Digital compact that can serve as a great light meter?

[l2oBiN]

I need to purchase a new digital compact for the miss's "happy snaps". It should be of reasonably good picture quality, but also light, and compact. I am hoping to kill two birds with one stone, by getting one which also serves as a great light meter.


Any suggestions of a good model?

[bobwysiwyg]

I'm noting your wish for "compact." You might consider this one. My wife has an earlier model (only 7 meg) but it takes pretty darn good pictures, and I fool with it just as you are suggesting for your use. It is 'very' compact, easily slips into a shirt pocket or purse. ;)

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/powershot-elph-300-hs/steves-conclusion-128.html

[polyglot]

Any of them will work for that purpose, especially if it has a histogram that will allow you to understand the tonal placement for the exposure that the camera chose. I would go for one with M mode or at least exposure compensation though.

Hell, you can get a light meter application for phones now.

[Frank Petronio]

The economy models often do not display ISO, speed, aperture, or histograms in any mode. The Fuji compacts all do, and the more advanced Panasonics and Canons do as well. With the others I would check first.

I've used digital cameras as meters many times and can usually get a DSLR to give me reasonable readings. With the compacts it is harder and I wouldn't trust the histograms or preview screens very much... My hunch is that a DSLR can get you within half a stop but a compact could be 1-2 stops off.

I did have a Ricoh GR-DII that was pretty accurate and a very nice camera too, I'd trust it more than most of the other compacts.

[ROL]

A few weeks ago I left the house for a weekend of shooting with my LF and realized I'd left out my spotmeter (...again :mad: ). I had also brought along my new digi P&S (LX5 – an "advanced" P&S) and was able to use it's spot meter function, judiciously, to determine exposures for the LF BW film. It entailed a few inconvenient calculations to get it up to the LF apertures (f32 - f64) from the digi's maximum f8, as well as a few translations to find the range of zones required for contracting film development, but it worked just fine. In fact, one of my lens' shutters had inadvertently been left on a similar bright outdoor light shooting condition (i.e., I usually store my lenses wide open), confirming the calculated exposures. The developed negs. and proofs turned out as well as those using my regular meter.

I can't say whether the same is true with general reflective metering, or color films, or other digis, but I would think light metering should be equivalent within, say a stop at the most, for any other use other than monochrome zone work, for which it proved itself worthwhile (in a pinch) to me.


P.S. Do you normally double post questions on both LFPF and APUG?

[JosephBurke]

Well, this is very off-topic but I have a 5D MK II as my primary digital, but it is just too big and bulky to carry around as you would a Leica sized camera. Since I have no desire to spend megabucks to use my Leica glass on a Leica digital body I opted for a Fuji X100. Not cheap but WOW! It can give some incredibly sharp images but it does suffer a few quirks--funky focus at times and metering errors being my complaints. The 35 mm equivalent f/2 lens is perfect for me and it's intended purpose. Note that there is now a much cheaper X10 that may fit your bill as well. Note that the X100 is perfect to carry when you want a "very good" camera but don't want to draw attention your yourself. Also note that the X100 has terrific low light abilities--another big plus to me!

[Acheron Photography]

I use a Canon S90 for this, and the light meter in it is fine - rather better than the one in my Pentax 67 II in fact. It has a fully manual mode. The only issue is the max focal length is f8, so you end up scaling, but I don't find that an issue. I'm sure the current model in the same series (S100) would work just as well. Crucially the camera is compact enough to fit in a pocket.

[Tim k]

Somebody here once said that the best point and shoot was a 5d.

[John Rodriguez]

Somebody here once said that the best point and shoot was a 5d.

Since I started large format my 5d has become my point and shoot.

However, I think the best point and shoot would be a D700 (AF on the 5d stinks...and a point and shoot needs good AF).

[Rick Tardiff]

Since I started large format my 5d has become my point and shoot.

However, I think the best point and shoot would be a D700 (AF on the 5d stinks...and a point and shoot needs good AF).

A year or so since I started large format and I sold my 5d! Sat on the shelf for a year...

[cjbroadbent]

An M8 or M9. It's manual and doubles as a real camera. You can swap it for a whole LF outfit if needs be.

[mrladewig]

I would strongly recommend against this course unless you are planning to shoot some wide latitude film. I've got a Panasonic LX3 and there is no way I'd trust it as a light meter for transparency films. Its a fine camera and a nice small companion when carryig the 4X5, I don't trust its metering. While the camera may indicate ISO80,100,200,etc... there are many threads showing that it is probably not shooting at quite that ISO and its internal computer is programmed to compensate.

[r.e.]

An M8 or M9. It's manual and doubles as a real camera. You can swap it for a whole LF outfit if needs be.

Maybe a bit pricey for "happy snaps"? But when Leica comes out with an M10 that performs well at higher ISOs, that's the day that my 1955 Double Stroke M3 gets retired :)

[Matus Kalisky]

If you decide for a compact, than consider some of the "higher" end zoom models. Zoom will help you get a bit closer to spot metering, so to say. Cameras Like XZ-1, LX5, C95, or the new X10 should I be usable. However I would check their absolute ISO ratings against your light meter - those could be up to 1 stop off (usually on the slow side). And also make some tests (maybe with some 35mm camera and slide film, not to waste 4x5" film) to get the feel of it. I used my DSLR quite a bit as a light meter and it worked just fine, but "standard" lightmeters are just simpler to use, at least for me.

[Bob McCarthy]

I used to be against using a digicam as they do so much processinjg to optimize the digital file, which often it made the settings recommended useless for film.

I was wrong with making a blanket statement, my Canon G12 allows full manual mode, metering, focus, aperture/shutter and it works fine as long as you can translate what it says to film. One of the previous posters mentioned dynamic range which is much narrower with transparency films than with the G12.

In really low light, it has been my only reliable meter.

bob

[jm51]

Google "chdk"

I don't fully understand it yet but if I've got the gist correct, you can change the 'operating system' on certain Canon compact digis and then have many extra features like RAW, manual mode etc. Should make a good exposure meter.