Searching for a spot meter, on a budget.

[maxotics]

Another idea is to use a cheap, used, old, banged up DSLR with crappy long lens and practice interpreting histograms in night shooting. I would think you'd learn a lot more aobut the light using an approximately 300mm square sensor versus 10mm in a meter. It wouldn't be glamorous, but I bet it would end up much more accurate and useful than a spot-meter. If you can set up a target, then I bet throught an interpretation of noise for the camera you're using you would far surpase the accuracy of the meter. Another benefit it you would get reference images which would help you fine tune your exposures over time.

Another variation is to get one of those phone snap-on camera from Sony, etc., QX10? (they seem very cheap used now), and do that with them. You get zoom and large sensor.

[Tim Meisburger]

Just checked on eBay and Soligor spot meters are going for $30 - 50.
They work well.

I would buy them all day for $30 to $50. I didn't see any for that, except one that was broken. I have a pentax and a minolta, and had a soligor at one time, and think all three do the job. I think soligors go for $100 or so, but they are not less capable than other meter, and considerably smaller than an analog Pentax.

[Michael Graves]

I'm going to add my vote to the Soligor series. As one other member mentioned, the analog variety is very sensitive to dropping. The needle is held in place by little more than a bent pin and gravity. Get the digital. With care, it will last you for years. I still have mine and I bought it nearly 20 years ago.

[bigdog]

PM sent.

[Drew Wiley]

TTL metering not only interpolates information, but is dependent on what inside there is actually doing the reading. Of course you could get used to the metering
personality of a particular DLSR/lens combination, just like you can with TTL on an ordinary film camera, but its a bulky convoluted way of getting from point A to B. Anyone who thinks this kind of technology constitutes an advance in film metering probably doesn't understand the versatility of a real light meter. Extremely
long exposures at night require testing with specific film, regardless. I use the same spotmeter for every camera, every type of film, every situation. It doesn't
need any accessory programs. If you like that kind of e-gadgetry, fine; but it probably has more liabilities than advantages. Same reason I always found automated
exposure on film cameras to be counterproductive. You still need to think.

[tgtaylor]

I've been out with the big Pentax 67II and my new Sekonic L-758DR. I metered the scene with the in-camera metering system and then take several spot reading with the Sekonic. The average (midpoint) reading of the Sekonic agreed perfectly with the Pentax and this was also my experience with the Pentax Digital Spot Meter. My P67II will be 16 years old this August and what a marvelous camera it is!

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Sadly, my own P67 meter is still only in synch around the midtones. I don't know if anyone can recalibrate these or not, but it really doesn't matter because I never
rely on it. In fact, I prefer the slightly lighter non-metered prism. One just get used to a certain metering style, I suppose. I never goofed even a Kodachrome
exposure with an externally-coupled averaging CDS meter on my early 35mm Pentax. But spot meters are far more versatile.

[maxotics]

TTL metering not only interpolates information, but is dependent on what inside there is actually doing the reading. Of course you could get used to the metering
personality of a particular DLSR/lens combination, just like you can with TTL on an ordinary film camera, but its a bulky convoluted way of getting from point A to B. Anyone who thinks this kind of technology constitutes an advance in film metering probably doesn't understand the versatility of a real light meter. Extremely
long exposures at night require testing with specific film, regardless. I use the same spotmeter for every camera, every type of film, every situation. It doesn't
need any accessory programs. If you like that kind of e-gadgetry, fine; but it probably has more liabilities than advantages. Same reason I always found automated
exposure on film cameras to be counterproductive. You still need to think.

Just to be clear what I'm suggesting. I wouldn't use the TTL metering of a DSLR either. I'm talking about using the sensor as a meter surface. You zoom into what you want to photograph then take a photo at auto ISO. From testing you've already done, you know the EV from the ISO used. You also look at the image and come up with some visual scale of noise to EV. You're really doing the same thing that a light meter does, only you're using the visual output to come up with a reading. If one spent the time on it, would give more nuanced and accurate guidance than a light meter (which always outputs only one averaged value of something). The problem is it would be a bit bulky. It would also not be a "romantic" use of photographic equipment. However, per the OP, it could satisfy a nice budget!

[Drew Wiley]

Modern version of a Polaroid test shot.

[maxotics]

Modern version of a Polaroid test shot.

Not sure if you're being funny or poo-pooing the concept. A light meter and camera use the same materials and circuitry. The only difference is that a light meter takes a reading and provides a numerical value for the amount of light that fills up the photo-site wells. A camera created a matrix of silicon and provides a digital value for each well as a matrix (image). Each is designed to efficiently meet the needs of the user. A light meter is portable and makes it easier to take incident readings, etc., which are difficult for a camera. As you and others have posted, it can become a stable source of data between camera. To say a light meter is superior in accuracy to a digital camera, used in a creative way, is, I feel, quite debatable.

Using a digital camera as a light meter, as I suggested, is technically no different than a light meter. So it's not a Polaroid test shot because the shot, like a "reading" from a light meter, is used to determine correct exposure. It is NOT used for the image. Instead of the light meter making calculations from the images, one is using the visible noise level and ISO evaluation of the camera to come at the SAME conclusion a light meter would reach. Again, whether you point a LIGHT METER or a DIGITAL CAMERA at light, they both sense it using the same material and use the similar ADCs to make sense of it.

If one doesn't want to study digital processing, and how sensors work, then, clearly, the low-budget digital camera method of exposure is not a good idea. But to just assume light meters are better because they're labeled "light meter" is unfounded. If there are technical reasons, I'd love to hear them!