Digital light meter.

[Professional]

Any light meter free-battery?

[Bob McCarthy]

Actually, meters are calibrated to 12% gray. There is an article about this here:
http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

It is mentioned in several other places as well, such as Beyond The Zone System.

Thanks, havent seen this before...

Interesting, but doesn't change the point, that a meter calibrates to a fixed standard and a digital camera does not.

Since I have my meter and development times/temps calibrated to a result (the negative I desire) I guess somewhere in there I have compensated for the 12% vs. 18%

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

What I found does work in a pinch.

set the camera to

raw
spot meter
manual control
full time histogram on a P&S
read the histogram on the back and use it as a meter

very few digital cameras allow this, the Canon G12 does

bob

[Frank Petronio]

As for accuracy, analog meters are MORE accurate than digital meters. Why would anyone choose digital?

What makes them more accurate?

[Gary Tarbert]

A couple of well-known photographer friends use a digital camera for their light meter. They are "morally opposed" to using a real meter.

The result - all of their negs are consistently underexposed. Thin shadows, ugh. It's really too bad. My opinion - use a real meter.

I did this for two weeks after my beloved meter was lost presumed stolen, I then aquired a new Sekonic , I had the opposite problem with overexposure , The other problem is my DSLR is a Nikon D3 and the last thing i need is another heavy item in my kit when i am shooting LF . Cheers Gary

[Alan Davenport]

What makes them more accurate?

A digital meter can tell you (something like) 5.1 or 5.2, but it is limited to discrete steps and cannot tell you anything about the area between those two numbers.

The needle of an analog meter interpolates the area between 5.1 and 5.2, making it arguably more accurate than its digital opponent.

[Professional]

A digital meter can tell you (something like) 5.1 or 5.2, but it is limited to discrete steps and cannot tell you anything about the area between those two numbers.

The needle of an analog meter interpolates the area between 5.1 and 5.2, making it arguably more accurate than its digital opponent.

Are all digital light meters in same class?

[Frank Petronio]

I doubt we'll ever see (or need) this more accurate meter that has a needle in which you can actually discern differences in reading of less than a tenth of a stop. That a digital readout doesn't distinguish below a tenth of a stop is likely a practical design decision than a lack of accuracy on the meter's part.

While some analog scales provide additional information to a reading, I don't recall an analog design for a light meter that ever did anything beyond simply giving us a number scale.

Most digital cameras give metering information down to a tenth of a stop, even if they set their user-adjustable increments to half- or third-stops. Most classic light meters have a wavering needle hovering over a space of 4-6mm that determines what a stop might be, it would be folly to try to determine anything closer than about a third or a quarter stop from that. Based on what is out there on the market right now, I'd expect a modern Nikon set to spot metering mode -- or the old Minolta Digital Spot Meter with it's narrower view -- to be the most accurate (and usable) of all the meters out there.

[Alan Davenport]

That a digital readout doesn't distinguish below a tenth of a stop is likely a practical design decision than a lack of accuracy on the meter's part.

Of course, you're absolutely right on this, Frank. It comes down to personal choice, as with most everything else. My first comment (intended to be over the top!) is my take on the common belief that, if something is "digital" it must be better than whatever came before.

My earliest photographic mentors were a couple of guys who both grew up -- and earned their livings -- packing 4x5 Speed Graphics and making the images that appeared in the newspapers. One of the ideas that made an indelible impression on me, was that "if your exposure is within a stop then it's close enough." That was based, of course, on the requirement to be able to make a print that satisfied the tonal and contrast requirements for a B&W halftone. And for that application, it was certainly correct. But for any application, if you're within 1/3 of a stop, you're probably OK. So obviously just about any light meter on the planet will suffice and then some.

But I stand on my original claim: you can see things with an analog display, that are invisible to any digital device. Whether we need to see those things, or should even care, I won't debate.

[Jack Dahlgren]

But I stand on my original claim: you can see things with an analog display, that are invisible to any digital device. Whether we need to see those things, or should even care, I won't debate.

This comes down to the concept of precision and accuracy. You may see the needle at a point between two marked lines and think that it is giving you a value which is between the two, but the accuracy of that measurement may not warrant making that distinction. The analog meter may have even less accuracy even though it displays it on a scale which allows an infinite number of divisions.