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...
Printable View
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...
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
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?
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. ;)
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
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.