There are many factors influencing the error of measurements for a means of measurement (MM) for the relative density distribution (RDD) for energy (E) or power (P) of laser radiation when there is a multielement radiation converter. These factors are determined by the absolute or relative spectral~ zonal, and angular sensitivities, as well as by the dependence of the sensitivity on the wavelength range, pulse length, energy or power density, polarization, and other parameters; also, there are effects from changes in working conditions such as temperature, humidity, and supply voltages, as well as effects from various forms of signal distortion in the circuits (frequency, phase, and other fornls of distortion), in addition to interference or noise, which may be internal and determined by the interaction between the components and which includes drift and noise, or may be external and related to the electromagnetic fields of high-power equipments. There may be a considerable contribution to the error of such a system during checking from superior links in the test scheme, for example for standard MM from the standard deviation (SD) and the residual systematic error (RSE) in the working standard. A specific feature of such a relative meter, which distinguishes it from an MM providing absolute values of the energy or power, is that there is an error component associated with the degree of division or digitization of the field-of-view diaphragm. This component is dependent on the RDD, the number of sensing elements, the shape of these, the distribution over the receiving surface, and other factors. Such a meter may have various structures [i]. We consider a simple typical scheme (Fig. i) containing the n-element radiation converter i, the switch 2, and the analogdigital converter ADC 3, for which we derive the dependence of the MM error determined by the ADC on the placing density of the sensing elements in the planar receiving surface. Here we assume that the errors related to the element density introduced by components i, 2, and 3 in Fig. 1 are uncorrelated.