venta

No need to rant at my light meter!

Which end did the needle shoot to? The left or the right? If it's the left end, there's no light getting in. If it's the right end, there's way too much light. That seems unlikely.

Unless... you were holding it the wrong way around, with the lens facing into your hand. In which case I'd expect it to go very dark, and, since the meters reverse, the needle would go right.

From:

I said I was static-prone, not stupid! No, I'm not covering the place the light goes in. The needle goes off the too-much-light end, and doesn't budge if you do cover over the lens and block out the light completely.

I cite [Unknown site tag] as a witness...

Shaking the meter dislodges the needle, but I'm not convinced the readings I'm getting out are right. And I'm reluctant to shake it too much as I don't want to damage it.

From:

[Unknown LJ tag] is

davefish?

Drop it round (or I'll come and get it), and I'll check it against my SLR.

As to what you've done, I dunno, 'cept you're a girl, and we obviously shouldn't let you at electronics ;-)

From:

Yeah, it should have said

davefish. We already checked the readings against his SLR - sometimes they were right, sometimes they weren't...

From:

And when they were wrong they did tend to be very wrong.

From:

augeas.livejournal.com

Could these meters be of a vintage where too much light on too sensitive a scale fries them somewhat? You could always go to the Inner-Hebridean isle of Coll, and find the perfectly good Plusmeter I dropped near Hogh Bay. (It only had one scale.) I think I'd like to re-instate my meter-less old Practica, and retire the somewhat irritating metered Miranda. Working meters can sometimes be found cheaply on Ebay, as the nutters (collector scum) there care about the damn things being "in the original box". Never get a Western Master earlier than a Mark V, as it'll use the Western scale, rather than ASA.

From:

Thanks for the advice - though I might skip the trip to Coll for now.

My camera is a Praktika. Dead simple to use - set the ASA value, set the shutter speed, set the f-stop and you're out of buttons that need twiddling :) I'm very fond of it.

From:

augeas.livejournal.com

I think I've already totaled one Ebayed light-meter in that way, and the Western-Master advice comes from bitter experience. Do you know any gullible idiots who'd like a Western Master II? Yeah, the Miranda's too clever by half. One's mean to half-press the shutter to use the meter, which tends to result in rather a lot of wasted film. Also, one can forget to turn it off and be left with a dead lump to carry. After I lost the Plusmeter, I just decided to wing it, and bracket the exposures. -I was fine.

From:

You could just borrow my SLR itself, since I'm not using it. At least, with a battery in it, it's got a chance to retailiate if you attempt to shock it.

Like I said though, I'm not sure if our lenses are compatible, which might be restrictive.

From:

Thanks, but I'd prefer to stick with mine - I know it, and it's remarkably foible free. And it has no batteries, so is under my thumb :)

I refuse to be beaten by a bunch of objects smaller than my own hands. I'll teach 'em.

(My lenses are apparently standard screw fitting, for reference.)

From:

Which is an M42 fit.

From:

Smart arse :)

I maintain an M42 fit is what one has when travelling around Birmingham in the rush hour.

From:

Smart arse

That'll be why almost everything that I say is a bunch of arse then.

From:

Ah, that matches my memory of my lenses, so it seems right.

At some point in the past, I'd got the impression that M42 was not a common fitting. I've just had a look on the Jessops site, and of course, they (helpfully) list the fittings by manufacturer. Beyond that I'm out of my expertise.

From:

Based on looking at it last week, and Dave's comment about the lenses, I think it's actually the same body as mine.

I've got a split prism focus and light meter in mine, but otherwise the foibles should be identical. There are no automatic functions anyway.

From:

Well, I'll see if I can sort my light meter problems out first. Don't want to break any more...

I'm curious though: what does it need the batteries for ?

From:

The light meter. It's only a lithium battery, and I've never had to change it, so it's not really something that needs thinking about. A good point though, since the light meter I passed you doesn't use batteries.

Without knowing too precisely how light meters work, the old one must be using a photocell to directly drive the needle, which can then overload. Presumably photocells don't respond linearly?

augeas's comment makes me think that it could change performance due to age as well.

Presumably on my SLR, the photocell is just used as the input to a battery powered amplifier. Or some such excuse.

Then again, maybe it will just use it as a self defense mechanism against errant users.

From:

augeas.livejournal.com

The old ones sans batteries are mostly selenium detectors. I'm not sure that ageing is a factor, other than that the older ones will have had more abuse. Since the currents are so small, the volt-meters must be pretty sensitive, and so pssible to fry them if used on the wrong scale. Leningrads IVs look cheap and cheerfull on Ebay...

From:

The thing is, though... if I'd fried 'em, surely they'd work none of the time, rather than some of the time?

I feel like I should work out what the problem is before I get another one, or I might end up just doing the same thing again.

From:

I was thinking that they might have overloaded the detectors, and they recovered with time. Capacitors, like.

From:

I don't think they work like that, but I'm a bit hazy. Is there a physicist who answers questions on optics in the house ?

davefish?

From:

Hmmm. From howstuffworks.com:

"The main component of the light meter is a panel of semi-conductor light sensors that are sensitive to light energy. These sensors express this light energy as electrical energy."

Still don't know :)

From:

a screwdriver investigation!

From:

To borrow someone else's pet phrase:

Ho, and indeed No.

I'm all for taking things to bits to see how they go in general, but delicate mechanisms and blundering incompetence often don't mix well :)

From:

I'm not incompetant! I'm highly experienced in the art of dismantling delicate mechanisms.

From:

failmaster.livejournal.com

Well, I'm not a physicist, but if what you're basically doing in a light meter is measuring the (tiny) voltage across a photoelectric cell and you introduce a (potentially enormous) potential from your accrued static electricity, then it certainly seems possible that the delicate components might get fried.

Try using your light meter only when you're not wearing shoes...

On a more helpful note I'll try to remember to ask my (ex-professional-photographer) boss tomorrow and see if he knows anything more useful to prevent this happening...

From: