If the colour temperature theory were true of the Sekonic, I would ditch it.
But IMO it is not. To prove your theory (which I think is probably correct),
maybe you could borrow a known good meter (approved by Northtown) and run
another test. I know that is onerous from the standpoint of time. Also, maybe
you could talk to the service supervisor or another superior to Mike. With all
due respect to him, I think he's making this up as he goes along.
Earl aka Canoeman
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/1/2003 at 12:22 PM John Hudson wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, 30 September, 2003 07:20 PM
>Subject: [OM] John's metering dilema
>
>
>> Most of you that have spent some time on this list know that I consider
>the
>> incident meter to be the gold standard in at least 900f metering
>> situations. I am joined in this by virtually every commercial and
>industrial
>> shooter alive. The joy of the incident meter is that it compensates for
>> various situations that the reflected meter cannot, the most obvious
>being
>> highlight and shadow. The complex ttl meters in wonderbricks spend a lot
>of
>> time and trouble doing what the much more simple incident meter does
>> automatically. This makes me totally confused by John's situation!
>
>I had a lengthy phone call from "Mike" at Nortown Photo Service [authorized
>Canadian Olympus service / repair station where my OM4T went for CLA] in
>metro Toronto this morning.
>
>He advised me that the TTL metering system and shutter speeds had been
>accurately calibrated and set to original Olympus standards using Olympus
>supplied or authorized equipment. He also advised me that there was no
>comparison of the indicated output of those recalibrations with any other
>metering devices such as a Sekonic meter. He told me that I should choose
>to
>use one metering system or the other but not both! What seemed to go above
>his head was that the end product of using either one of the two metering
>systems, namely a properly developed negative or slide, should be
>identically exposed regardless of which metering systems was used.
>
>He tried to explain that the indicated metering differences between using
>the Sekonic and the OM4T's TTL system resulted from the differences in the
>colour temperature sensitivity of the light measuring cells in the two
>meters. Whether there is any substance to this statement is something
>beyond
>my knowledge and could perhaps be commented upon by others. My immediate
>feeling is that this is a bit of a bogus argument in the present case.
>
>What I think has happened is that the linkage between the exposure
>information shown in the viewfinder does not match the actual shutter
>speed.
>For example, multi-spot metering shows an average exposure in the view
>finder of say 1/45 @ f16. When the shutter is fired the shutter actually
>fires at 1/125 @ f16 giving me a properly exposed slide. When I set the
>camera manually at 1/125 @ f16, which is the Sekonic reading, the shutter
>actually fires at ~ 1/375 @ f16 giving me an under exposed image.
>
>If my Sekonic gives me properly exposed slides using an M3 I am confident
>that the meter is accurate. The fact that I cannot take my Sekonic's
>reading
>to my OM4T in manual mode tells me that the link between OM4T's indicated
>shutter speed is different from the actually speed with which the shutter
>fires. How does one get that line of thinking over to the CLA people!
>
>John Hudson
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|