[quote=wrangler5] I never had a genuine spot meter, although I was always intrigued by them after reading Adams' The Negative.]

We might be brothers from another mother...I have the entire series (gathering dust somewhere) as well as Weston’s Day Books, HCB, Gene Smith and others.

[Like you, I've abandoned my Nikon DSLR cameras and lenses for MFT - Olympus OMD EM1 and Pen F, and a Lumix GX85. Went to visit #1 grandson last month with EM1 and Pen F, 6 lenses and a flash, in a bag that would probably hold the Nikon D600, 1 zoom lens and (maybe) an SB700 speedlight. I really ought to sell the Nikon stuff before it becomes totally worthless on the market.[/quote]

My experience was the Canon bodies were worthless, I kept them, but the lenses paid for much of the Oly kit. I really like the Pen F grip and the small f/1.7 primes, 17, 25, 45 and 60 macro, but the Pro zooms make the combo too nose heavy and obvious. Those balance better on the OM1 with its battery grip. And I like its tilt screen much better than the Pen F’s fully articulated one...I just flip it backwards for almost everything...too easy to accidentally change settings, focus point, etc., anyway

[quote=wrangler5

As for spot meters - they do indeed provide the ultimate in detailed information, if you know what to do with it. But the OP seemed to indicate uncertainty about focusing a lens, and basic exposure, from which I sort of concluded that a spot meter probably would not be the best way to START measuring light./quote]

I goofed...my reply was meant for you not the OP. I haven’t been on this forum for some time...not used to the reply/quote procedure. I don’t think his lens even has the DOF band. I never used the M-3.

I dumped my Canon 5D and 1DIII and many L lenses a few years ago for Oly MFT OM1 and then added the Pen F, which is the closest thing to the M4s I could find at a reasonable cost. The Fuji X1 Pro was just coming out, but their lens roadmap was going to take years. I duplicated my Canon glass in 18 months, 1/3rd the weight and cost.

John Sexton was a Monterey photographer associated with Ansel Adams. Sexton and 2 others conducted Owens Valley photo seminars decades ago. John had a series of 4 Ansel’s Moonrise work prints that he showed the group. The worst print you could image was a straight one like a big contact print. Then each successively showed the effects of dodging, masking, burning in, etc. The final print’s white back had Ansel’s penciled notes indicating what he did in each area. I forget exactly how long it took to produce a single print he could sign, but it was several hours. I vaguely recall Adams preferred to print them at night.

BTW I agree with you about incident meters for negs and digital, but when it came to slide film in any format my trusty 1 degree Minolta spot meter was on my belt for every shot. Adams was shooting sheet film and the Zone System dictated that he know the contrast range of the image, so (my guess) the spot meter gave him more information. It might even dictate the developer or development time of a single neg.

Since you have not rec’d prints...that means you are using negative film. The machine created prints may not exactly be what you expected. Pick a shot you really like and take it to a custom printer as the negative gives some latitude in print exposure/brightness. I had M-4s and the lenses each had a depth of field scale on the barrel, which indicates at what f/stop where the near point of focus will be and on the other side, the far point of acceptable focus. You did not mention the lens, but generally with a wide lens (35mm) the depth of field (DOF) will be broad and as the focal lengths increase, 50,75, 90, 135...the DOF gets very narrow, especially wide open. As you gain experience you will find that f/16 does not provide the best performance of your lens. A more open aperture setting like f/5.6 or 8.0 may improve your results. The shutter speed only controls motion, yours or the subjects. The lens creates the image, but each has its sweet spot aperture. I regret selling my Leicas many years ago. They are great cameras, and were the tools of many past masters of the art.

[quote=Thunder_o_b]Interesting. .

I have heard the UV filter argument for years, can't see the drop in IQ that is always brought up in any of my shots.

This may be the oldest dispute in photography. However, I have seen shots on DPR where OOF areas of images with certain multi-coated UV filters have a green tint. Some there swear they have seen tests that show perceptible degradation. IMO there is no way adding 2 more planes of glass in the image path can improve an image with a good lens. (Filters have 2 sides.) Dent a lens front rim sometime with a UV filter attached and have fun getting that broken filter off. The easiest thing to repair/replace on most lenses is the front element. My kit includes 12 interchangeable EF & M. Zuiko lenses (6-Canon Ls) and zero UV filters..but 2 B+W CPLs. A $1000 lens costs under $20/year to insure for all damage to any part of or all of a lens or camera..no deductible..worldwide. Far better than any filter. I owned a camera store once...filters were one of the highest margin items in the store. We sold them in droves to newbies playing on their insecurity. UV & 1A filters did have some limited use in the film era...that's all.