but sometimes it would not work at all. I assume poor contacts inside or
something. I took it apart several times and cleaned and jiggled things
and it would work again for a while. I gave up after a while and got a
Zone VI modified Pentax Digital spotmeter and it has never failed me. Its
sensitivity did drift about one stop off after several years, involving
long airplane flights (I do not know if the vibration had anything to do
with it or not: quite possibly a coincidence), so I had Zone VI
recalibrate it, which they did. It has been holding well ever since.

I do not know if two data points are any use to you.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:10:00 up 20 days, 1:47, 3 users, load average: 4.06, 4.17, 4.17

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...

I had a Pentax 1/21 light meter that worked well enough when it worked,
[...]
so I had Zone VI recalibrate it, which they did. It has been holding well
ever since.

Exactly how does the Zone VI modification change the reading of the meter?
It would seem a straightforward modification given that the Zone system is a
simple Log metric. Have you put your calibrated Zone VI meter against a
couple standard meters to see if it's really giving a different value for,
say, a grey card?

jjs wrote:
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...


I had a Pentax 1/21 light meter that worked well enough when it worked,
[...]
so I had Zone VI recalibrate it, which they did. It has been holding well

ever since.

Exactly how does the Zone VI modification change the reading of the meter?
It would seem a straightforward modification given that the Zone system is a
simple Log metric. Have you put your calibrated Zone VI meter against a
couple standard meters to see if it's really giving a different value for,
say, a grey card?


I was referring to reliability in general, and I have little doubt my
observations would apply to an unmodified meter as well.

The most noticeable, and important to me, modification is the installation
of field stops inside the meter to reduce flare. Thus I can meter a dark
part of a subject next to a light one and get more accurate readings. The
flare reduction is about one stop.

They also install (I believe three) color correction filters in there to
make the response of the meter more nearly approximate a typical (I
imagine it was 4164 Kodak Tri-X) black and white film. I can definately
see the difference there (which I do not find all that important for what
I do, since my subjects are seldom highly saturated colors) when metering
grey cards. I have a Nikon FE-2 with a built-in light meter. I have a
LunaPro-F meter that can read incident or reflected light, and the Zone VI
spot meter. If I illuminate a grey card on the front lawn with blue sky
and the bright sun in the sky, all three meters agree within about 1/3
stop. But with other illumination, I can see as much as 2 stops variation
from one meter to another. I assume this is due to the different color
sensitivities of the various meters.

They also put in a different photo-detector. They claim the new one is
superior, but do not say in what way.

They also claim to ensure that the linearity is within 1/6 stop from low
end to high end of the scale. Perhaps it is. It is difficult for me to
test this since I no longer have access to a fancy light meter
(Spectra-Physics?) that plugged into the wall, had a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 lens
on the front (interchangeable with other Nikon lenses), and 1/2 degree
acceptance angle, and read to, IIRC, 1/10 f-stop. Probably not meant for
ordinary photography. Some physicists I knew had it for something.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:40:00 up 20 days, 6:17, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.12, 4.07

jjs wrote:
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...


I had a Pentax 1/21 light meter that worked well enough when it worked,
[...]
so I had Zone VI recalibrate it, which they did. It has been holding well

ever since.

Exactly how does the Zone VI modification change the reading of the meter?
It would seem a straightforward modification given that the Zone system is a
simple Log metric. Have you put your calibrated Zone VI meter against a
couple standard meters to see if it's really giving a different value for,
say, a grey card?


I was referring to reliability in general, and I have little doubt my
observations would apply to an unmodified meter as well.

The most noticeable, and important to me, modification is the installation
of field stops inside the meter to reduce flare. Thus I can meter a dark
part of a subject next to a light one and get more accurate readings. The
flare reduction is about one stop.

They also install (I believe three) color correction filters in there to
make the response of the meter more nearly approximate a typical (I
imagine it was 4164 Kodak Tri-X) black and white film. I can definately
see the difference there (which I do not find all that important for what
I do, since my subjects are seldom highly saturated colors) when metering
grey cards. I have a Nikon FE-2 with a built-in light meter. I have a
LunaPro-F meter that can read incident or reflected light, and the Zone VI
spot meter. If I illuminate a grey card on the front lawn with blue sky
and the bright sun in the sky, all three meters agree within about 1/3
stop. But with other illumination, I can see as much as 2 stops variation
from one meter to another. I assume this is due to the different color
sensitivities of the various meters.

They also put in a different photo-detector. They claim the new one is
superior, but do not say in what way.

They also claim to ensure that the linearity is within 1/6 stop from low
end to high end of the scale. Perhaps it is. It is difficult for me to
test this since I no longer have access to a fancy light meter
(Spectra-Physics?) that plugged into the wall, had a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 lens
on the front (interchangeable with other Nikon lenses), and 1/2 degree
acceptance angle, and read to, IIRC, 1/10 f-stop. Probably not meant for
ordinary photography. Some physicists I knew had it for something.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:40:00 up 20 days, 6:17, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.12, 4.07

I've been using a Minolta AutoMeter 3F since the late 80's with no problem. I
take the battery out when I'm not using it.
I trust it completely when shooting chromes in studio or on location.

Hope this helps!

Doug Allen

I've been using a Minolta AutoMeter 3F since the late 80's with no problem. I
take the battery out when I'm not using it.
I trust it completely when shooting chromes in studio or on location.

Hope this helps!

Doug Allen