If these new metering systems are so foolproof, why do we have to keep using exposure compensation when using the in camera metering system. When I use a hand held meter, I don't need exposure compensation to take a photo of snow, a backlit photo, or something with a dark background.

OK, I admit, I'm NOT a M mode snob. When I'm taking pictures for the sake of keeping memories, I will usually shoot in (A)perture mode, but when I'm taking shots that matter, like for a paying client, I use the incedent meter to be able to control ambient light. Not just in the studio, but also outside photos, churches, reception halls, etc.

The one reason people do still pay (unfortunately, not as many as used to) for a pro, is because they can't duplicate the "look" of controlled lighting.

Lastly, you have the ability to "shoot down" anyone who doesn't agree with you. Well good for you. That doesn't make you right, or make it that you have all the answers. I feel for the newbies that read stuff spewed by those that think they have the only answer. The camera meter has its place, but it is NOT the only way, it all depends on your goals. If you are going to give your opinion, that's great, but don't insult your way into thinking that makes you right, because nobody wants to talk to you. It just means people are tired of hitting their head against the wall.

bkyser:- "you have the ability to "shoot down" anyone who doesn't agree with you."

I wonder how valid is their argument if I can "shoot [them] down" with only a few commonly used words?
I have never "attacked" anyone out of turn.
I only treat people with disdain if they initialize such an attitude so please don't expect me to remain non-reactive if someone attempts to trivialize me.
I treat people the way they treat me.
They only get what they deserve..

There is a lot of reference to the use of light meters in evaluating lighting conditions to facilitate shooting in Manual Mode.
In the olden days, once the film was loaded, for any given lighting condition there were only two adjustments available. Shutter speed and Aperture. Of those two, for any given subject there is usually one which is of priority and as camera manufacturers introduced "automatic" mode they provided the user the ability to manually set one and let the metering system set the other.
Also in the olden days, there was no way to view the result of the selected exposure settings until the entire film developing process had been completed.
The many references to light meters and manual exposure would have us believe that there is something almost magical to be gained by this methodology under all conditions.
Digital cameras provide say 12 f stops of latitude, to use a term from those film days, and our aim is to place those 12 stops nicely within the range to best capture the luminance range of reflected light from the given subject. But what if it is beyond the capability of the camera? In that case we would be forced to accept a loss of detail in either the shadows or the highlights. Or both. There is one other variable over which we have control, you might say. True, we could provide more or less light as necessary but that is not really practical under many or most normal situations.
Shooting in a studio is of course a whole different set of circumstances but I am not talking about shooting under tightly controlled lighting conditions.
The point or question that I pose is, how, in all practicality, is there any advantage in setting ISO on a meter, selecting Aperture or Shutter speed as the priority setting, reading the appropriate metered F stop or speed and shooting the scene with those settings set manually OR simply setting ISO and "A" or "S" and having the camera instantly compute and set the remaining parameter?
Or better still, just setting "P" and monitoring the result.
Mr. Rockwell was unfairly lambasted for referring to "P" as "professional mode".
I agree with him if it was his little dig, which, to his amusement, so many bit, at all those people who think they can do better, or rather, be seen to be doing better and being a better photographer by not needing to rely on such amateurish stuff as anything automatic.
In truth, "P" is referred to as Program Auto which takes into account, and I can only speak of Nikon here, a whole lot more than some may have us believe.
The metering system in a modern Nikon is profoundly more sophisticated than the everything averaged down to 18% gray "dumb" light meter portrayed by some.
There are a great number of controls and combinations of controls available, and there are many which most people will never use.
The Nikon D3 was designed for professional use and it incorporated only those features required by a professional in order to get the "money shot". I refer, of course, to the type of subject affording little time and no second chance to get the shot. "Mr President, would you mind falling over again, I need a meter reading..." There are no bells or whistles. It is ready long before you are and it will always get the shot if used correctly. It is very rare indeed that setting "P" and releasing the shutter fails.
I am in no way saying that using external light metering and making careful accommodation of all things considered etc. etc. has no place but I fail to see the advantage in real terms of making photography more complex an activity than is necessary, especially if shooting manually is dressed up as being some sort of elite club to be revered by we lesser beings who happen to have a lean towards the practical use of technology.
Light meters and shooting manually does not magically expand the performance of your camera. All it can ever do is allow the photographer to stand up and take "credit" for some of the numbers on his photo's exif data.
As I said, shooting in a studio and all the control over lighting that affords is a different thing altogether but I am not referring to that.
Over to you….Rob.