Best DSLR as lightmeter?

[kev curry]

.....Just kidding:p

[Joanna Carter]

Now Kev, don't forget I am close enough to you to "send in the lads" from the UKLFPG anti-digital police :D :p :rolleyes:

[dng88]

Not sure really would like to carry another camera. Suggest to try Pocket Light Meter on Iphone. But still not beating spot meter in low light.

[Brian Ellis]

What's the joke?

[mfratt]

I suggest getting a Canon 1D Mk IV with an 800mm f/5.6 IS. Its really big and expensive, so it must have a good light meter in it, right?

You 8x10 shooters are used to carrying around a lot of heavy gear anyway, so whats a little more?

[kev curry]

What's the joke?

Sorry Brian my mind was just full of mischief this morning when I had my wee -before work- scan around the forum!

Joanna please do...send them around asap and issue one of them with an application form for the UKLFPG. Maybe that way I'll finally be accepted into that exclusive group;)

I used to use the spot meter on my F5 when I bought my first view camera...great meter, awesome camera, but I'm glad that that nightmare's over;)

[neil poulsen]

I've actually given this some thought. :o

For one thing, the camera needs to be inexpensive. The resolution isn't important. As the image falls on the sensor, one needs a pixel size that is no larger than the smallest highlight (in the scene) about which they would be concerned.

I'm thinking that, if one could find an example with some life still in it, a Canon 10D or 20D would do the trick. I mean, who would still want one of these cameras, given the resolutions available these days? (Certainly, none of us large format folks.) (Except for metering, of course.) These were professional cameras, so one has some control over the jpg. This might be advantageous, because one would meter according to the histogram, and the histogram is based on the jpg. The idea is to meter chromes such that the histogram doesn't truncate on the right. In this way, all highlights in the chrome would have detail. For negatives, one could meter so that the histogram doesn't truncate on the left. (Or the right maybe, depending on the particular situation.)

Selecting the lens(es) isn't that obvious, either. As with the camera, resolution (sharpness) isn't that important. But, I would think that having a good hood and the ability to control flare would be important. Compactness would also be nice. If my calculations are correct, the smallest focal length on the lens needs to be a sixth (for a 10D or 20D) the smallest focal length of the LF lens used camera. (3.75 usable film width times 1.6 as the sensor's full frame lens correction.) Sigma has a 17mm-70mm that might work for a range of LF lenses between 90mm and 420mm. For smaller LF lenses, one might need to resort to two digital lenses.

I've also thought about how one could use a digital camera to determine exposure. But, this thread is about selecting the best digital camera as a meter, so I'll stick to the topic at hand.

[Ben Syverson]

What about a Micro 4/3 camera? Reliable meter, actually usable as a camera, takes up far less space and weight than a DSLR...

[Frank Petronio]

I use my Panasonic G1 for metering all the time. You have to use some common sense and experience too but it beats lugging around one of those heavy, onerous, expensive, primitive light meters.

[Rayt]

I use my Panasonic G1 for metering all the time. You have to use some common sense and experience too but it beats lugging around one of those heavy, onerous, expensive, primitive light meters.

Absolutely. I get a light meter and instant preview at the same time.

[Ari]

You mean one of these heavy, onerous, expensive, primitive light meters?
http://i54.tinypic.com/1432ubt.jpg

:)

[neil poulsen]

What about a Micro 4/3 camera? Reliable meter, actually usable as a camera, takes up far less space and weight than a DSLR...

This would be closer to the 4x5 format as well. How well does the zoom match the range of images obtained with different LF lenses? I imagine it's possible to get a histogram with this camera. That's what intrigues me, metering LF using a histogram.

[LF4Fun]

without getting into endless debate on which tool is better, my question to all of the "digital camera" meter users out there: besides filters, iso... do I need to account for bellow extension? if yes, what is your tip/guidance or better yet what are your typical steps to calculate the "exposure"?

thank you in advance.
"Noob in training"

[Jack Dahlgren]

without getting into endless debate on which tool is better, my question to all of the "digital camera" meter users out there: besides filters, iso... do I need to account for bellow extension? if yes, what is your tip/guidance or better yet what are your typical steps to calculate the "exposure"?

thank you in advance.
"Noob in training"

Light follows the inverse square law.

Exposure uses focus at infinity as the base so the bellows should be same as lens focal length. Double the extension and you add 2 stops (4x), 1.414 extension and you add 1 stop.

If the subject is more than 10 times focal length away, don't worry about it.

Now, remember that your digicam will be metering actual light hitting the sensor which is also obeying similar laws, so if the focal length is the same then you should be fine with a straight reading.

The only time you might need to worry about this is when taking close up shots.

[Marco Milazzo]

Someone, somewhere posted a message that his Nikon D40 had the most accurate exposure meter he'd ever used. Sorry, I can't remember where I saw this, but it stuck in my mind. If true, the D40 would be a good choice for a digital meter -- it's small, light and cheap.