How accurate can I expect the light meter in a vintage 35mm camera to be?

[Easy Lee]

I recently bought a Nikon FE2 in excellent optical and mechanical condition. While testing it against my Canon A-1 I noticed that the FE2 was exposing the images much lower than the A-1. Looking at the negatives and the prints it seemed to me that the FE2 negatives were underexposed quite a bit.

I then compared the measurements of the two cameras to two light meter iOS apps by facing the cameras / iPhone to evenly colored surfaces of varied brightness. It turned out that the two apps and the A-1 showed near identical results in every scenario while the FE2 was consistently exposing around -0.6 EV lower.

Is this about what is to be expected with such an old camera? I am actually surprised the A-1s light meter doesn't show any signs of age.

I could work around the problem by setting the FE2s ASA dial to 2/3 of a stop below the actual value, e.g. ASA 125 for a 200 ASA film. Or by setting exposure compensation to -2/3. I am leaning towards the first option because with the second one I might get confused when I actually need to compensate exposure. Would you agree?

 

[flektogon]

I don't have any such old camera, but my 25 years old Minilux is doing a perfect job. But, at least theoretically, those simple light meters, based on a simple resistance bridge (like those with a needle), should be as good as new. And on the other side, the selenium light meters should be dead today.

--
Regards,
Peter

 

[LumixCat]

Sorry if you did this already, but did you try replacing the battery on the FE2 ? Even if it's a new battery that you bought recently, maybe the new battery is defective. I would try another new battery to see if you get the same meter reading. If you do get the same meter reading as before, then you could certainly compensate by setting the FE2 for a lower ISO. Or can you return the FE2 and get a different one?

 

[Tomm111]

If you haven't already, replace the batteries, use the silver oxide type. Alkalines loose power. Also check to see if the camera is clean around the mirror housing. If that doesn't work I agree setting the ISO to a lower setting is the best way to go. You could see how much it would cost to give the camera a CLA which would probably solve the problem.

 

[paul1513]

Hi:

I used a Nikon FE2 for over two decades and never had problems with its exposure meter consistently underexposing (or overexposing). Centerweighted metering, like Nikon’s, was considered to be accurate about 90% of the time; failing only in strongly back- or spotlit, or very bright or dark scenes.

It is likely that your FE2’s light meter is out of alignment and needs to be adjusted. The FE2 has four potentiometers under its top plate, atop the pentaprism, that are used to adjust its electronics. However, you need test equipment to know when to stop adjusting.

It is also possible that the meter’s silicon photodiodes (SPDs) have failed. This cannot be adjusted, and may mean your FE2 is a goner, because there are no repair parts available, except by cannibalization.

Adjusting the pots or replacing SPDs means your FE2 needs to be seen by an expert. It is easier to use the ASA/ISO and exposure compensation dial to increase your FE2’s exposure to a correct value.

hope this helps

paul1513

 

[KCK14]

Paul is correct. Some additional info. Using Silicon Diodes with required amplifier will be less dependent on battery voltage than old CdS cell types. For shutter purposes, you do want to stick to Silver Oxide batteries.

It is adjustable. I've gotten rid of all my old service info, so I can't tell you which pot does what.

Note that Nikon metering was set to expose slightly less than Canon. About 1/3 stop was the factory preference.

Just set the EC dial to what you want and forget it.

So many current users are so fixated on the precision that we have in current digital designs that they may not realize that in the olden days the tolerances and equipment were not what we expect today.

 

[Jaime100]

As others have said, have it CLA'd ...replace the batteries etc.

One thing to take into consideration is if you are shooting BW film, you have several stops to play with and as long as you don't lose the shadows, you are fine. BW film has tons of leeway. Color film on the other hand has to be more spot-on to get the true colors. Then again, experiment and see what looks good as it won't be that far off.

 

[Overrank]

IIRC the Canon A1 has a meter which is weighted slightly up or down of centre, whereas the FE2 is centre weighted (if you fill the viewfinder with a single evenly lit tone then this won5 matter). That caught me out testing a Nikon F3 against a A1.

As others have said don’t be too down on how accurate the meters are. I’ve done a series of tests of various meters (see for example https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67950523 ) and found errors of over 1/2 a stop even with new off-camera meters. Unless you’re using slide film a stop is unlikely to cause a problem. Even the shutter speeds of professional cameras like the F3 can be 1/3 of a stop out and still be within specification, so I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[Bob Janes]

I recently bought a Nikon FE2 in excellent optical and mechanical condition. While testing it against my Canon A-1 I noticed that the FE2 was exposing the images much lower than the A-1. Looking at the negatives and the prints it seemed to me that the FE2 negatives were underexposed quite a bit.

I then compared the measurements of the two cameras to two light meter iOS apps by facing the cameras / iPhone to evenly colored surfaces of varied brightness. It turned out that the two apps and the A-1 showed near identical results in every scenario while the FE2 was consistently exposing around -0.6 EV lower.

Is this about what is to be expected with such an old camera? I am actually surprised the A-1s light meter doesn't show any signs of age.

I could work around the problem by setting the FE2s ASA dial to 2/3 of a stop below the actual value, e.g. ASA 125 for a 200 ASA film. Or by setting exposure compensation to -2/3. I am leaning towards the first option because with the second one I might get confused when I actually need to compensate exposure. Would you agree?

Half a stop isn't bad and could be explained by different averaging between the cameras.

Try pointing both at a plain-painted wall, then they should give similar results (although half a stop is quite tolerable).

If the discrepancy is still there, look to the battery. Check what the original battery should be - if it should be a mercury battery try a 1.45v zinc-air hearing aid battery, or failing that a 1.55v silver oxide cell. Don't use an alkaline battery as the voltage varies over life of the battery, and you can't predict it.

Higher voltage may affect the meter (depends if it has a bridging circuit or not). If it does still meter differently, simply alter the ISO until it reads right.

 

[Easy Lee]

I don't have any such old camera, but my 25 years old Minilux is doing a perfect job. But, at least theoretically, those simple light meters, based on a simple resistance bridge (like those with a needle), should be as good as new. And on the other side, the selenium light meters should be dead today.

I take it the FE2 falls into the first category (resistance bridge) and thus should be "as good as new"?

 

[Easy Lee]

If you haven't already, replace the batteries, use the silver oxide type. Alkalines loose power. Also check to see if the camera is clean around the mirror housing. If that doesn't work I agree setting the ISO to a lower setting is the best way to go. You could see how much it would cost to give the camera a CLA which would probably solve the problem.

The batteries were alkaline but their voltage was still good. I've now replaced them with silver oxide ones. The light meter reading is the same.

CLA? Sorry I am not a native English speaker. (Dictionary says: Collective Labor Agreement, College Language Association)

I am guessing you mean to have it serviced. I checked with one of the very few experts who can still do this today in Switzerland and he says it would cost around 300 $ to have the light meter calibrated - more than I paid for the camera.

 

[Easy Lee]

Note that Nikon metering was set to expose slightly less than Canon. About 1/3 stop was the factory preference.

Interesting. How do you know that?

 

[Easy Lee]

IIRC the Canon A1 has a meter which is weighted slightly up or down of centre, whereas the FE2 is centre weighted (if you fill the viewfinder with a single evenly lit tone then this won5 matter). That caught me out testing a Nikon F3 against a A1.

As others have said don’t be too down on how accurate the meters are. I’ve done a series of tests of various meters (see for example https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67950523 ) and found errors of over 1/2 a stop even with new off-camera meters. Unless you’re using slide film a stop is unlikely to cause a problem. Even the shutter speeds of professional cameras like the F3 can be 1/3 of a stop out and still be within specification, so I wouldn’t worry about it.

You are correct, the light meter in the A1 is weighted somewhat down of center (which can be advantageous in landscape shots but is overall not a very good idea). I did account for that in my testing.

Yes it's no big deal. I just have to remember to set the ASA dial accordingly with every film. And it does diminish the value of the camera a bit, in case I will sell it again.

 

[Bob Janes]

If you haven't already, replace the batteries, use the silver oxide type. Alkalines loose power. Also check to see if the camera is clean around the mirror housing. If that doesn't work I agree setting the ISO to a lower setting is the best way to go. You could see how much it would cost to give the camera a CLA which would probably solve the problem.

The batteries were alkaline but their voltage was still good. I've now replaced them with silver oxide ones. The light meter reading is the same.

Alkaline batteries show a rather unpredicatable drop in voltage through their lives, hence the preference for Zinc-air hearing aid batteries (cheap and readily available, but only last a few months), or Silver Oxide batteries (more expensive and slightly higher voltage, could put the meter out by as much as 2 stops, but calibrate to make sure)

CLA? Sorry I am not a native English speaker. (Dictionary says: Collective Labor Agreement, College Language Association)

Clean, Lubricate, Align (that last one is a guess, but it means a service).

I am guessing you mean to have it serviced. I checked with one of the very few experts who can still do this today in Switzerland and he says it would cost around 300 $ to have the light meter calibrated - more than I paid for the camera.

Or you could just calibrate it yourself. If you reckon it is half a stop off, just adjust the ISO/ASA setting until it reads what it should.

Modern films show a lot of latitude for exposure, so you should be fine with being anything up to a stop out.

 

[Overrank]

And it does diminish the value of the camera a bit, in case I will sell it again.

I wouldn’t regard a 0.6EV difference in a light meter reading in a fifty year old camera (compared to another equally old camera) as being a reason that would change its value. (Recent electronic meters I’ve tested have been that much out )

BUT I am surprised that you can see a 0.6 EV difference in the output image. Could it be that the shutter speeds are wrong or the apertures sticky ?

 

[KCK14]

Note that Nikon metering was set to expose slightly less than Canon. About 1/3 stop was the factory preference.

Interesting. How do you know that?

I fixed them for years. We had a chart of the fudge factors for adjusting the meters for most brands. Nikon was the least, with Canon and Minolta about 1/4 to 1/3 stop more. Kodak cameras which were really meant for color print film were almost a full stop more exposure than either Nikon or Canon. Old style CdS cell meters were set with a tolerance of +/_ 1/2 stop at daylight levels. it could be more at low light levels.

By the time you get to the fully electronic meters using photo diodes like the FM- FE they were usually closer and more linear through out the metering range.

 

[KCK14]

And it does diminish the value of the camera a bit, in case I will sell it again.

I wouldn’t regard a 0.6EV difference in a light meter reading in a fifty year old camera (compared to another equally old camera) as being a reason that would change its value. (Recent electronic meters I’ve tested have been that much out )

BUT I am surprised that you can see a 0.6 EV difference in the output image. Could it be that the shutter speeds are wrong or the apertures sticky ?

Right about the aperture. On old lenses the accuracy and consistency of the actual opening is likely to be off more than the meter. On an FE the shutter is probably still correct

 

[Easy Lee]

And it does diminish the value of the camera a bit, in case I will sell it again.

I wouldn’t regard a 0.6EV difference in a light meter reading in a fifty year old camera (compared to another equally old camera) as being a reason that would change its value. (Recent electronic meters I’ve tested have been that much out )

BUT I am surprised that you can see a 0.6 EV difference in the output image. Could it be that the shutter speeds are wrong or the apertures sticky ?

Right about the aperture. On old lenses the accuracy and consistency of the actual opening is likely to be off more than the meter. On an FE the shutter is probably still correct

To be honest, I haven't shot enough pictures with the FE2 to be sure that I see the underexposure in the images. I did one quick test to see the effect of under- / overexposure on an image where I underexposed the first shot by 1 stop, correctly (according to the meter) exposed the second shot and overexposed the third shot by 1 stop. The overexposed shot gave the best result, closely followed by the medium exposure. The underexposed shot was very grainy and the colors were a bit off. From that I concluded that the exposure chosen by the camera was rather on the dark side.

There were also a couple other pictures that seemed a bit grainy to me which I thought could be because of underexosure. But I am not experienced enough to tell.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanics of the camera or the lenses. The camera had been serviced before I bought it.

 

[flektogon]

I don't have any such old camera, but my 25 years old Minilux is doing a perfect job. But, at least theoretically, those simple light meters, based on a simple resistance bridge (like those with a needle), should be as good as new. And on the other side, the selenium light meters should be dead today.

I take it the FE2 falls into the first category (resistance bridge) and thus should be "as good as new"?

It means that as the CdS (or whatever light sensor it uses) won't wear down with the time, and such a bridge even doesn't depend on the applied voltage. However, some resistors with the time may have changed their values, so some tuning might be needed. But not without "opening" the camera. It is generally easier to compare what your camera measures with what some reference light meter (a newer digital camera) reads, and any difference to keep in mind (or by setting a corresponding EV compensation).

--
Regards,
Peter

 

[Skeeterbytes]

I'd baseline it using either an 18% grey card or grey step card, then dial any over/under exposure bias into the ASA setting. As long as it's consistent in high/low light you should be okay going forward.

Can also check against a known accurate handheld meter. IDK if phone apps are a proper replacement, maybe they are?

Learning the meter pattern/area of coverage is also important for evaluating a particular scene.

Cheers,

Rick