[Wheatfield]

The original concept camera was presented as having a spot meter. The actual product had average metering. Inexplicably, the camera retained the Spotmatic name to the puzzlement of generations of camera enthusiasts since.


Steve

I suppose "Averagematic" wouldn't have caught on as well.

[photoptimist]

A grinned at your comment. Improper use of spot metering is one of the more common causes of poor exposure complaints on this site. As for film cameras, there were some, but I am struggling to remember the models beyond the one I own (Mamiya 1000 DTL).* Such was never on the feature list in the price range where I was shopping at the time, that is a sure thing.


Steve

* A bit of thinking and Googling and I figured out that such was not uncommon in higher-end cameras in the late 1980s such that most of the Pentax Z/PZ line featured spot metering for at least some lenses. I guess that is a good indicator of the era when I stopped camera shopping.

LOL!

The spot meter is the chain saw of the photographic world -- powerful in skilled hands but likely to lop off the arms and legs of the image's DR if one isn't careful.

The Olympus OM4 (introduced in 1983) was where I first used it. Spot metering was an easy add-on feature of any camera with multi-segment or matrix metering.

[GUB]

Then you are saying it’s ridiculous that every SLR camera made by every manufacturer over the past nearly 6 decades have had this somehow essential component missing.
Have you considered that they aren’t put on cameras anymore, and haven’t been since the early 1960s because their extremely limited functionality makes them next to useless compared to TTL metering?


It sounds to me like you are creating problems for yourself with poor technique and a refusal to learn how to use your gear.

---------- Post added 03-16-19 at 10:03 AM ----------



The only time, in nearly half a century of photography, that I have found an incident meter to be useful is in the studio. I every other photography situation I have been in, and about the only type of photography I haven’t done is going into outer space, the ambient meter has stayed in the bag. I recall when I started out that I used an old Fujica rangefinder from the mid 1950s, and I used a handheld meter with it. In rapidly changing conditions it was useless. In anything but ideal conditions it was useless.
TTL meters were the answer to a very real metering problem, that being ambient light meters.
I could see a return of the built in viewfinder blind being quasi useful, but ambient meters with a sensor on the top of the prism someplace? Not a chance. I simply cannot think of a single situation where it would be better than a TTL meter.

No I said given how cheaply it could be done it is ridiculous not to incorporate one to work in conjunction with the green button and the brilliant digital preview.
It is offensive to describe these great functions as "poor technique " and not full use of the real camera functions

[photoptimist]

No I said given how cheaply it could be done it is ridiculous not to incorporate one to work in conjunction with the green button and the brilliant digital preview.
It is offensive to describe these great functions as "poor technique " and not full use of the real camera functions

But it really can't work in conjunction with the green button and the brilliant digital preview unless the photographer takes their eye away from the camera and holds the camera at arms length. And even then, the incident meter really needs to be held in the correct orientation next to the subject, not over by the photographer's shooting position or on a tripod.

The analogy with the ambient light sensor of a phone doesn't work. The phone's sensor can do its job even if the head and body of the user are blocking some of the light. In fact, the phone's sensor SHOULD react to this blockage -- adjusting the display brightness if the shadow of the user falls on it. The camera's sensor needs to infer incident light at another location and any blockage of light by the head or body of the photographer would ruin the sensor's accuracy, cause the sensor to under-estimate the incident light, and cause the camera to over-expose the image (which tends to burn-out highlights and ruin digital images).


As an aside, incident light metering is probably more useful with print film photography than with digital photography. Negative film's latitude to handle highlights means that the exposure can be metered to the incident light and any specular reflections, highlights, or in-frame light sources will be handled nicely by the knee of the characteristic curve of the film. With digital, an exposure metered to the incident light level will burn-out these highlights.

[Wheatfield]

No I said given how cheaply it could be done it is ridiculous not to incorporate one to work in conjunction with the green button and the brilliant digital preview.
It is offensive to describe these great functions as "poor technique " and not full use of the real camera functions

It maybe cheap to include, but it is also feature creap of the worst kind, something that adds unnecessary cost because it is literally a useless feature.
At the risk of causing you more offence, you would do better to learn how to use a TTL meter effectively, or to purchase an incident meter if you feel one would be that useful. I might even be able to find one in one of my boxes of long disused or never used stuff. I’m pretty sure I still have a Gossen Lunasix meter that was gifted to me.
If you want it, make me an offer. I might just be willing to sell it to you. I’ve had it forever and have never found a use for it.

[Dartmoor Dave]

At the risk of causing you more offence, you would do better to learn how to use a TTL meter effectively, or to purchase an incident meter if you feel one would be that useful.

I'm not aware that GUB has said anything in this thread to suggest that he doesn't know how to use a TTL meter effectively, so could you perhaps explain the basis of your assumption that he doesn't? Surely it would be just as valid to suggest that your own assertion that an incident meter is "literally a useless feature" implies that you've never learned how to use an incident meter effectively yourself?

[Wheatfield]

I'm not aware that GUB has said anything in this thread to suggest that he doesn't know how to use a TTL meter effectively, so could you perhaps explain the basis of your assumption that he doesn't? Surely it would be just as valid to suggest that your own assertion that an incident meter is "literally a useless feature" implies that you've never learned how to use an incident meter effectively yourself?

You must be young enough to have forgotten what a godsend TTL meters were when they were introduced, and how rapidly they penetrated the market because of how much of an improvement they are.
I do use an incident meter when it makes sense.
So far, the OP has given as about his only reason for wanting a built in incident meter is when he has to look for the green button on his camera, but he took offense when I noted that perhaps he should learn his equipment better, thereby being able to press the button without having to remove his eye from the viewfinder. Another poster has pointed out that for his incident meter to be accurate, it needs to be at the subject position, or at least in the same light as his subject, something in his own screed he said was not the case, as in his example, it was light in the viewfinder causing metering issues. By definition, an incident meter won't work in his scenario.
Perhaps it isn't me who has a problem understanding how these devices need to be used?
He has brought up the logical fallacy that since his cell phone has an incident meter to control the brightness of his screen (an effective but non photographic use for one) his SLR camera should have one, in spite of how very rarely it would be useful, and how much superior TTL metering is.
Answer me this: If incident meters were so superior, why were they replaced en masse by TTL meters when it became possible to have them looking through the lens? It seems to me that if they were that much better, there would have been some sort of hue and cry about their being removed sometime in the last nearly 60 years.
If you could point me to a time when the peasants revolted over the loss of incident meters in cameras, I'm all ears, so to speak. Goodness knows, we moan loudly about far less these days.
If a person sees the benefit of an incident meter, then carry one. I have one in my lighting kit for metering flash because in the studio they make sense.
Anyway, I don't think I can take this discussion further, I've made my point.
Carry on.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Anyway, I don't think I can take this discussion further, I've made my point.

But hopefully you've at least had a taste of how it feels when somebody suggests that you're ignorant when actually they merely have a differing opinion, and maybe you won't be so quick to say things like ". . . learn how to use a TTL meter effectively" in the future.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, let's please keep this discussion constructive and respectful, and avoid making comments that are personal, inflammatory or accusatory.

Thank you

[Dartmoor Dave]

My apologies. I'm embarrassed to have sunk to the level of getting angry about stuff that people say on the internet. That's not my style.

[GUB]

My apologies. I'm embarrassed to have sunk to the level of getting angry about stuff that people say on the internet. That's not my style.

Can't blame ya , I am amazed at the amount of vitriol directed at a simple and valid suggestion in the OP.