Metering with my Digital

[binaryfaith]

So I'm new to LF and have a pretty newbie question. If anyone can help out would be much appreciated.

I read on Ken Rockwell's site that the easiest way to meter is to just copy the settings off of your digi cam.

I've got a Shenhao 4x5 view camera with a schneider super angulon 90 and a nikon d700 with a 14-24 ultra wide. I think the schneider is roughly equivilent to 22 mm, is this true?

Assuming I'm using velvia 50 film, here's what I think the process (for getting exposure settings from my digicam) should be and please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Set my lens to approximately 22mm.
2. Set my digicam on aperture priority mode
3.Set aperture to aperture on view camera (aperture previously having been calculated to capture necessary depth of field)
4. Take and review picture with digicam. If image is acceptable take settings from digicam and transfer shutter speed to closest equivalent in view camera.
I dont think my digicam can drop to ISo 50 so should i close down one step to compensate?

Thanks in advance
Cheers

[SW Rick]

There was just a thread on this recently. Here is the link:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=54776&highlight=dslr+metering

[SteveKarr]

I do it all day long ... especially with strobes ...

[D. Bryant]

So I'm new to LF and have a pretty newbie question. If anyone can help out would be much appreciated.

I read on Ken Rockwell's site that the easiest way to meter is to just copy the settings off of your digi cam.

I've got a Shenhao 4x5 view camera with a schneider super angulon 90 and a nikon d700 with a 14-24 ultra wide. I think the schneider is roughly equivilent to 22 mm, is this true?

Assuming I'm using velvia 50 film, here's what I think the process (for getting exposure settings from my digicam) should be and please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Set my lens to approximately 22mm.
2. Set my digicam on aperture priority mode
3.Set aperture to aperture on view camera (aperture previously having been calculated to capture necessary depth of field)
4. Take and review picture with digicam. If image is acceptable take settings from digicam and transfer shutter speed to closest equivalent in view camera.
I dont think my digicam can drop to ISo 50 so should i close down one step to compensate?

Thanks in advance
Cheers

If you are going to do any type of field work why not just use a good hand held meter, either incident or spot. Toting around a camera to meter with, either digital or analog seems like a major pain. Using a meter makes you think about the light values and the aesthetics of the subject lighting as it will record on film.

What could be simpiler or easier?

Don Bryant

[Ed Richards]

There are lots of reasons to use a digicam for a meter. However, the D700 and that 14-24 is a MONSTER, plus the lens has to be babied because of the protruding element. Unless you are shooting with it in parallel, you might consider something smaller. You do not have to match the field of view, just point the camera at what is important to have exposed correctly. Do you have a little digicam you can use? Or at least a smaller, easier to manage lens for the D700?

[Juergen Sattler]

I just bought the new Canon S90 - a remarkable camera for its size - shoots RAW, has a 2.0 lens on the wide side very good high ISO capabilities and fits into any pocket. That's my permanent companion now for all LF outings and will do double duty as a meter using the histogram.

[D. Bryant]

There are lots of reasons to use a digicam for a meter.

Oh really? Kind of hard to use one for BTZS measurements, or thinking in terms of EV.

I have several DSLRs and ASLRs and I'll never use one for a meter; amazingly people managed without them for light meters for decades.

Not to mention the bulk and weight.

Don Bryant

[Marko]

Oh really? Kind of hard to use one for BTZS measurements, or thinking in terms of EV.

I have several DSLRs and ASLRs and I'll never use one for a meter; amazingly people managed without them for light meters for decades.

Not to mention the bulk and weight.

Don Bryant

People managed to get without electricity for even longer. Some don't use it even today. It doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be used.

How hard or easy it is depends only on one's comfort zone.

On the other hand, a DSLR or a compact can always be used instead of a polaroid or simply for documentation, since they also record, date, time and other info and most of them can take audio or even video notes.

My Canon G10 is neither bulkier nor heavier than my Seconic. I cary both with me because I want to, but in a pinch, I could use a G10 for measuring light, but I could never use a Seconic for documentation.

[D. Bryant]

People managed to get without electricity for even longer. Some don't use it even today. It doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be used.

How hard or easy it is depends only on one's comfort zone.

On the other hand, a DSLR or a compact can always be used instead of a polaroid or simply for documentation, since they also record, date, time and other info and most of them can take audio or even video notes.

My Canon G10 is neither bulkier nor heavier than my Seconic. I cary both with me because I want to, but in a pinch, I could use a G10 for measuring light, but I could never use a Seconic for documentation.

My G10 is bulkier than my Sekonic. And I know my G10 can't measure light as accurately or display the results in nearly a palpable manner as the Sekonic (or Minolta or Soligor, etc.) for setting the aperture and shutter on my VC lenses. Or for inputting data into my Palm Pilot for BTZS calculations.

AFAIC, using a camera for a light meter is like substituting a corn cob for toilet paper.

Don

[Donald Miller]

Sometimes I too like to use my hand for a hammer but it really isn't the tool for the job.

Personally, to me, using my 5DII or my 1DSIII for a light meter when shooting 5X7 is sort of demeaning to both digital photography and to film photography all in one fell swoop. At my age I try to save my energy as much as I can. My Sekonic is a much better tool and it weighs substantially less.

Donald Miller

[GPS]

I'm afraid that 1/30 s with f22 on a digital camera is not the same as 1/30 s with f22 on film. Why? Hmm - the digital is not film. Not in all its technical details. Just afraid...

[Marko]

My G10 is bulkier than my Sekonic. And I know my G10 can't measure light as accurately or display the results in nearly a palpable manner as the Sekonic (or Minolta or Soligor, etc.) for setting the aperture and shutter on my VC lenses. Or for inputting data into my Palm Pilot for BTZS calculations.

AFAIC, using a camera for a light meter is like substituting a corn cob for toilet paper.

Don

Nice word, palpable. Easily determined by touch. But how do you make electrical current palpable?

Because that's all there is to measuring light - when exposed to light, a semiconductor chip generates electrical current proportional to the intensity of light. That's what any Seconic, Minolta, Soligor, Canon or Nikon do. It's just that the Canons and Nikons also have other, more elaborate functions attached. Like saving that signal in a file.

Granted, the light metering circuits built into digital cameras are matched to their sensors and have different response curves than stand alone meters. But don't stand alone meters need to be calibrated to each film and developer combination to be accurate? What exactly would prevent one from calibrating digital camera's light meter circuit to their film and developer combination? And, once done, why would that be inherently less precise than any other light meter?

I'll agree that those snarky little soundbytes may occasionally sound witty, but I was hoping maybe we could try talking about these kinds of topics in a little bit more adult manner? Just for once, because there maybe others reading this for whom the real information as opposed to hype might be worthwhile.

FWIW, the digital camera displays measured information graphically, in the form of intensity distribution. I can hardly imagine more obvious manner of relating to real light, including the need to push or pull. And since it's often presented as three separate graphs, one for each color channel, that information could also help with filtration.

Also, I've been using Palm for so long that I even remember the model they used to call Pilot. But I've never seen one built into the light meter... ;)

[D. Bryant]

Nice word, palpable. Easily determined by touch. But how do you make electrical current palpable?

Because that's all there is to measuring light - when exposed to light, a semiconductor chip generates electrical current proportional to the intensity of light. That's what any Seconic, Minolta, Soligor, Canon or Nikon do. It's just that the Canons and Nikons also have other, more elaborate functions attached. Like saving that signal in a file.

Granted, the light metering circuits built into digital cameras are matched to their sensors and have different response curves than stand alone meters. But don't stand alone meters need to be calibrated to each film and developer combination to be accurate? What exactly would prevent one from calibrating digital camera's light meter circuit to their film and developer combination? And, once done, why would that be inherently less precise than any other light meter?

I'll agree that those snarky little soundbytes may occasionally sound witty, but I was hoping maybe we could try talking about these kinds of topics in a little bit more adult manner? Just for once, because there maybe others reading this for whom the real information as opposed to hype might be worthwhile.

FWIW, the digital camera displays measured information graphically, in the form of intensity distribution. I can hardly imagine more obvious manner of relating to real light, including the need to push or pull. And since it's often presented as three separate graphs, one for each color channel, that information could also help with filtration.

Also, I've been using Palm for so long that I even remember the model they used to call Pilot. But I've never seen one built into the light meter... ;)

Marko,

Why in the hell does anyone want to hulk around a digital camera and make believe it's a light meter when it's just so much simpler to use an instrument made specifically to measure light for film based photography?

Who gives a shit about histograms and the like when you are exposing a piece of film? All of that stuff is totally irrelevant.

Don "who is trying ever so much not to sound snarky" Bryant

[Marko]

Marko,

Why in the hell does anyone want to hulk around a digital camera and make believe it's a light meter when it's just so much simpler to use an instrument made specifically to measure light for film based photography?

Who gives a shit about histograms and the like when you are exposing a piece of film? All of that stuff is totally irrelevant.

Don "who is trying ever so much not to sound snarky" Bryant

Don,

It is all very simple, really - you feel like carrying a lightmeter and a Palm Pilot (which is quite a brick in itself), I prefer to cary a lightmeter and a digital camera. There are obviously quite a few of us who to feel like doing just that and as Ed said, there are plenty of good reasons why we do it.

What is relevant for you may not be relevant for me, or if I were to use your own words I'd say: who gives a shit whether you like it or not? That was not the question anyway.

The OP asked if it was viable and those of us who do it said it was and why. No need for big words and petty attitudes. And no need to disrupt the discussion. Since you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, nobody's going to hold it against you if you just keep quiet. Is that really too hard to do or perhaps too much to ask for?

[Bugleone]

Just wanted to point out that there is an inherent danger if you use some of the latest digicams as 'electronic poloroids' since they have an 'enhanced' screen view, or extra brightened/coloured of the shot you just took. This means a completely false impression of your settings. Many of the Canon products so this and some of them don't have any override on this 'facility'.

[GPS]

Just wanted to point out that there is an inherent danger if you use some of the latest digicams as 'electronic poloroids' since they have an 'enhanced' screen view, or extra brightened/coloured of the shot you just took. This means a completely false impression of your settings. Many of the Canon products so this and some of them don't have any override on this 'facility'.

But of course!

[Marko]

Just wanted to point out that there is an inherent danger if you use some of the latest digicams as 'electronic poloroids' since they have an 'enhanced' screen view, or extra brightened/coloured of the shot you just took. This means a completely false impression of your settings. Many of the Canon products so this and some of them don't have any override on this 'facility'.

Most of the latest serious P&S (such as G10, G11 or s90) come completely configurable. It only takes a little effort finding and adjusting those settings. Being control freaks that most LF photographers seem to be, it shouldn't be all that complicated. And for those who do find it overwhelming, there are a few "... for Dummies" books out there.

It's not like the other polaroids were a true match for the final emulsions anyway. And besides, there are no other polaroids any more. ;)

[Marko]

OK, back to topic, this time with some numbers.

1. Canon G10: 109mm x 78mm x 46mm, 350g

2. Seconic L-558R: 170mm x 90mm x 48mm, 268g

3. Palm Pilot (Personal): 119mm x 79mm x 18mm, 156g

I took a few quick measurements using Kodak Grey Card and GretagMacbeth Color Checker with both the G10 and Seconic as follows:

1. ISO: 80 (Canon's native ISO, no signal amplification)

2. Daylight

3. Metering mode: Spot

Note: Canon's central spot looks like it covers approx. twice the angle as does Seconic's spot, at Canon's maximal zoom setting (140mm equivalent in 35mm terms). It can be positioned on screen using the wheel (useful when the camera is on tripod and locked).

4. Using either shutter- or aperture-priority mode on the Canon, the measurement came to within 1/3 of a stop compared to Seconic.

Using manual mode can be both more flexible and less precise at the same time because it involves user judgement as to positioning the histogram on the screen. Expose to the right should work well with transparencies, using the maximum of the curve to position the measurement requires more experience. But whichever metering mode you use, the histogram can be very useful for quick judgment of DR of the scene, if you know how to read it.

Is it precise enough for full ZS? No, it isn't. Is it good enough for getting useable exposure in a pinch? Absolutely, even for slides. Should it be used as the main and only light meter? It depends on your willingness to experiment as well as your budget. I choose to carry both, and I find the G10 a great documentation tool, which can perform as a perfectly useable backup light meter, video camera and a still camera. If you are just starting with LF, can't afford a good spotmeter right now and happen to have a G10 or other similar digital camera, you CAN get pretty decent results from it, decent enough that you can afford to wait and save up for the real thing.

Please don't point back and say this was not a real test. It wasn't and I know that. As I said, this was just a quick little sanity check which proved (to me) what I already knew from experience. The equipment I used is the equipment I have, but I have no reason to think that a different digital camera (of the same or newer vintage) and different light meter would differ all that much.

Just my $0.02

Marko

[AFSmithphoto]

Back in the Day when I bought my first TLR for less than a good spot meter would cost me, I'd use the spot Meter from my SLR to calculate exposure. It worked FINE for Negs, and OK for slides.

Part of the problem was that when you meter with an SLR the light is passing through all the elements in the lens and getting knocked down a bit at each one. This isn't a problem for the SLR, which is metering through the lens, (Therefore metering the light falling on the film/CCD) but what if the transmission of the lens on your other camera is vastly different? (In my case the difference was quite noticable because I was metering with a cheap zoom on the SLR and shooting with a nice prime on the TLR) You can learn to compensate, but if you happen to switch lenses, you've got to determine the relative transition of that lens as well. Doesn't matter for negs really. Can screw you for Velvia.

The biggest reason I eventually broke down and bought that meter though was that an SLR is a pain to carry around if you're not shooting with it.

Long story short, if you've got the money, get a spot meter.

If you don't, a digicam will be work fine. If you're gonna shoot slides use the SAME lens on the digicam whenever you meter, and figure out if there's any difference between what you're reading with the digicam and what's hitting the film.

[domaz]

Part of the problem was that when you meter with an SLR the light is passing through all the elements in the lens and getting knocked down a bit at each one.

Err no that is not the reason. If a your SLR lens is f5.6 and your LF lens is f5.6 then they are equivalent, doesn't matter how many elements each has. Now if you put filters on your SLR and use it as a spot meter well then that's another story...

[Jack Dahlgren]

Err no that is not the reason. If a your SLR lens is f5.6 and your LF lens is f5.6 then they are equivalent, doesn't matter how many elements each has. Now if you put filters on your SLR and use it as a spot meter well then that's another story...

Well, it is, otherwise they would never have invented t-stops.
But I'd still think a digicam makes a useful lightmeter.

[Chris Strobel]

A digital camera kinda messes with the zone system doesn't it?

[Marko]

A digital camera kinda messes with the zone system doesn't it?

No, not really. If the camera comes with spot-metering, all you have to do is calibrate it to your film. Just like you would do with any other spot-meter.

See my previous post. I use a dedicated spot-meter simply because I've had it long before I bought my G10, but they are so close to each other that if I didn't have the spot-meter, I'd be able to get by without it quite fine. Digital cameras have gone a long way over the last couple of years or so, they reached a MP plateau and started going for features. Spot-metering and large, high-res LCDs are particularly useful for this purpose.

[AFSmithphoto]

Err no that is not the reason. If a your SLR lens is f5.6 and your LF lens is f5.6 then they are equivalent, doesn't matter how many elements each has. Now if you put filters on your SLR and use it as a spot meter well then that's another story...



Well, it is, otherwise they would never have invented t-stops.
But I'd still think a digicam makes a useful lightmeter.

Yes thank you Jack. f-stops are a measurement of aperture size not light transmission. It is useful for calculating EXACT depth of field and fairly accurate exposure.

The aperture is a BIG factor in light transmission, but not the only factor. Depending on the quality of your lens coatings, each element will reduce the amount of light reaching the film/sensor by as much as 10%. (20% for uncoated lenses.) Luckily, most modern lenses have excellent coatings, and its nowhere near 10%, but over several elements it can add up.

For EXACT exposure you need to be working with t-stops. (Transmission stops.) These are far more common on motion picture film cameras than on still cameras. Why? Because its very expensive to have a lens tested and marked with accurate T-stops, and if you're metering through the lens, as many still photographers do, your meter auto-compensates for any light loss. (Just like through the lens metering with a filter on.)

I've never used a motion picture camera with a useful internal meter, so you NEED T-stops.

Of coarse there's no TTL for LF, but thats my so many people recomend working out your own settings for each lens/film/meter combination you use.

I only have two LF lenses, but I know the 135 is about a 1/3 stop slower than the 90.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I think I've seen devices which do LF TTL. Not that I'd ever spend enough money to get close to one of them.

Since my brother borrowed and lost my light meter I'm metering by eye.

[Dave Jeffery]

IMHO you possible could buy a digital spotmeter with the amount of money that you may waste on film, development, time, and possibly postage costs as you try and calibrate a digital camera to the myriad of film types that you may use.

I carry around a small pocket size digital camera to play around with composures, shots of friends etc. and it has many manual settings for me to work with to potentially calibrate it to use as a meter, but given the cost of discarding poorly exposed 4x5 film, the small (somewhat) pinpoint readings from the 5 degree circle of the digital spotmeter probably provide me with more precise information than the averaged readings of a digital camera. The spotmeter is also set for the Zone System.

I can't imagine carrying a full size digital SLR package along with a 4x5 system and the small pocket cameras average light values.

I like the Pentax spotmeter the best.

[Brian Ellis]

Marko,

Why in the hell does anyone want to hulk around a digital camera and make believe it's a light meter when it's just so much simpler to use an instrument made specifically to measure light for film based photography?

Who gives a shit about histograms and the like when you are exposing a piece of film? All of that stuff is totally irrelevant.

Don "who is trying ever so much not to sound snarky" Bryant

Why do you assume that the digital camera used as a meter has to be "hulked" around? Many digital cameras that can be used as meters take up no more space and weigh no more than the Pentax spot meter plus the pocket computer I carried back in the days when I made BTZS measurements.

While I don't use a digital camera as a meter myself, a nice thing about doing so is the ability to use it as a meter and also to do things that a meter can't do such as making record shots of locations for future use, using it to see what things like running water will look like at various shutter speeds, or even making a final photograph in a situation where the 4x5 isn't practical.

I think it comes down to personal preference but a digital camera can pretty much do what a meter does and can also do a lot that a meter can't do. In fact after writing this I've about convinced myself to ditch the meter and start carrying a small digital camera around with me instead. : - )

[Marko]

IMHO you possible could buy a digital spotmeter with the amount of money that you may waste on film, development, time, and possibly postage costs as you try and calibrate a digital camera to the myriad of film types that you may use.

I carry around a small pocket size digital camera to play around with composures, shots of friends etc. and it has many manual settings for me to work with to potentially calibrate it to use as a meter, but given the cost of discarding poorly exposed 4x5 film, the small (somewhat) pinpoint readings from the 5 degree circle of the digital spotmeter probably provide me with more precise information than the averaged readings of a digital camera. The spotmeter is also set for the Zone System.

The amount of money and time you "waste" calibrating for the "myriad" of film types that you may use would be the same for any spot meter, regardless of the brand. This is an expensive hobby and if I were concerned with costs, I wouldn't be shooting film at all.

I happen to have both a recent Seconic and a Canon G10. The G10 comes with a spot measuring mode and is precise enough to match the Seconic to within 1/3 of a stop. It can do everything the Seconic can and also many things that Seconic can't - shoot pictures, movies and sound notes, record exposure data for each frame (EXIF) and act as a polaroid substitute (nice, big, decent resolution LCD). It can visually lay out an approximate dynamic range of your scene (histogram) and can even geotag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotagging) your images with a small addition (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10044460-1.html). The only reason I am keeping both is that I acquired the Seconic first and would loose money if I chose to sell it. I also happen to like my toys as much as the next guy... :)


I can't imagine carrying a full size digital SLR package along with a 4x5 system and the small pocket cameras average light values.

I like the Pentax spotmeter the best.

Just imagine carrying an 8x10 system instead - that would likely weigh more than your 4x5 and DSLR combined. Many more people cannot imagine schlepping all this gear anyway. Some people consider even a G10 to be too big and too heavy.

There is, of course, no arguing preferences. But the question of this thread was whether it was possible to use a digital camera as a light meter. Some of us may like it, some may hate it, but the answer is: yes, it is.

[D. Bryant]

Why do you assume that the digital camera used as a meter has to be "hulked" around? Many digital cameras that can be used as meters take up no more space and weigh no more than the Pentax spot meter plus the pocket computer I carried back in the days when I made BTZS measurements.

While I don't use a digital camera as a meter myself, a nice thing about doing so is the ability to use it as a meter and also to do things that a meter can't do such as making record shots of locations for future use, using it to see what things like running water will look like at various shutter speeds, or even making a final photograph in a situation where the 4x5 isn't practical.

I think it comes down to personal preference but a digital camera can pretty much do what a meter does and can also do a lot that a meter can't do. In fact after writing this I've about convinced myself to ditch the meter and start carrying a small digital camera around with me instead. : - )

The original poster mentioned using a D700, that's what I based my comment on.

And I still think using a high quality light meter suits the purpose better than a digital camera. And good light meters can be purchased used for much less than a G10 or DSLR.

I have a G10 and several other DSLRs and I assure you that they will never be used as light meters for Large Format photography. I think it is a mistake for beginning LF photographer to work like this for a number of reasons. Using a light meter allows the act of metering to be transparent and quick which is not what you are going to get trying to get digi camera readings converted lens - shutter settings.

You guys think I'm attacking digital photography, I'm not. I just think using DSLRs or P&S for metering is a screwed up way to work and one shouldn't encourage a budding LF'er to do so even if that is all they have to use at the moment. I would encourage them to purchase a light meter. After all G10s D700s aren't cheap. If they can afford those they can afford a meter. Just part of the cost of entry.

It's time for this discussion to move along because we aren't going to agree.


Don "who doesn't hate digital but tires of these snarky debates" Bryant

[Marko]

Don,

I for one do not think you are attacking digital photography. I am simply arguing your language in this argument and the way you seem to equate your preferences with what is possible. When you say that using a light meter is transparent while using a digital camera for metering is "a screwed up way to work", you are not discussing the facts, you are promoting your preferences into some sort of universal truth.

I completely agree with the notion that using dedicated spot meters is a more structured (and formal) way of doing it. And I agree that it is also easier and even that it does suit the purpose better. But that is all beside the point. Whether you (or me or anybody else) likes it or not, or whether you would use it for that purpose is absolutely irrelevant.

The question that was asked here is the one that gets repeated every once in a while: CAN a digital camera (DSLR or a P&S) be used to measure light for making exposures on film. A very simple and very direct question with an equally simple and direct answer: YES, it can.

If one already has a digital camera, then they should be perfectly useable for the purpose, at least as a stopgap measure. Spot meters don't come cheap. The price of good ones is typically comparable to the price of an advanced digital P&S such as a G10. Yes, used ones can be purchased cheaper than a NEW G10, but that's a red herring, for two reasons:

1. The main argument in all those film vs. digital "debates" was always that film equipment keeps its value well while digital loses it practically overnight. If that were indeed true, then a USED G10 should be MUCH cheaper than a ANY good quality spot meter. And if it weren't true, their prices would at least still be comparable. ;)

2. Most of the people who ask this question already own a digital camera, so it won't cost them anything to use it as a light meter, at least in the beginning. Buying a dedicated light meter, however well priced would still be a noticeable expense. A money that might be better spent burning some film and determining if the entire exercise is viable for them or not. If not, there would be one less thing to sell, no matter how good it might keep its value.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Another recent thread mentioned one of the professional hand-held light meters having a wildly non-linear response to color temperatures when reading at other than at the calibration temperature, or scenes dominated by one color.

Using a Nikon DSLR would be preferable insofar as the 1003 pixel RGB metering array is arguably the most accurate metering regime ever produced. Spot metering is also RGB and it's extremely precise on all my Nikons; I have constant-aperture lenses and routinely calculate exposures for 4x5 color transparency films with them. The D200 is what I tend to use most as it has a lower base ISO and since most of the films I use are either ISO 100 or 160. The histogram gives me a sense of whether the dynamic range of the scene fits a particular emulsion at a glance.

For color neg film, such metering precision is vastly overkill. My battery-free 1948 General Electric DKW58 selenium meter is easily good enough until 15 minutes past sunset. Guessing Sunny-16 off the box-top is usually close enough from sun-up to sun-down.

[Dave Jeffery]

"The amount of money and time you "waste" calibrating for the "myriad" of film types that you may use would be the same for any spot meter, regardless of the brand."

That's true! I stand corrected.


"I happen to have both a recent Seconic and a Canon G10. The G10 comes with a spot measuring mode and is precise enough to match the Seconic to within 1/3 of a stop."

I don't like the idea of carrying the extra weight of a full size DSLR around as the OP mentioned as I do very long hikes and weight is a big issue for me but the G10 would be good.

My Panasonic isn't as good at metering as the G10 so I still thought that the Pentax meter would be better, but based on what you say about accuracy of the spot measuring mode on the G10 I now agree with you that a G10 is probably a better way to go than a spotmeter, or a simple small digital camera like I have.


You are right Marko. I now agree with you that a G10 is an all around a better choice and I'll be buying one soon as a result.


Thanks!

[dave_whatever]

As someone who has recently used both compact digitals and a DSLR as a meter for large and medium format landscapes over a period of months I can say that using one of these camera as a meter certainly does work and is a perfectly valid option - it got me a lot of good results. However for me as soon as I got a genuine stand-alone spotmeter things got a whole load better - its just quicker, lighter, less fiddly all round, and less potential for mistakes.

One of the main technical problems is that most digitals don't cover the range of film speeds and apertures you may want to use. This means you have a few mental conversions to make, which means yet another opportunity to mess up (in adddition to forgetting to cock the shutter, not stopping the lens down, not pulling the darkside, double exposing the same sheet etc etc). For example, neither my D70 or my digital compact will work at ISO50 for velvia, so thats one thing to consider, add a stop or two of exposure to the reading. Then consider than if you're shooting with a DSLR that often the lens only stops down as far as f/22, so if you're shooting at f/32 then thats another stop of correction to add. If you've got a digital compact, your lens might not stop down further than f/8! Now clearly adding on these corrections (in addition to your reciprocity corrections) is hardly quantum physics but in the heat of battle in fading light it really is easy to trip yourself up.

Another issue is size - any DSLR setup is huge in comparison to a modern lightmeter, and heavy. Compacts are much smaller, but then you've got to deal with the delay when you turn it on, wait for the lens to extend etc etc, fiddly non-dedicated buttons, hard to use wearing gloves etc. Not to mention you've then also got to make sure you've got spare batteries and that everything is charged up. In contrast a hand-held meter may last several years running off a single AA cell.

Another consideration is the size of the spot meter on the digital. I know most people like to match their digital lens to an approximate of their 4x5 shooting lens. So say you're using a wide 90mm on your 4x5, you bring a wide zoom on your digital and set it to 26mm. But then of course your spot meter in the viewfinder covers quite a large area, so you either have to zoom in or use a long lens but lose the possibilty to check composition, or just put up with it. Again, you can workaround it OK, but for me all these minor irritants add up.

The final issue for me is the fact that you're likely to be using the digital for other shooting in the day. Unless the original poster has a spare D700 knocking around the house (don't we all) then he'll be using the D700 at other times, which brings up a couple of issues. Firstly when he steps out with the 4x5 kit he's got to remember to put that D700 in the bag, and secondly he's got to remember to cancel any exposure compensation he had set earlier, stick the spot metering on, change the aperture and shutter speeds back to f/22 and 1 sec, swap the lens from the 200m f/2 tele he was shooting wildlife with earlier in the day. Of course this is having already made sure the battery is charged or that he's got a spare in his 4x5 bag and not left in his family/travel/snapshooting bag. You see where I'm going with this....

Of course you do lose the ability to use the digital to check composition and colour temperature etc. Personally I can forego the composition thing as instead of a pokey 3" lcd screen on the digital I've got a 4x5" screen to check composition with. Its a shame that today's digital cameras can't be set to display the image upside down and reversed on the rear LCD - If anyone from Nikon or Canon are reading this I recon it'd be a real step forwards.

[Marko]

My Panasonic isn't as good at metering as the G10 so I still thought that the Pentax meter would be better, but based on what you say about accuracy of the spot measuring mode on the G10 I now agree with you that a G10 is probably a better way to go than a spotmeter, or a simple small digital camera like I have.


You are right Marko. I now agree with you that a G10 is an all around a better choice and I'll be buying one soon as a result.

Dave,

I'd like to make something very clear here: I am NOT saying that a digital camera is better than a spotmeter, all I AM saying is that an advanced digital camera CAN successfully be used for metering light, especially if you already have one.

If you are debating which way to go, DO NOT do it based on advice you get from the Internet, no matter who says it or how good it sounds - people are quick to spend other people's money and even quicker to advise others based on their own needs.

If you already have a digital camera, try it first. If you are not happy with the results you get, I think you should try out the available alternatives (i.e. find someone who has one or the other and try them out) before you spend more money on another camera. Since you already own a camera and don't like the results, you might well be better served with a light meter. You can't know it until you try it. The purpose of these discussions is to give you ideas to try, not to tell you what to do.

Marko

[Brian Ellis]

The original poster mentioned using a D700, that's what I based my comment on.

And I still think using a high quality light meter suits the purpose better than a digital camera. And good light meters can be purchased used for much less than a G10 or DSLR.

I have a G10 and several other DSLRs and I assure you that they will never be used as light meters for Large Format photography. I think it is a mistake for beginning LF photographer to work like this for a number of reasons. Using a light meter allows the act of metering to be transparent and quick which is not what you are going to get trying to get digi camera readings converted lens - shutter settings.

You guys think I'm attacking digital photography, I'm not. I just think using DSLRs or P&S for metering is a screwed up way to work and one shouldn't encourage a budding LF'er to do so even if that is all they have to use at the moment. I would encourage them to purchase a light meter. After all G10s D700s aren't cheap. If they can afford those they can afford a meter. Just part of the cost of entry.

It's time for this discussion to move along because we aren't going to agree.


Don "who doesn't hate digital but tires of these snarky debates" Bryant

Don - I didn't think you were attacking digital photography, sorry if I gave that impression. And I didn't think that this discussion was "snarky," I thought there was a lot of good information given.

You're correct that the OP talked about a specific camera but the discussion hasn't been limited to that camera.

I recognize that since digital camera lenses don't stop down below f22 and we often use smaller apertures with LF cameras a conversion sometimes has to be made. But to me it's no harder to do that than to take a spot meter reading and convert it to a desired darker or brighter exposure. As for "transparency," I don't know what could be more transparent than a histogram if you want to visualize light values.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use a digital camera instead of a light meter. As I said before, I use a light meter myself because that's what I'm used to and I see no need to change. But I do often carry a small digital camera with me for other reasons. If I didn't already have a light meter and years of experience using it I'd certainly consider just using the digital camera. And if someone like the OP asked me whether there was anything wrong with doing that I'd tell them there isn't, in fact there are good reasons (that I and others gave in earlier posts) for doing that.

[adonis_abril]

Wow, this thread has been active for a while :D Horses for Courses, I say. For some using compact DSLRs work well and for others spot-meters. I'm one to admit that modern Matrix meters and histograms do a much better job at metering subjects than I do with a hand held meter. Films I've lost due to under/over-exposure have drastically been reduced once I used my Canon 5D (also great for back-up and catching fast moving subject/light). There may be some issue with the histogram not having the same response to film, but in the field I've had consistent results using the "L" setting on the 5D to match Velvia 50, and ISO 100 with Velvia 100, YMMV. In fact, I've not under/over exposed a film in my recent trip - this may take away bracketing and such.

...Now if only they could make a manual camera that can do ISO 50 and display historgram on a Droid phone that would solve the weight issue...

[VictoriaPerelet]

Spot meter is a lame excuse and sorry approximation for a true tool of LF metering - film plane probe (aka Sinar). That tool takes care of bellow extensions, physical glass transmittance, filter factors and even angle of polarizer.

I used Sinar probe for many years. And now days in studio I use digital back that goes in to film plane to do metering and replace it by film holder when I'm happy. You know digital backs - small CCD boxes that used to cost same price as brand new luxury car?

Either DSLR or P&S are very valuable tools (especially if you use flash + your brain) that leave silly spot meter way back in 50's where it belongs. Digital camera sensors are calibrated for ISO&exposure standards at factory and stay there. Yes there's reciprocity effect that affects digital, that nobody brought here - it's similar for light meters also ...


There are couple of villages in our area where people do not use electricity, microwaves, computers, cars etc. They have their ways of living. Trying to convince them is probably not going to do any good, they are not trying to fight and convince rest of civilization also. They do not use Internet and do not post there also:)

[Chris Strobel]

Either DSLR or P&S are very valuable tools (especially if you use flash + your brain) that leave silly spot meter way back in 50's where it belongs

Lol!Yeah right

[Dave Jeffery]

Marko worte
"If you already have a digital camera, try it first. If you are not happy with the results you get, I think you should try out the available alternatives (i.e. find someone who has one or the other and try them out) before you spend more money on another camera."

How do you expect the economy to recover if we stop pissing money down the toilet on things we don't need??? You call yourself a photographer? :^)

I'm going to call mine the G10 spot.

[Marko]

How do you expect the economy to recover if we stop pissing money down the toilet on things we don't need??? You call yourself a photographer? :^)

I'm going to call mine the G10 spot.

I have to say that I find that logic a little bit... spotty, shall we say?. ;^)