Anyone has any experience with Horseman Exposure Meter 45? Here is what they claim:

TTL meters for average, full-area measuring on the film plane. Read-out of film surface value with immediate computation of shutter speed or aperture setting. Fits cameras like a sheet film holder. No need to calculate bellows factor for close-ups, or to consider any other effect on the exposure caused by the movements or filter usage.

Is this useful? BH has a price of $945, you think it worth the money?

Thanks! Paul

-- Paul Wu (paulwu@microsoft.com), February 11, 2000

Answers

Know nothing about the Horseman meter. A cheaper option (perhaps better as well) might be to get a Calculite meter (about $100) and the fibre optic cable (about $50). This will let you take readings of the groundglass (after calibrating it once by pointing the camera at a grey card). You can measure 3mm spots - so you have a TTL spot meter. You can also use it as a crude densitometer. DJ

-- N Dhananjay (ndhanu@umich.edu), February 11, 2000.

I have the Horseman 45 meter, and find that I don't use it all that much, but I'm sure I would if I did more studio stuff, as the ability to forget about bellows factor would be nice. It seems to me to work fine. I'd sell it to you for less than $945 if you were interested! It's been used less than a half dozen times and is in the original box with (I think!) the original instruction book.

Nathan

-- Nathan Congdon (ncongdon@jhmi.edu), February 11, 2000.

In the past, I have considered this purchase also... I have heard that in general they are no where near as effective as a good spot meter and a knowledgeable use. I did use a Sekonic meter with an attached fiber optic sensor made for gg reading from the viewers side of the gg, but it was so far off... I had to laugh.. like 5 stops! Even the dealer admitted its just not practical. The Horseman and sinar are a bit more sophisticated as they read on the lens side of the gg. I see one slight advantage, and that is the ability to properly compensate for bellows compensation for close up work, however, Calumet makes a small paper disc that can be placed at the subject and measured in the gg, which is probably more accurate and only $20. If you are shooting landscapes, I would highly reccommend the Pentax digital spot meter. I own the Sekonic 778, which I would rank in second. The Pentax offers more user friendly features. The Gossen spot is very similar to the 778 and like $880.

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), February 12, 2000.

I have a Horseman Exposure Meter 69 and find it useful for accurately bracketing my shots in 1/3-1/2 stops. I just slip the meter under the ground glass and adjust the lens aperture until the meter's suggested exposure has changed by the appropriate amount. Since I'm only after a relative reading, not an absoulute one, the fact that the meter is a full-frame averaging type is actually beneficial.

-- Jeffrey Goggin (audidudi@mindspring.com), October 11, 2000.

I shelled out the $945 for the Horseman 4X5 meter for a huge catalog shoot (over 100 product shots). I figured I would save at least a few hundred dollars in Polaroid alone. Well, the meter didn't exactly knock me off my feet with accuracy. But to be fair you have to consider that I was doing table-top studio work and it IS a reflective meter. So the white background paper throws off the readings. Once I learned how far off the readings were, it really did save time and money on polaroids. Haven't used it outdoors yet but plan to. It REALLY saves time on close-up shots where I would normally have had to figured out bellows extension compensation. I used to use the Calumet bellow-correction scale and it does work. But it is also a pain in the butt. Prop it up in the photo, focus, measure off the gg, and read the scale. If you're shotting from a high angle and you try to measure the square on the ground glass, your computations can be off by almost a full stop because the "square" you're viewing in the gg is distorted. You get used to it after a while but it's still a pain. If you have a client that's going to be "paying" for this meter (like I did), I'd say go for it. Just don't expect it to give you dead on readings.

-- Rick (rdmusco@att.net), January 15, 2001.