Using a digital slr as a light meter????

[John Flavell]

My problem with answering this question is that I don't understand all I know about it. I use Nikon DSLRs everyday for work and have for several years. The exposure readings for digital are not the same for film.

Here's what I've noticed: The digital is not responding and recording the extreme brights the way film does. When I think exposure in graph form, there's a nice straight line as we move from the lows to the mids. Once we get to a situation where highlights are introduced there's a slght upward curve-- I have to close the lens down a few more stops than if I were using film. Maybe it's just the Nikons, I don't know. However, it's been consistant over several generations of the technology. When shooting in bright light, I tend to think of shooting chrome film.

Another thing to keep in mind: all of these pro digital cameras have adjustable viewing screens, so take that into account.

On the other hand, I may be way off. It's been known to happen.

[Wes Baker]

There are two different issues here. If you are considering the determination of exposure narrowly, i.e. what is the shutter speed and aperture combination to choose, a handhled meter or digital SLR can both be made to work. But the digital SLR has an additional benefit. Sometimes, my feeble previsualization fails to account for scene contrast and compostion errors that show up readily on the screen of my digital SLR. I've found that I do best when I use the SLR as a sort of crude preview of what to expect from the LF image. In a situation with tricky contrast, I'd still want a spot meter to ensure small details wouldn't get blown out, since the screen on my SLR is too small and dim to know exactly what will happen.

Mr. Smith; what in the world are you trying to say with the political comment?