Posts
In a few days from now I will be visiting California, a state I’ve never before visited. I am amused by the reactions I get from people to whom I share this news. “Why on earth would you go to California?
This is typical of what I hear, and I don’t have to wonder why. People in my part of the country have decidedly negative bias against what is would be like to live there. Whatever. I don’t care what anyone thinks about it; I’ve always wanted to go there. It’s a big state, and there are many beautiful places in it. I’m only there for five nights, so I will experience only a very small portion of what it offers. However, I love travel anyway, and I am very exited.
So, of course I’ve been thinking about the photography I hope to make there and what gear I should bring. Actually, I didn’t have to much thinking. In fact, I had one camera in mind from the moment I first made plans to go. My Leica M2, of course. Six days on the go in a state across the country? The Leica M was made for this. And I chose the M2 specifically for a reason: the three frame lines - 35, 50, an 90mm. I don’t have a 90mm lens (and have no plans to get one), but I do have the other two, and they both are Leica lenses. Perfect!
 |
| My recently acquired M2 with the 50mm f2 Summicron collapsable that came with it and my 35mm Elmar f3.5 LTM with Leica-made adapter. Why wouldn’t this be my travel kit? |
“But wouldn’t you rather have an SLR with a built-in meter?”
Sure, I get what you’re saying, and I love my Minolta SLRs. However, the Leica is smaller, more compact, and easy to use for a fully mechanical (yes, it’s even easy to load if you know how.) Also, the lenses are much smaller than my SLR equivalents, and the M mount makes changing easy.
“But what about the a light meter?!”
No problem. I have a light meter for my M2. In fact, I have two of them. And the only problem I have with them is that I have to choose between them (l could take them both, actually, as they are so small, but I really only need one). Both of my meters are of the shoe mount variety, a type of product that has seen a lot of interest from photography accessories makers lately. An online search will turn up quite a few of them. One of my meters came from this current resurgence, the AstriHori AH-M1.
It’s well made, very small, and reasonably easy to use. I one I have is the second one I’ve owned. I sold the first one about a year ago and immediately regretted it. Fortunately, another one came to me by way of a friend and fellow Chattanooga film photographer.
 |
| AstriHori AH-M1 (L) and Leicameter MR |
 |
| From the front . . . |
 |
| . . . and from the top. |
My other shoe mount light meter is not from the current crop. In fact, it is as old as my Leica M2 itself. You might even say that it was made to be used with my camera. Obviously, I’m talking about the Leicameter MR, which Leitz produced from 1965 to 1967. The Leicameter MR came with my M2 when I purchased it earlier this year, but I have used it very little since then, opting instead for the AstriHori AH-M1. Why? Two simple reasons: First and foremost, I simply assumed that a light meter manufactured in the middle to late 1960’s could not possibly be accurate today. Second, the AstriHori AH-M1 is powered by an internal rechargeable nickel-cadmium battery, and the meter’s charging port is the ubiquitous USB-C. Plug it in at night, and I’m ready for another day of use. No need to carry batteries with me.
In addition to the advantages that a rechargeable battery brings, the AstriHori AH-M1 delivers its reading on an easy-to-read OLED screen on the top of the meter (I do wish it was on the back, but I have to look at the top of the M2 to set the aperture and shutter speed on the M2 anyway) . Once you have pressed the button on the back of the meter, a shutter speed and aperture combination appears. You can then turn a physical dial on top to scroll through various EV equivalents of the reading. Also, you can adjust a setting on the meter to allow for continuous reading after you press the button.I prefer to have the meter hold the reading it takes while I change setting on my camera. The meter also can be set to meter in either aperture or shutter priority. I am a decidedly aperture priority shooter, but it’s nice to have the option to use either. Pressing the button a certain way also allows you to change the ISO. And here I raise a disadvantage when using this meter. To change the settings that I mentioned above, you have to use distinct “button codes” (short-short, short-long, etc.) I’t a good idea to keep the tiny instructional leaflet in your camera bag or take a photo of it with your smartphone.
So far, it seems like a slam-dunk for the AstriHori, so why am I still considering the Leicameter MR? I have to admit that, while larger than the AstriHori, it does look good sitting atop my M2.
It definitely has that “Leica” look to it. But aside from looks, what is compelling about the MR? There are two answers to that question. First, the meter couple with the shutter dial on the M2. Here’s how it works. First, you set a desired shutter speed by rotating the dial on the MR. It is positioned above and coupled to the camera’s shutter speed dial, so rotating it changes the camera’s shutter speed. Then you look through the viewfinder with the camera pointed toward your subject and press a button on the left side of the meter. The light the meter reads moves a needle on the top of the meter to one of several silver or black zones around a circular dial, and it freezes the needle there when you release the button. On that side of the dial are the aperture settings, the aperture setting opposite the black or silver zone to which the needle pointed is the proper setting for the shutter speed you originally chose.If you want a different aperture setting, just rotate the wheel (which is also actually changing the shutter speed as you rotate it) until you get the aperture setting you want.
And that’s when you realize that the Leicameter MR meters in shutter priority. Is this a bad thing? It was for me at first. However, the kind of photography I hope to do in California (dare I say it - Street Photogaphy?), it’s actually quite appropriate. After all, there is a lot of movement on the streets of Los Angeles and San Diego. However, if depth of field is more important to you, then simply the meter’s dial at f8 and smaller and shoot only stationary subjects or suggest motion by letting your subjects blur themselves, if you like.
Here’s something else you should know about the Leicameter MR. Unlike the AstriHori AH-M1, which meters reflected light with a 30º angle of view, the MR meters with a 21º angle of view, which just happens to be what you see in the viewfinder when you select the 90mm frame lines. It’s not quite a spot meter, but it is quite selective. I’ve already found that I don’t have to select the 90mm frame lines any more, as I know where they would be in the viewfinder. I must say that it is quite useful to know exactly what part of the frame your light meter is seeing.
“But what about the battery situation? Do you have a spare? And didn’t the Leicameter MR require 1.3v mercury batteries? What do you do about that?
No problem, I say! I already own an MR-9 battery adapter, which takes a 1.5v silver oxide SR43 (Energizer 386) button cell and reduces the voltage to the required 1.3. The Energizer 386 is sold at my local Ace Hardware store, so I have spares ready to go.
Ok, I can see you barely able to control yourself, because you want to know if either of these light meters are accurate. Like I said at the beginning, I just assumed the the older Leicameter MR was not accurate, while my previous use of the AstriHori AH-M1 proved it to be reliable. So, I had to channel my inner Shutter Brother Wayne and conduct an old fashioned controlled test. So, I tested both meters in two different settings. The first was with each meter pressed firmly against a window that looks out over my condo parking lot. Both meters were tested in exactly the same position with no change in lighting. I also placed my Minolta X-700 SLR against the window glass in the exact same position (I have always found this camera’s meter to be spot on accuarate). All three meters were set to the same ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.
Next, I repeated the test using my LED light table, which the two meters and the X-700 placed in the same position. Since the brightness of my light table can be varied, I conducted the test at both the brightest and dimmest settings.
The results? Both the AstriHori and the Leicameter gave the readings that were not only consistent with each other, but also consistent with the Minolta X-700. I have to say that I was quite surprised and encouraged. I could use either meter and expect good results.
So, which one will it be?
I’m currently shooting a test roll with the Leicameter MR, and i hope to develop it before leaving for California. If I’m pleased with the results, then the Leicameter MR will go with me. After all, it tested well - and it was built in Wetzler by Leitz. It probably cost a pretty penny when new. And the more I use it, the more I get used to the way it works.
But since the AstriHori is so small, maybe I’ll bring it, too. System backup, as they say at NASA.
