On 1 Aug 2002 at 9:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Rob, and thanks to all the other Brothers for your warm welcome. > I finally fixed it, and you are right. It was the foam that was > desintegrated. Luckily, I've some foamed tape (supposedly to put posters on the > wall), cutted it to fit, and voila, it fits tight now. And it allowed the > electric contact too. The only problem is that it seems the meter is waaay out, > something close to 2 stops (I'll do some more serious tests later). It doesn't > bother me too much, since I'll use my "serious" meter, my dear Gossen Lunapro F > with that beast, to keep the package compact ;-) (seriously, 120 film is too > expensive as to tolerate missing frames due to exposure errors). Regards
Hi Albano, Excellent, I'm glad that half your problem is solved. If you can prove that the meter error is linear in its response then all you need to do in order to compensate is to dial up the ISO + or - the error factor. Also when you were comparing meters beware that the 67 TTL prism is a full frame averaging meter, it has an entirely different response to the LX or other centre weighted meters. So if you want to check the meter accurately make sure that you use a nice evenly illuminated white wall or better still put the camera on a light table. >From recollection (as I no longer have a P67) the meter is a bridge type so it doesn't slowly loose sensitivity as the battery becomes exhausted. When I owned the P67 and TTL prism I rarely relied upon the TTL meter for anything but macro shooting, I have had much better success with external meters. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
