sean_s wrote:
Fascinating, are you suggesting that the type of battery can have an impact on the read-out?
Absolutely. I researched battery sources when I decided to revive my Nikkormat FTn which used a 3.3v 625 mercury battery that has not been produced for a long time. (I believe the FT3 switched to alkaline with the same form factor.) Alkaline batteries produce 3.7v. There is a replacement for the 625 (Wein mrb635) which uses a zinc-air chemistry IIRC. It works well in the Nikkormat though will supposedly have a shorter life than the original 625 and ages slowly even when not turned on. Then I revived an F with Photomic viewfinder which uses two batteries in series. That's .8v higher than original spec. Running ISO 200 requires a camera setting of about 2 1/3 stops higher, or about 1130, determined by comparing it to the Z5ii, the Nikkormat, and Lightme. Alkaline has another issue that the voltage drops with use. So if you use it enough you need to re-calibrate the ISO setting.
sean_s wrote:
Overall, it sounds like accuracy is not the primary variable so much as form factor — some folks prefer a shoe-mount; some prefer an external device; and some are just as contented with a phone app.
I have been using the Black Cat Exposure Guide as an attempt to "learn the light" and it has been a lot of fun, albeit slow.
Well, yes, the form factor of an in-camera meter is always more convenient, but if you want to use an external device then either a phone or a dedicated meter wold seem equivalent, at least for me.
My first 35mm camera ages ago did not have a meter and I tried to "learn light". I did okay but still missed quite often, big waste of film that was. Eventually I bought a meter but didn't use it as much as I expected. Once I bought the Nikkormat the meter was never used again. But YMMV.
Jul 22, 2026 at 07:37 AM
Previous versions of jimmuller's message #17076275 « light meter apps »
