I started photography with cameras that had no built in meter, so used a hand held one. In the 70s I started using an OM1 (then OM2 and OM4) and played match needle with the OM1 and left the others on auto (which was aperture priority on these cameras). After this excursion into the strange world of automation, I moved to medium and large format, where again the cameras I use have no built in meter - back to manual.
When I use what is actually my wife's Sony a7r/rii cameras I use manual lenses (mainly OM lenses) and set the camera to A for aperture priority. As the cameras are mirrorless, what you see is roughly what you get, and when required I can turn the exposure compensation dial.
Harking back to an earlier post
This raises what I think is an interesting point. What’s important, a technically good photo or one that captures a memory?
For quite some time I wanted to capture the perfect photo (of course I never did!) but I have since realised that what matters is the memory, what the photo means. Some of my favourite photos are snaps taken on my phone - I’ve captured a magical moment.
I'm using a digital camera to capture a memory (mostly) and film cameras when the image matters more than the memory - when I want something worth putting on the wall, rather than consigning to a (virtual) photo album. Or, as I tend to think of it, when I'm not producing snapshots.
Some photographs have to be as near perfect technically as possible or they are (comparatively) worthless; an architect would tend to have stringent criteria for what he's accept as a representation of his work for a catalogue or brochure. From my perspective, if I have the choice of producing a technically better image by using a different camera, and there is nothing that makes using that camera impossibly difficult in the circumstances, then I'll accept the trade off of quality over convenience. N.B. this applies to me, my choice of subject, and the way I want to render it it in the final print.