Well, it is, otherwise they would never have invented t-stops.Originally Posted by domaz
But I'd still think a digicam makes a useful lightmeter.
Well, it is, otherwise they would never have invented t-stops.
But I'd still think a digicam makes a useful lightmeter.
A digital camera kinda messes with the zone system doesn't it?
No, not really. If the camera comes with spot-metering, all you have to do is calibrate it to your film. Just like you would do with any other spot-meter.
See my previous post. I use a dedicated spot-meter simply because I've had it long before I bought my G10, but they are so close to each other that if I didn't have the spot-meter, I'd be able to get by without it quite fine. Digital cameras have gone a long way over the last couple of years or so, they reached a MP plateau and started going for features. Spot-metering and large, high-res LCDs are particularly useful for this purpose.
Yes thank you Jack. f-stops are a measurement of aperture size not light transmission. It is useful for calculating EXACT depth of field and fairly accurate exposure.
The aperture is a BIG factor in light transmission, but not the only factor. Depending on the quality of your lens coatings, each element will reduce the amount of light reaching the film/sensor by as much as 10%. (20% for uncoated lenses.) Luckily, most modern lenses have excellent coatings, and its nowhere near 10%, but over several elements it can add up.
For EXACT exposure you need to be working with t-stops. (Transmission stops.) These are far more common on motion picture film cameras than on still cameras. Why? Because its very expensive to have a lens tested and marked with accurate T-stops, and if you're metering through the lens, as many still photographers do, your meter auto-compensates for any light loss. (Just like through the lens metering with a filter on.)
I've never used a motion picture camera with a useful internal meter, so you NEED T-stops.
Of coarse there's no TTL for LF, but thats my so many people recomend working out your own settings for each lens/film/meter combination you use.
I only have two LF lenses, but I know the 135 is about a 1/3 stop slower than the 90.
I think I've seen devices which do LF TTL. Not that I'd ever spend enough money to get close to one of them.
Since my brother borrowed and lost my light meter I'm metering by eye.
IMHO you possible could buy a digital spotmeter with the amount of money that you may waste on film, development, time, and possibly postage costs as you try and calibrate a digital camera to the myriad of film types that you may use.
I carry around a small pocket size digital camera to play around with composures, shots of friends etc. and it has many manual settings for me to work with to potentially calibrate it to use as a meter, but given the cost of discarding poorly exposed 4x5 film, the small (somewhat) pinpoint readings from the 5 degree circle of the digital spotmeter probably provide me with more precise information than the averaged readings of a digital camera. The spotmeter is also set for the Zone System.
I can't imagine carrying a full size digital SLR package along with a 4x5 system and the small pocket cameras average light values.
I like the Pentax spotmeter the best.
Why do you assume that the digital camera used as a meter has to be "hulked" around? Many digital cameras that can be used as meters take up no more space and weigh no more than the Pentax spot meter plus the pocket computer I carried back in the days when I made BTZS measurements.
While I don't use a digital camera as a meter myself, a nice thing about doing so is the ability to use it as a meter and also to do things that a meter can't do such as making record shots of locations for future use, using it to see what things like running water will look like at various shutter speeds, or even making a final photograph in a situation where the 4x5 isn't practical.
I think it comes down to personal preference but a digital camera can pretty much do what a meter does and can also do a lot that a meter can't do. In fact after writing this I've about convinced myself to ditch the meter and start carrying a small digital camera around with me instead. : - )
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
The amount of money and time you "waste" calibrating for the "myriad" of film types that you may use would be the same for any spot meter, regardless of the brand. This is an expensive hobby and if I were concerned with costs, I wouldn't be shooting film at all.
I happen to have both a recent Seconic and a Canon G10. The G10 comes with a spot measuring mode and is precise enough to match the Seconic to within 1/3 of a stop. It can do everything the Seconic can and also many things that Seconic can't - shoot pictures, movies and sound notes, record exposure data for each frame (EXIF) and act as a polaroid substitute (nice, big, decent resolution LCD). It can visually lay out an approximate dynamic range of your scene (histogram) and can even geotag your images with a small addition. The only reason I am keeping both is that I acquired the Seconic first and would loose money if I chose to sell it. I also happen to like my toys as much as the next guy...
Just imagine carrying an 8x10 system instead - that would likely weigh more than your 4x5 and DSLR combined. Many more people cannot imagine schlepping all this gear anyway. Some people consider even a G10 to be too big and too heavy.
There is, of course, no arguing preferences. But the question of this thread was whether it was possible to use a digital camera as a light meter. Some of us may like it, some may hate it, but the answer is: yes, it is.
Last edited by Marko; 5-Dec-2009 at 10:53.
The original poster mentioned using a D700, that's what I based my comment on.
And I still think using a high quality light meter suits the purpose better than a digital camera. And good light meters can be purchased used for much less than a G10 or DSLR.
I have a G10 and several other DSLRs and I assure you that they will never be used as light meters for Large Format photography. I think it is a mistake for beginning LF photographer to work like this for a number of reasons. Using a light meter allows the act of metering to be transparent and quick which is not what you are going to get trying to get digi camera readings converted lens - shutter settings.
You guys think I'm attacking digital photography, I'm not. I just think using DSLRs or P&S for metering is a screwed up way to work and one shouldn't encourage a budding LF'er to do so even if that is all they have to use at the moment. I would encourage them to purchase a light meter. After all G10s D700s aren't cheap. If they can afford those they can afford a meter. Just part of the cost of entry.
It's time for this discussion to move along because we aren't going to agree.
Don "who doesn't hate digital but tires of these snarky debates" Bryant
Don,
I for one do not think you are attacking digital photography. I am simply arguing your language in this argument and the way you seem to equate your preferences with what is possible. When you say that using a light meter is transparent while using a digital camera for metering is "a screwed up way to work", you are not discussing the facts, you are promoting your preferences into some sort of universal truth.
I completely agree with the notion that using dedicated spot meters is a more structured (and formal) way of doing it. And I agree that it is also easier and even that it does suit the purpose better. But that is all beside the point. Whether you (or me or anybody else) likes it or not, or whether you would use it for that purpose is absolutely irrelevant.
The question that was asked here is the one that gets repeated every once in a while: CAN a digital camera (DSLR or a P&S) be used to measure light for making exposures on film. A very simple and very direct question with an equally simple and direct answer: YES, it can.
If one already has a digital camera, then they should be perfectly useable for the purpose, at least as a stopgap measure. Spot meters don't come cheap. The price of good ones is typically comparable to the price of an advanced digital P&S such as a G10. Yes, used ones can be purchased cheaper than a NEW G10, but that's a red herring, for two reasons:
1. The main argument in all those film vs. digital "debates" was always that film equipment keeps its value well while digital loses it practically overnight. If that were indeed true, then a USED G10 should be MUCH cheaper than a ANY good quality spot meter. And if it weren't true, their prices would at least still be comparable.
2. Most of the people who ask this question already own a digital camera, so it won't cost them anything to use it as a light meter, at least in the beginning. Buying a dedicated light meter, however well priced would still be a noticeable expense. A money that might be better spent burning some film and determining if the entire exercise is viable for them or not. If not, there would be one less thing to sell, no matter how good it might keep its value.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks