why not meter with a DSLR?

[Frank_E]

ok another metering question from me

since I don't have a working spot meter (I do have a regular Digisix meter)
and am debating whether I should buy a spotmeter or get my broken one repaired (as indicated in my other posting)
I am wondering whether Ken Rockwell's approach would work for me.

this is what he wrote on his site:

"As of October 2004 I no longer use my Pentax Spotmeter. Instead I look at the LCD screen of my Nikon D70 and copy that exposure for use with my film camera, presuming the LCD image looks as I want it. This is better than any meter; it shows me the effects of lighting and color temperatures and simulates my chromes on a light table."

I have a 4x5 field camera (Nagaoka) and my interest is landscapes and other exterior scenic shots.

any opinions on this?

[Ron Marshall]

It's obviously comes down to what metering method is suitable to you.

I use a spotmeter and the zone system, quick, simple, very consistent.

I could make almost any meter or technique work for me; but I want simple and consistent.

The only way to find out is to get out there and shoot: develop the negs; if you get what you want, consistently, then it is a suitable method for you. If not, move on to something else.

[Bruce Watson]

any opinions on this?

You asked.

1) Weight. Just about any light meter you can come up with will be a fraction of the weight of a DSLR. If you're going to carry it all on your back a ways, this isn't a trivial consideration.

2) Control. With a spot meter you can control what the meter is actually reading. Mostly. With a DSLR you are at the mercy of the manufacturers firmware. And if you want to meter just the shadow under the rock on the other side of the stream, better have that long lens for the DSLR with you. And that leads back to #1.

Those are two of my opinions. But there's no reason for you to share them. IOW, do what you want. As they say: "There are many paths to the waterfall." Pick your path and have fun on the way.

[Drew Wiley]

Why not? Guess if you've got one with you anyway and are used to the way its reads,
it would be fine. But why a DLSR and not just any old internally-metered 35mm? With
any of these you've got extraneous things going on. I find it so much more predictable
to use a spotmeter, which is consistent with every application and every camera. And
a lot less to go wrong, both mechanically and electrically. And for the extra weight,
I'd much rather have another lens along for the 8X10 rather than a superfluous gadget.

[BrianShaw]

Why not?

Yes, why not? It will likely get you a better result than guessing your exposure.

[Daniel_Buck]

2) Control. With a spot meter you can control what the meter is actually reading. Mostly. With a DSLR you are at the mercy of the manufacturers firmware. And if you want to meter just the shadow under the rock on the other side of the stream, better have that long lens for the DSLR with you.

my DSLR has a spot meter, as well as several other metering types. Control is all there That said, I like just using my pentax spot meter, even when I do bring my digital along when shooting with the LF cameras.

[r.e.]

Real men use a Pentax Spotmeter and the Zone System.

On the other hand...

You could use your digital camera to test exposure and, if you want, to test your composition. For the latter, put a lens on your DSLR that approximates the lens on your 4x5 and bring along a netbook or notebook computer so that you can see the image at a decent size.

Since you're new, you may not know that large format photographers used to use Polaroid sheet film to test exposure and composition. Polaroid is gone (although apparently Fuji is making some 4x5 instant film available in North America), but there's no reason why you can't use your digital camera to do the same thing, and I can assure you that you won't be the only one doing it. Just might save you a lot of time and money, especially at the beginning. I don't care what anybody says, looking at an image upside down and reversed takes some getting used to.

Myself, I use a fancy Sekonic meter, but I also use a Nikon D70s (probably obsolete by now) to try out various compositions, etc., both in advance of a shoot and during a shoot. It's a useful tool, even if real men follow Ansel's commandments

[Mark Stahlke]

I gave up using a DSLR as a meter because my little brain couldn't handle all the arithmetic. My DSLR's ISO setting went down to 200, the lens stopped down to f/22 and there I am shooting ISO 50 film at f/45. I screwed up too many exposures by adding when I should have subtracted. Or maybe I was subtracting when I should have added. I still haven't figured it out. Today I just use a simple spot meter and life is good.

Cheers,
Mark

[Frank Petronio]

Of course you can use your dlsr. Or heck, I bought a $50 Nikon N80 35mm film camera that has a more sophisticated spot/general/matrix meter than any handheld meter. And I'll say that a Nikon matrix meter-based exposure will be better than most anal-retentive spot meter wielding fauxtographers could manage ;-)

The key is being consistent and objectively evaluating your results... Film and digital are going to record a scene differently, placing tones in different places. But not that much, just like different brands and types of film will do the same.

[r.e.]

Mark, when people used Polaroid to test exposure and composition, they had to do the arithmetic too.

For me, it is obvious to test exposure and composition before you commit to film if you have the resources and time to do it. There's no reason why a DSLR can't be used for this purpose. Yes, you don't have a sheet of instant film in the exact film plane, but you can approximate.

I also agree with Frank that a camera meter is just fine, although not pleased to hear that my N80 is now worth the grand sum of $50 I got my fancy Sekonic mainly because I use incident metering a lot, which the cameras don't offer. Now if people want to talk about what's easy, let's have a chat about incident vs. reflective