meter of choice?

[buggz]

Hello,
I have been enjoying my new to me 4x5 Sinar f2 system.
I have been shooting Fuji instant film using the meter from my Canon 5DMkII in spot mode.
It seems to work okay, I guess.
I think I would like to get a separate meter though.
I see many prefer the Pentax Spot.
However, I was thinking maybe one of the Sekonics, one that also does flash metering?
That way I could also use it w/ my 5DMkII.

[Brian C. Miller]

My two favorites: Sekonic L-408 (no longer made), and my first meter, a Pentax Spotmeter V. Yes, I started out with a spotmeter and a Pentax 6x7.

[Preston]

The Minolta Spotmeter F do what you want.

I also have used the Pentax Spotmeter V, and currently use a a Pentax Digital.

--P

[jeroldharter]

The dual spot/incident Sekonic models and a Gossen /Digiflash incident meter.

[Mark Barendt]

L358 Sekonic

[Daniel Stone]

I've chosen to use the Pentax digital spot meters. I have one in each of my kits. Prior to settling on it, I was using a Sekonic L-778. It had flash spot metering capabilities, which proved to be useful when needed. It was a terrific meter, and was extremely accurate.

Now I use the Sekonic L-358 for ambient and flash readings, and the Pentax for field work.

-Dan

[rdenney]

Probably the least expensive is the Sekonic L-488, if you can find one. I like mine a lot--better than the Minolta Spot F, simply because it's less fiddly and has a circular calculation dial which makes zone system measurements much easier. It will easily read EV in the finder, too.

I also have a Pentax Spot V, which is a lovely older meter, but it does not fulfill you requirements for metering flash. Neither does the Pentax Digital. So, you are stuck with the Minolta Spot F or the L-488 if you want a spot meter that will read flash.

Here's my comparison of the Sekonic with the Pentax and Minolta:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?79429-Selecting-a-spot-meter-Sekonic-L-488-Digi-Spot&highlight=sekonic+l-488

Rick "noting the Sekonic will also do a 21-degree average reading" Denney

[Marc B.]

It's always nice to have everything you want. Excellent 1 degree spot metering, plus flash metering, all in one device.
That often comes at a high cost though. Either a high cost of the meter itself, or a compromise of capabilities.
Used Pentax digital spot meters still often fetch $350 or more. Some offerings from Sekonic can exceed $400-$500 on the used market.
They're all excellent meters, but they can be pricey.

Some flash meters can perform limited spot metering, sometimes with spot attachments,
and maybe only down to a 5 degree spot or wider.
These are the Swiss Army knife of meters. They perform many incident/flash functions well,
but sometimes the spot capabilities are lacking.
On the other hand, the excellent Pentax V, one degree spot meter works great, but being analog, no flash metering.

So, I too, wanted it all. A one degree spot meter and flash metering. I ended up with two used meters, at a cost of about $100 each.
A Pentax V spot meter, and a digital Gossen Luna Pro. Both meters are easy to use, with the menu and function commands of the
Gossen being one of the easiest to learn compared to many other digital meters. Yes, I have the added bulk of two meters instead of one
(the Gossen fits in a shirt pocket), but I also have 2 meters to compare accuracy against each other, which is helpful when buying used gear.

I started off with the Pentax analog spot. If you tackle this the way I did, in your case, I might start with a digital flash-capable meter,
and continue using the spot metering in your 5D for the interim, until a dedicated one degree spot meter comes your way.

[Frank Petronio]

The Pentax Digital Spot is so much better than everything else for non-flash work that you should just suck it up and get one.

For Flash I have been using an older Minolta Auto-Meter IVF, it is nice and simple, runs on AAs, does second duty as a good general ambient meter. They are still made new by Kenko from the same design, albeit at new prices.

I find most meters overly-complicated and burdened by feature creep, or they are almost illegible (which leads to errors), or they just don't work as well as these two.

Digital cameras work better than many people suspect, I often use both meter and digital camera along with a bit of intuition, voodoo, and experience. Even Polaroids!

[Michael Kadillak]

Get a Sekonic that has spot and incident and learn to use the incident for the majority of your photography. Personally I find an analog incident the best. Not only is it quicker, it forces one to use their eyes and learn to see an exposure as opposed to reliance upon an instrument. It took me a long time to figure this out as being an engineer I was the ultimate geek early on with my spot meter checking and double checking my scene till it drove me nuts with results less than I expected. Since I started using my eyes instead of first reaching for my spot meter and checking it with the incident, the lights came on.

[Tony Karnezis]

It took me a long time to figure this out as being an engineer I was the ultimate geek early on with my spot meter checking and double checking my scene till it drove me nuts with results less than I expected. Since I started using my eyes instead of first reaching for my spot meter and checking it with the incident, the lights came on.

Does this mean you're not a geek anymore? :D

I have only owned Sekonic spot meters (the L408 and now the L608). As Frank said, the displays can be a bit busy for my taste (especially the 608), but that's mainly because the meters do so much more than I need. I like the simplicity of the Pentax spot meter.

Mike touches on an important point. Meter first using your head. I sometimes carry a small pocket meter (Sekonic L188) as a training exercise. Wherever I am (walking, on a bus), I guess the meter reading and then test myself to see if I'm right. That way, if I need to photograph something quickly and don't have time to meter, I'm much more likely to guess correctly. And in general shooting, I just don't need to use the meter as often as I used to.

[Adrian Pybus]

I was using the Minolta VI in spot mode and happy with it until I decided to get another spot so I didn't have to remember to move it from camera bag 1 to 2.
The Pentax digital spot is so much more accurate in measuring what you actually are pointing at. I can measure a small area with the Pentax, with the Minolta the area has to be larger to get correct results. I don't know if it's because the target circle is wrong or if it's wider than the one degree it's supposed to be.

[Leigh]

The Sekonic L-558 does everything you need. No longer made but available used.

Avoid anything with "digital" in the name. It's just an excuse to jack up the price.
(That refers to products identified as being for "digital" photography, not to having a digital display.)

- Leigh

[Frank Petronio]

An old meter-less 35mm camera is great to use as a trainer, I wouldn't do anything super critical with one but for walks and casual shooting grab an old screw-mount rangefinder and teach yourself to see the exposures. It's not that hard to do outside, there really is a finite range of normal exposures. Of course I am one of those guys who only uses one type of film for everything so that removes one variable (ISO).

Indoors it is a lot harder to judge lighting so take a pass but for most daylight you can guess intelligently - as did nearly everyone through the 1950s. Then when you use your meters you'll have some basis for judging them.

It's rather like kids using calculators to do things to the tenth decimal but not understanding the arithmetic.

[Chris Strobel]

Minolta Spot Meter F. It does flash and is easy for low iq brains like mine to figure out :D Been a happy user since 1995

[cdholden]

Sekonic L-358 and an analog Pentax spot meter

[Brian Ellis]

I owned a Minolta Spot Meter F and a Pentax digital spot meter. Since I only wanted the meter for zone system usage the various "features" of the Minolta made it unduly complicated for me. I preferred the Pentax for its simplicity. And while it does only one thing it does that very well. Since you have a digital camera I'm not sure why you'd want a flash meter.

[Frank Petronio]

Flash meters are really nice for studio work when you want to adjust your lights for evenness or to have a certain amount of difference. For instance you might want a white background two stops above grey and even across the entire field. It's hard to judge that with a DSLR but with a meter you can just pop every couple of feet and see where you're at / adjust as needed.

Anytime you want to know the numbers and ratios of the lights a flash meter is invaluable. If you're just shooting to get a working exposure then a DSLR will suffice.

The spot flash meter could be nice because you can stand at the camera position, otherwise most people are in the shot metering from the point they want to measure.

[Bill_1856]

Meter of choice? Euro-Weston.

[Frank Petronio]

I had one of those! Beautifully made and a lot of great history. Very slow to use though, definitely needed my reading glasses with that one.

[Chris Strobel]

I owned a Minolta Spot Meter F and a Pentax digital spot meter. Since I only wanted the meter for zone system usage the various "features" of the Minolta made it unduly complicated for me. I preferred the Pentax for its simplicity. And while it does only one thing it does that very well. Since you have a digital camera I'm not sure why you'd want a flash meter.

And I'm on the flip side of the coin.Had the Pentax digital spot meter and found all the little numbers on the rings confusing. The Minolta was way more intuitive for me, but I'm missing the left side of my brain :confused:

[rince]

For flash/studio work I use my sekonic l-358 for everything else it would be my Soligor Sensor-2.

[Michael Kadillak]

Does this mean you're not a geek anymore? :D

I have only owned Sekonic spot meters (the L408 and now the L608). As Frank said, the displays can be a bit busy for my taste (especially the 608), but that's mainly because the meters do so much more than I need. I like the simplicity of the Pentax spot meter.

Mike touches on an important point. Meter first using your head. I sometimes carry a small pocket meter (Sekonic L188) as a training exercise. Wherever I am (walking, on a bus), I guess the meter reading and then test myself to see if I'm right. That way, if I need to photograph something quickly and don't have time to meter, I'm much more likely to guess correctly. And in general shooting, I just don't need to use the meter as often as I used to.

Well done. I believe Tony that we we grow older and more experienced the geek in all of us diminishes somewhat. LF and ULF cameras users have a perception among the general public that the person under the dark cloth is several cuts above the auto point and shoot crowd in their choice in making images, but the proof of this is in the prints.

Back to the metering issue. I find that statistically a device that measures the intensity of the light and averages it has a higher frequency for me of producing acceptable results quicker as long as one can make the determination as to how the shadow areas should be handled. It allows "interpretation" of how a specific situation should be handled and forces the photographer to use their eyes more in the process. I find it also reduces the errors I experienced with my spot meter from flare and rapidly changing lighting conditions. Occasionally I check a sky with a spot meter just to be sure but it is becoming much more infrequent. Making exposures should be an issue of memory.

Ask someone what their base exposure is for their favorite film for a mid day normal exposure. If they have to think about it I put odds that their spot meter is a significant part of their image making process and they have places such emphasis on the center circle that they become overly reliant on it. A $25 gossen analog incident meter is all you really need.

[Doremus Scudder]

I've got three Pentax digital spot meters (but only the readout is digital :rolleyes: ). I use them for everything except flash. The few flash exposures I make are calculated the old-fashioned way using guide numbers and distance measurements. If I did more flash, then I'd get an incident/flash meter as well.

If you need flash metering, get something that will do all you need. If you don't, then I recommend the Pentax too. Maybe you need two meters? ;)

Best,

Doremus

[premortho]

:rolleyes: My God, I didn't realize how far behind the curve and uncool I am. I'm ashamed to admit that not only do I use a Weston 11, I actually like it!! For flash I use bulbs (!) and guide numbers. I use the Weston for photofloods.

[Michael Kadillak]

:rolleyes: My God, I didn't realize how far behind the curve and uncool I am. I'm ashamed to admit that not only do I use a Weston 11, I actually like it!! For flash I use bulbs (!) and guide numbers. I use the Weston for photofloods.

You are not far behind the curve at all. I actually have four spot meters that I rarely ever use. I figure with Pentax out of business for some time now they are appreciating in value. My two Spectra combi 500's are my mainstay and they do their job well.

[Atul Mohidekar]

I used an entry-level Nikon DSLR for long time but got tired of carrying its bulk and weight. I then bought Sekonic L758R which like very much.

[alexn]

I have just made the move from using my Nikon D2X on spot meter mode with a 200mm lens to a Pentax spot.. So far I have been more confident with my exposures, and more pleased with the results I have seen. What I've appreciated most is going from a 1.6kg DSLR + Lens, and horrible calculations...

I shoot ISO 50 film, my Nikon only goes to ISO 100, on top of that, I usually shoot at sunset/sunrise so for the nikon to even give me a reading I need to have it wide open at F/4 and have it at ISO 400~800.

So the calulation I used to do would be say, 4sec @ F/4 ISO 400 conveted to F/22 @ ISO 50. By the time you calculate in your head that it works out to 16 minutes, then work out the reciprocity failure, the light has changed and you need to re-meter and start again.

The Pentax digital spot has changed the way I shoot from a paniced rush to a calm contemplative workflow. Its SO simple, one button.. Point, press the button, set your shutter and fire off your shot... Simple as that...

I'll be buying a backup Pentax meter as a just incase too.

[chassis]

I use a Sekonic L-758DR and like it. It has spot and incident capability. Fairly widely available used (got mine locally on craigslist).

[buggz]

Wow, what a great place this is!
I thank everyone for your time, and the valuable information and shared experiences.
I am now leaning more towards a two meter solution.
First, the venerable, Pentax Spot.
Then later sometime, a Sekonic.
Thanks again!

[rdenney]

Ask someone what their base exposure is for their favorite film for a mid day normal exposure. If they have to think about it I put odds that their spot meter is a significant part of their image making process and they have places such emphasis on the center circle that they become overly reliant on it. A $25 gossen analog incident meter is all you really need.

Michael, that's not really fair. Most people who grew up in photography after the advent of coupled, integrated meters have a dependence on those meters. You can't blame spot meters for that.

For me, spot meters actually improved my intuition about how much luminance the film might be seeing by providing actual data instead of forcing me to learn everything the hard way through trial and error. If we are going to learn to judge light, then we have to calibrate our eyes somehow. Understanding scene luminance goes beyond Sunny 16, but even Sunny 16 will produce decent exposures in your scenario.

Your statement is like telling a musician to use their ears to tune instead of using a tuner. Most accomplished musicians I know use both. They calibrate their tuning concept in the practice room using the tuner, as part of their normal routine. That equips their ears to hear accurately. I know musicians of great experience who still include a tuner in their daily routine, even though these folks are world-class performers and are able to play beautifully in tune even with other musicians of lesser skills.

Yes, there is a an incident-meter sub-cult on this forum. But most large-format photographers who use modern equipment--no sense in precise metering if you're using a Galli shutter and depending on flare and latitude to make it work, heh--still use reflected-light meters in the field (which quite often does not mean in sunny, mid-day conditions). Any tool skillfully used will get good results, so good results alone do not prove the case. I use a spot meter and can usually meter the scene in about five or ten seconds, but I don't often spend much time on those sunny, mid-day scenes. An incident meter properly used should be placed at the subject and pointed back to the camera to measure the light falling on the subject, and that is not always convenient. So, we end up holding the meter somewhere else, where we think the light is the same. That will take longer than I spend with a spot meter.

That said, I do not use a reflected meter for flash setups. There, the subject is handy and much of what I'm trying to measure is lighting ratios. An incident meter is made for that application and there it's most effective. So, even though my Sekonic L-488 spot meter will do flash metering, I use a Sekonic incident meter for (an L-718) for studio work.

Note that with some cameras (e.g., Canon), the on-camera flash uses a low-power preflash to determine the flash exposure, and the preflash will trigger the meter and provide a false reading. This is true if using an EX flash (on a Canon) to trigger other EX speedlights. But it works fine with regular studio lights plugged into the PC socket.

Rick "who paid $125 for a used L-488--cheaper than most old Spot V's and much cheaper than Pentax Digitals and Spot F's" Denney

[rdenney]

Well done. I believe Tony that we we grow older and more experienced the geek in all of us diminishes somewhat.

One more point that I missed above: Do you think it's possible that age and experience reduce the need for concentration on technical details because the technical thought process has become built into our intuition? If so, should we recommend that people start where we end up?

Rick "who knows his base exposure for all films in mid-day sunny conditions" Denney

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, that's not really fair. Most people who grew up in photography after the advent of coupled, integrated meters have a dependence on those meters. You can't blame spot meters for that.

For me, spot meters actually improved my intuition about how much luminance the film might be seeing by providing actual data instead of forcing me to learn everything the hard way through trial and error. If we are going to learn to judge light, then we have to calibrate our eyes somehow. Understanding scene luminance goes beyond Sunny 16, but even Sunny 16 will produce decent exposures in your scenario.

Your statement is like telling a musician to use their ears to tune instead of using a tuner. Most accomplished musicians I know use both. They calibrate their tuning concept in the practice room using the tuner, as part of their normal routine. That equips their ears to hear accurately. I know musicians of great experience who still include a tuner in their daily routine, even though these folks are world-class performers and are able to play beautifully in tune even with other musicians of lesser skills.

Yes, there is a an incident-meter sub-cult on this forum. But most large-format photographers who use modern equipment--no sense in precise metering if you're using a Galli shutter and depending on flare and latitude to make it work, heh--still use reflected-light meters in the field (which quite often does not mean in sunny, mid-day conditions). Any tool skillfully used will get good results, so good results alone do not prove the case. I use a spot meter and can usually meter the scene in about five or ten seconds, but I don't often spend much time on those sunny, mid-day scenes. An incident meter properly used should be placed at the subject and pointed back to the camera to measure the light falling on the subject, and that is not always convenient. So, we end up holding the meter somewhere else, where we think the light is the same. That will take longer than I spend with a spot meter.

That said, I do not use a reflected meter for flash setups. There, the subject is handy and much of what I'm trying to measure is lighting ratios. An incident meter is made for that application and there it's most effective. So, even though my Sekonic L-488 spot meter will do flash metering, I use a Sekonic incident meter for (an L-718) for studio work.

Note that with some cameras (e.g., Canon), the on-camera flash uses a low-power preflash to determine the flash exposure, and the preflash will trigger the meter and provide a false reading. This is true if using an EX flash (on a Canon) to trigger other EX speedlights. But it works fine with regular studio lights plugged into the PC socket.

Rick "who paid $125 for a used L-488--cheaper than most old Spot V's and much cheaper than Pentax Digitals and Spot F's" Denney

You made my point Rick. Yes, tuning is an important part of the life of a musician, but you should not be pulling out the tuner on each tune of a performance. You tune only to make sure that you are where you need to be calibration wise and then your ears are your intuitive guide. In photography unless you learn to use your eyes and come full circle to the print you will never gain the intuitive component necessary to acquire your masters degree in photography. Furthermore, the ability to modify your exposure based upon your eye is only possible when one becomes accomplished in the various qualities of the light that can be present in the field.

If you want to make an image with rapidly changing or falling light conditions you better have your ducks in a row and not be overly "dependent" upon your spot because you do not have the time to waste. You may have to make a split second decision and go with it. This is where experience and attention to focusing on the result pays dividends.

[Vaughn]

...Ask someone what their base exposure is for their favorite film for a mid day normal exposure...

Why be normal?! My mid-day exposures are usually not at all normal! ;) I'd be totally lost as to what to reply...I'd probably mumble something about the sunny 16 rule.

Vaughn

PS...I am overly dependent on my tripod, too...:o

[rdenney]

If you want to make an image with rapidly changing or falling light conditions you better have your ducks in a row and not be overly "dependent" upon your spot because you do not have the time to waste. You may have to make a split second decision and go with it. This is where experience and attention to focusing on the result pays dividends.

Yes, but you were using this homily as a justification for a large-format beginner not buying a spot meter in the first place, not for experienced spot-meter users learning to wean themselves away from dependence on it. There is a difference.

Rick "not expecting beginners to start at the end of my road" Denney

[BrianShaw]

I think I understand Michael. The best and worst investment I ever made in LF was a spot meter. I get much more ifnormation (and control, I suppose) but the images generally aren't any better than when I used a general-coverage reflected light meter or incident meter. For a beginner the last thing I would suggest is fiddling with spot readings.

[Brian Ellis]

I think I understand Michael. The best and worst investment I ever made in LF was a spot meter. I get much more ifnormation (and control, I suppose) but the images generally aren't any better than when I used a general-coverage reflected light meter or incident meter. For a beginner the last thing I would suggest is fiddling with spot readings.

"Fiddling with spot readings?" You mean metering the darkest important shadow and brightest important highlight (two readings) are beyond the capabilities of a beginner? If so he or she is going to be in real trouble with large format photography because pointing a meter at two areas of the scene is about as simple as it gets.

[BrianShaw]

You mean metering the darkest important shadow and brightest important highlight are beyond the capabilities of a beginner?

Not beyond the capability, but time-consuming, thought provoking, and potentially distracting.

[rdenney]

I think I understand Michael. The best and worst investment I ever made in LF was a spot meter. I get much more ifnormation (and control, I suppose) but the images generally aren't any better than when I used a general-coverage reflected light meter or incident meter. For a beginner the last thing I would suggest is fiddling with spot readings.

Yes, I get that. But this fellow is not a beginning photographer, he's a beginner with large format. Perhaps he has no experience metering at all, but that wasn't my impression.

I certainly didn't have a spot meter when I started with large format. But I just as certainly didn't nail my exposures, either. And I often left parts of the image outside the dynamic range of the film. "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." (Blame Poor Richard for that bit of wisdom, not me.)

With digital cameras, we can see the dynamic range of the film on the histogram display. I use that all the time to check exposures, especially with scenes that have a wide subject luminance range. It's a way to make sure I didn't accidentally clip highlights, or push important shadow texture into unresolvable mud. It also helps me to understand what is possible and impossible about the scene before me, which is certainly part of how we calibrate our ability to see. Most of us can look at many scenes and know that we just won't be able to fit them onto film, or what tricks we might employ to make them do so, but we had to learn that somehow.

But with film we don't have that histogram, or that ability to see the dynamic range of the film. We can see it on a spot meter dial, and we can sample parts of the scene to make sure it fits. Sure, I look at many scenes today and know that they won't fit just by looking. But there were two ways to attain that skill: Burn up a mountain of film learning it the hard way, or learning to collect just a bit of data.

Adams used what amounts to a variation on Sunny 16 to determine the exposure of Moonrise over Hernandez, NM. He also had to intensify the foreground using chromium intensifier and also struggled to make prints of it that he liked. Maybe he'd have missed the shot had he found his meter, but maybe he'd have given the exposure another stop which would have made later life a bit easier. I don't think it was lack of experience or an excessive dependence on the meter in his case. It is widely reported that he was able to predict the meter readings based on what he saw, but he still collected the data when there was time to do so. He knew the rules before breaking them. Sure, conditions can change fast and being able to see the light really helps roll with the changes.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with Mike, I'm just wondering if we want to recommend depriving a beginning large-format photographer of developing what has been for many decades a standard skill.

Brian, when you say "the best and the worst", I interpret that to mean that 1.) you value what you have learned using it, and 2.) now, having learned that, would prefer not to spend as much time messing with it. For me, I was less likely (and "likely" is related to consistency) to hang an important portion of the scene outside the film's range when I learned to use a spot meter. I still use the meter, and occasionally still catch myself from underexposing a shadow here and there. I could certainly be far more extreme in my reliance on it, but then I've heard some descriptions of the use of incident meters that are pretty darned technical, too.

Rick "trying to answer the OP's question" Denney

[rdenney]

Not beyond the capability, but time-consuming, thought provoking, and potentially distracting.

The way to avoid distraction is to learn something well enough that it no longer consumes the part of the brain that one needs to remain undistracted. Ignoring it just postpones the distraction to later, when a negative becomes difficult to print.

Rick "the challenge of LF is to fulfill the requirements for meticulous quality control while remaining undistracted" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Brian, when you say "the best and the worst", I interpret that to mean that 1.) you value what you have learned using it, and 2.) now, having learned that, would prefer not to spend as much time messing with it.

... and 3.) I could have used the money more wisely.

I bought a Sekonic L-558 and get more use out of the flash metering capability than any other capability the meter offers. Had I known what I know now I would have just bought a (much) less expensive flash meter and continued using my existing Luna Pro and Westons.

[BrianShaw]

Rick "trying to answer the OP's question" Denney

Me too. The point is... the OP should get a spot meter if that suits his purpose. There is no "absolute requirement" to spot meter to get decent LF photos.

[Michael Kadillak]

Yes, but you were using this homily as a justification for a large-format beginner not buying a spot meter in the first place, not for experienced spot-meter users learning to wean themselves away from dependence on it. There is a difference.

Rick "not expecting beginners to start at the end of my road" Denney

I was taking several things into consideration when I made my suggestion to start with an incident meter. I find that keeping costs as low as possible are a natural prerequisite for the beginning photographer. Learning to get excellent results from a $20 analog incident meter as opposed to a $250 spot meter is a natural incentive when the savings can be used on a quality optic with a modern shutter. I wish I had learned this early on as opposed to learning it later in my photographic experience. The overall objective here is to produce the best prints possible and however one gets to that final result is the challenge. In retrospect in my early years I found that I was hooked on the spot meter like it was a divine entity that allowed me passage to the perfect exposure kingdom. Then I looked objectivity at the results I was obtaining and realized to my dismay that just like the digital watch I was wearing at the time that the answer cannot be any more accurate than the least accurate input. And the inputs in the process are all friggin over the board. Just time your shutters and look at the net accuracy and the statistical repeatability. How about filter factors with your film, your f stop accuracy etc etc. Then think of silver printers that resolve a slight exposure defect with grabbing a step up or down printing filter. I am just throwing some ideas out there for folks to consider in the bigger scheme of things for the sake of the thought process nothing more. I just want everyone to get optimal results so they keep buying sheet film. My motivation is very one dimensional.

[rdenney]

Me too. The point is... the OP should get a spot meter if that suits his purpose. There is no "absolute requirement" to spot meter to get decent LF photos.

I do agree with this point of view, though the OP expressed a desire to go beyond the metering he can do with his small camera. It seemed to me, as with others, that the next step might be what is certainly a basic feature of LF craft--a spot meter. But it is certainly possible to use any general-purpose meter to good effect. I perhaps misunderstood Mike, but I thought he was making a different point--that spot meters were actually counter-productive.

On the price of meters, I've owned a bunch. Probably the best price/performance ratio was my first hand-held meter, a Vivitar Model 43. Definitely not a spot meter! But it does pretty much the same thing as the meter in the OP's camera.

The only meter I bought that was a sort-of "do-all" meter like the current (and really expensive) high-end Sekonics was the L-718, an older high-end Sekonic. And that meter demonstrates the lowest price/performance ratio of any meter I've owned. But when one needs a good incident flash meter for studio use, it won't be cheap if they move beyond an old Wein or similar (I used a Wein in the studio in college--it worked).

There is a lot that can be learned from an old analog meter like the Model 43 or a Spot V, and most of it has little to do with being a spot meter or an averaging meter. I eventually replaced the 43 with a Luna Pro, but hardly got any decent use out of it before I learned to use a spot meter (a Spot V) and decided I could go just as fast with it, and with greater purpose. But I doubt that I would have appreciated the spot meter without having learned what the 43 and the Luna Pro taught me. And it would take any three of my other meters to add up to the stupid price I paid for that L-718.

Rick "most of whose photography earnings came from meterless cameras" Denney

[BrianShaw]

... though the OP expressed a desire to go beyond the metering he can do with his small camera. It seemed to me, as with others, that the next step might be what is certainly a basic feature of LF craft--a spot meter. But it is certainly possible to use any general-purpose meter to good effect.

Rick, as seems to often happen you have a better ability than do I for mind reading. All OP said is that he was thinking about a separate meter. I didn't read any questiona bout extending capability, etc. I suppose an equally good anser to t eh OPs question is, "Why... if the metering method you currently use is good enough... why?"

[rdenney]

I was taking several things into consideration when I made my suggestion to start with an incident meter. I find that keeping costs as low as possible are a natural prerequisite for the beginning photographer. Learning to get excellent results from a $20 analog incident meter as opposed to a $250 spot meter is a natural incentive when the savings can be used on a quality optic with a modern shutter.

Fair enough. We've now argued the meanings to the point where the OP can make an informed decision.

Of course, spot meters don't have to cost $250, and incident meters aren't always (or even often) $20. Probably the cheapest meters on the used market are old general-purpose reflected-light meters like the Vivitar I mentioned above. I certainly agree that spending too much on a meter with too little understanding of how it will be used will lead to regret later on. I too have made that mistake.

Rick "who has owned three spot meters, the most expensive of which cost $180 used" Denney

[BrianShaw]

I perhaps misunderstood Mike, but I thought he was making a different point--that spot meters were actually counter-productive.

I don't know if that was Michael's point or not. I would say that in some cases, and in the hands of some individuals, spot meters are indeed counterproductive. For completeness sake... the opposite is also true. Furthermore, this can be a transitory situation-- being counterproductive with a spot meter can change as experience is gained.

[rdenney]

Rick, as seems to often happen you have a better ability than do I for mind reading. All OP said is that he was thinking about a separate meter. I didn't read any questiona bout extending capability, etc. I suppose an equally good anser to t eh OPs question is, "Why... if the metering method you currently use is good enough... why?"

To which the answer might be, "why not?" The OP specifically mentioned a Pentax spot meter, and then asked about a far more expensive Sekonic that does both spot metering and flash metering. I actually gave him an option that was, for me at least, considerably cheaper than either.

I didn't try to read his mind at all. I just answered the question. I only responded to Mike when he seemed to be making a larger point, but we've covered that well enough not to create confusion.

Rick "arguments are down the hall" Denney

[Scott Walker]

I started with and still use a Pentax Spotmeter V with a home made zone scale glued to it. I don't ever use flash so that eliminates the need for that option in a meter.
I started using Light Meter Pro on my iPhone for my RB67 for the more spontaneous/street type shots because It seemed to be a bit more people friendly than pointing the spot meter.

Use what is best suited for your needs.

[BrianShaw]

Uncle

[rdenney]

I don't know if that was Michael's point or not. I would say that in some cases, and in the hands of some individuals, spot meters are indeed counterproductive. For completeness sake... the opposite is also true. Furthermore, this can be a transitory situation-- being counterproductive with a spot meter can change as experience is gained.

I agree. No need for "uncle"--this wasn't a fight. The purpose of debating topics is so that later readers can see all sides of a discussion argued by people who believe their point of view. Nothing is served by undefended assertions delivered "nicely".

Rick "buying you an Internet beer" Denney

[Vaughn]

Photographing in the redwoods I will often start my exposure, then take meter readings. When the exposure is going to be minutes long, one might as well get them started. The other side of the exposure issue is that I will set the 8x10 up, meter, then have to wait 10 to 30 minutes until the light moves or the wind to stop blowing.

A meter is just a tool, as is a camera. And dang -- sometime the camera itself can get in the way of seeing.

[photobymike]

And the winner is ? i would say the Pentax spot V is... i use a Sekonic 778 1 and 3 degree spot flash meter. I also use a Minolta Auto Meter Professional ... Mostly i use my eye common sense and my experience. I just use the meter to confirm what my eye and brain is telling me. Flash is a little more tricky.

[Frank Petronio]

Of course the ultimate cheap meter is a $50 Nikon N80 body set on spot with a cheap plastic zoom lens. Used with a little common sense, a modern Nikon body with a full range of metering modes is a lot more intelligent than most photographers with their fancy meters ;-p Or to put it another way, if I needed someone to meter for me, I'd trust the silly Nikon over most photographers' judgement!

(Saying stuff like that elsewhere gets people upset, haha)

[urs0polar]

FWIW, I have a Sekonic 758-DR, and for flash it's pretty awesome, as it comes with the pocket wizard radio built in, so I can save a pocket wizard I guess. When I got my P2, I got the Minolta IVF to work with the Sinar Probe for TTL metering -- talk about having your meter readings take a while... I forget to set the thing to f/5.6 for the first ten minutes every time I set it up for TTL, among other settings I always forget. So, it's now dedicated to TTL so I don't have to dig out the manual every time to set it up correctly for the probe.

I bought the Minolta used; it wasn't that expensive. And, it is much more responsive and seems to make more sense than the Sekonic 758-DR. With the Sekonic though, if you are nerdy enough, you can set it up to memorize readings and calculate your zone stuff for you; pretty nice. I've never used it though, but I did see a pretty cool video about it on youtube. Most of the bells and whistles on these things are pretty useless however.

I have way less experience than everyone else who is posting; but that's my 2 cents. It's definitely worth it to move from a DSLR to an actual meter IMO -- I was pleasantly surprised.

[buggz]

I've been wondering about trying to go this route.
Though it seems very expen$ive.
What exactly would I need for this?
- metering back, currently my f2 does not have one of these, just a standard back
- Sinar Metering Booster Probe
- Minolta IVF meter
Anything else?



When I got my P2, I got the Minolta IVF to work with the Sinar Probe for TTL metering.

[Brian Ellis]

Not beyond the capability, but time-consuming, thought provoking, and potentially distracting.

Well I'll admit that deciding which area is the darkest important shadow and which is the brightest important highlight does cause one to think a little about what one is photographing and what one wants the photograph to look like. But I've always thought that was a good thing.

[BrianShaw]

Well I'll admit that deciding which area is the darkest important shadow and which is the brightest important highlight does cause one to think a little about what one is photographing and what one wants the photograph to look like. But I've always thought that was a good thing.

It is a good thing, Brian. It is only bad if it takes too long an done misses the shot. Or if one is either anal or insecure and feels the need to measure 25 dark areas and average the results. Or if one makes a mistake and measures the wrong dark area. ;)

[urs0polar]

I've been wondering about trying to go this route.
Though it seems very expen$ive.
What exactly would I need for this?
- metering back, currently my f2 does not have one of these, just a standard back
- Sinar Metering Booster Probe
- Minolta IVF meter
Anything else?

Nope, nothing else; you are correct. Metering back + probe + meter.

The metering back is pretty important as it has a hole and baffle the right size for the probe to fit through, and the hole is mounted in a swivel thing with a lock, so you can place the cell at any point on the ground glass, lock it there, and take a reading (TTL flash metering works too!). It is slow but works really well, and you don't feel weird about messing up the exposure (and wasting expensive film) as it doesn't get better than TTL at any point in the frame. People on the forum warned me about the time it takes, and they were right, but for 8x10 and a P2, it's pretty much a given that I'm not out trying to capture action or whatever. I'm glad I got it; it appeals to The Inner Nerd.

The metering back is crazy heavy (mine's the 8x10 P2 one), so if you get a metering back, you'll have the best of both worlds and can travel with the lighter one when you want. Some of the metering backs are supposed to have a bracket you can mount the meter to, but either I don't have all of the attachment, or it only works for the Sinar meter, or whatever. I end up hanging the meter off of it's lanyard looped over (what I think is) the bracket.

[buggz]

How slow is this slow? Several minutes?
*8^)



Nope, nothing else; you are correct. Metering back + probe + meter.
It is slow but works really well, People on the forum warned me about the time it takes,

[Leigh]

- metering back, currently my f2 does not have one of these, just a standard back
- Sinar Metering Booster Probe
- Minolta IVF meter
May I suggest that you reconsider this option?

The metering probe is very expensive and hard to find.
I looked for one for over a year before deciding this was not a good idea.

Both of my F2's (4x5 and 8x10) have metering backs.
The front (rough surface) of both GGs have scratches from the probe. The cameras are otherwise pristine/virtually new.

I replaced the MB on my 4x5 with a non-metering back because I didn't want the added useless bulk and weight.

If you intend to get any cameras that need metering other than F2's, the MB arrangement is a waste of money,
and if you got it you would have an option only usable on the F2.

You could buy four good hand-held meters for what the upgrade would cost.


- Leigh

[urs0polar]

How slow is this slow? Several minutes?
*8^)

Well, if you get good at it I would imagine you could get fast at it. It's like a spot meter, so you take a reading for your shadows, one for your highlights, another somewhere else for good measure... but you have to lock/unlock the lever, move it around, then take your reading. Holding a spot meter to your eye and taking 2 or 3 readings would be much quicker definitely. That last 10% of quality always costs ten times as much I suppose...

[Leigh]

urs0polar...

Perhaps you could answer a question. My info is based solely on published instructions; I've never used the MB system.

It's my understanding that you cannot see through the probe, so you must center it on a spot
that was visible on the GG before you moved the probe into position.

Is this correct?

Is there a cross or concentric circles on the back of the probe to aid in that centering function?

TIA

- Leigh

[urs0polar]

May I suggest that you reconsider this option?

The metering probe is very expensive and hard to find.
I looked for one for over a year before deciding this was not a good idea.

Both of my F2's (4x5 and 8x10) have metering backs.
The front (rough surface) of both GGs have scratches from the probe. The cameras are otherwise pristine/virtually new.

I replaced the MB on my 4x5 with a non-metering back because I didn't want the added useless bulk and weight.

If you intend to get any cameras that need metering other than F2's, the MB arrangement is a waste of money,
and if you got it you would have an option only usable on the F2.

You could buy four good hand-held meters for what the upgrade would cost.

- Leigh

I'll have to check if mine is scratched; It does float a little above the ground glass, but it's awful close and I could see it potentially rubbing. I found my probe from a member of this forum; it was around the cost of a nice used meter... and then I had to buy another nice used meter (the Minolta IVF) to go with it :)

And, yeah, you don't need it, certainly; there is probably no discernable difference from a spot/whatever meter in the end result if both are used properly. But, I'm one of those stubborn types who have to see it for themselves, so here I am. Now that I have it, there is a certain satisfaction in the accuracy of the setup, and the fact that you have to do no translation: just read off the shutter speed and go.

One more thing: I believe the Sinar metering backs take the Sinar metering bellows instead of the normal bellows. So, one need to factor in a bellows upgrade as well. I already had a metering back so was able to avoid that cost.

[Leigh]

One more thing: I believe the Sinar metering backs take the Sinar metering bellows instead of the normal bellows.
That's true of the 8x10 cameras.
The frame for the MB is slightly larger than for the earlier non-MB, so a different bellows is required.

The 4x5 MB uses the same standard as the non-MB, so bellows are the same. I changed backs on my 4x5 F2.

- Leigh

[urs0polar]

urs0polar...

Perhaps you could answer a question. My info is based solely on published instructions; I've never used the MB system.

It's my understanding that you cannot see through the probe, so you must center it on a spot
that was visible on the GG before you moved the probe into position.

Is there a cross or concentric circles on the back of the probe to aid in that centering function?

Is this correct?

TIA

- Leigh

Hi Leigh,

How it works is that the cell itself is a tiny square, about 1/10 inch per side. When the cell is retracted via a slider operated from the end of the probe, the casing has a little square cutout exactly where the cell is when it is extended. So, you can see on the ground glass exactly what you will be metering once you engage the slider and slide the cell into place. The probe itself is 1/2 inch wide or so, so of course you can see the stuff around the probe too. One of the reasons it takes longer is because you sometimes have to move the probe back and forth out of the way to make sure you are metering the correct tiny square of your image, though with practice this is not really a big deal.

So, to answer your question, yes you can see through the probe -- you see an area of the image that matches the exact little square that is going to be metered.

I hope my explanation made sense

-Urs0polar

[urs0polar]

That's true of the 8x10 cameras.
The frame for the MB is slightly larger than for the earlier non-MB, so a different bellows is required.

The 4x5 MB uses the same standard as the non-MB, so bellows are the same. I changed backs on my 4x5 F2.

- Leigh

Yeah that makes sense as I only have an 8x10 back so only researched those options. That's good to know about the 4x5; I'm always on the lookout for a 4x5 back for my setup; it's nice that I wouldn't need a special bellows. Thanks!

[Leigh]

OK. Responding to two posts in one...

Thanks for the info on the probe. I was not aware that the sensor moved. That makes sense.

Re the 4x5 back for the 8x10...
You will need a new standard, bellows, and MB for the 4x5 format. The 4x5 MB will not fit the 8x10 standard.

- Leigh

[Frank Petronio]

The Sinar metering backs are bulkier and serve no purpose other than to allow the metering probe, which very few people want to use. So it is likely you could trade your (preferable) "normal" back with someone who would like to get rid of their metering back.

The original intent Sinar had was to make it easier for studio photographers to control their lighting ratios and range. If you are photographing found light (nature) instead of creating your own set-ups in a studio, the metering back may be more of an encumbrance than a benefit.

[urs0polar]

OK. Responding to two posts in one...

Thanks for the info on the probe. I was not aware that the sensor moved. That makes sense.

Re the 4x5 back for the 8x10...
You will need a new standard, bellows, and MB for the 4x5 format. The 4x5 MB will not fit the 8x10 standard.

- Leigh

You're welcome! As for the backs, lol it figures; why would they make it easy?

That's actually really good to know. I picked up a Linhof Kardan GT 4x5 for a great price a year or two ago, so I was using that for 4x5. I was going to sell it and just get a metering back for the P2 and make some money back and have a smaller footprint in the closet. Oh well.

Thanks for saving me yet another camera headache!

[Leigh]

You're welcome. :D

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

OK so the metering backs and probes idea is more a novelty than a useful tool. I get it.

But it must be profoundly satisfying to be able to claim you have flare 100% under control and nobody could say you were wrong.

[Cor]

Steering back to the use of a spot meter, here is my single euro cent:

I use a Minolta M spotmeter (I believe it is equal to the F without the flash).

I usually only measure the part of the scene were I want good detailed shadows, and call it Zone III. Take the reading, open up 2 stops from there and expose.

Process for a standard time (almost never deviate for N+1 or N-1 since I do not usually measure luminance ranges anyway).

Conservative guess: 90-95 % of my negatives print technically wise fine.

A ps,

When I am out shooting with my LF friends, my measurements deviate considerably (1/2-1 1/2) stop from theisr, nevertheless as a whole we all produce printable negatives..but perhaps that is a different story.

I guess my point is that you can make it as complicated as you like (and I do enjoy reading about it!) but it does not have to be..

Best,

Cor

[Brian Ellis]

It is a good thing, Brian. It is only bad if it takes too long an done misses the shot. Or if one is either anal or insecure and feels the need to measure 25 dark areas and average the results. Or if one makes a mistake and measures the wrong dark area. ;)

Basically you're saying they're "bad" if the person doesn't know how to use them. Which is true but something that could be said about any photography equipment. And I'd suggest that anyone so ignorant about the correct way to use a spot meter that they measure 25 different dark areas and average the results has no chance of making a decent photograph, with or without a spot meter or any other meter.

[rdenney]

The original intent Sinar had was to make it easier for studio photographers to control their lighting ratios and range. If you are photographing found light (nature) instead of creating your own set-ups in a studio, the metering back may be more of an encumbrance than a benefit.

Yes. We should remember that many of the Sinar features were intended to achieve two goals: 1.) absolute repeatability for studio setups that might have to be re-erected and still achieve identical results to previous setups, and 2.) complete functioning of the camera from behind the camera.

The first was required for commercial work in the studio, particularly for product photography. Photographers were usually required to produce chromes with accurate color, and by accurate I mean the manufacturer paid some advertising firm to find just the right color for its psychological effect and then licensed that exact color from Pantone or whomever so that they could produce that color exactly the same way every time. Product photographs with colors slightly off were just not acceptable, especially if the product was photographed in two sessions where the setup might be taken down in the interim. And transparency film is picky in this regard, especially given there is no post-processing to correct any color casts. Many of Sinar's features were designed for studio product photographers to handle such requirements efficiently.

The second was sort of a dream, near as I can tell, of Herr Koch. Most of us can live without it in practice, though I do know some folks (and some on this forum) who value it highly.

The Sinar system is cool, but some of its features have never tempted me. I like the shutter because it allows me to use unshuttered lenses, not because it (when coupled with DB-mounted lenses) gives me control over aperture and shutter speed from behind the camera. The metering back is interesting in theory, but do we really want that meter clamped to the side of the rear standard when we are unpacking, setting up, making 1 (one) photo, tearing down, repacking, rolling to the next stop, unpacking, setting up, making another photo, and on and on?

Rick "who, like Leigh, considered this for a while and then rejected the notion as impractical for field work" Denney

[rdenney]

OK so the metering backs and probes idea is more a novelty than a useful tool. I get it.

But it must be profoundly satisfying to be able to claim you have flare 100% under control and nobody could say you were wrong.

A previous point Mike made is actually quite relevant here: Everything in the chain of operation is subject to various inaccuracies. It seems to me that flare is just one more thing. I guess I sort-of built it into my zone scale. But it is also my experience that lenses sufficiently flarey to cause a noticable change in shadow luminance might obscure the detail in those shadows with flare artifacts.

Rick "whose accidental overexposures usually turn out better" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Basically you're saying they're "bad" if the person doesn't know how to use them. Which is true but something that could be said about any photography equipment. And I'd suggest that anyone so ignorant about the correct way to use a spot meter that they measure 25 different dark areas and average the results has no chance of making a decent photograph, with or without a spot meter or any other meter.

I'm not saying anyone or any metering technique is "bad". I'm saying that there are different ways to meter, and of the different ways some are more effective than others. I should have used the word "ineffective" instead of "bad".

[cowanw]

Nobody has mentioned a Gossen Starlite. Which would do everything you want>

"I think I would like to get a separate meter though.
I see many prefer the Pentax Spot.
However, I was thinking maybe one of the Sekonics, one that also does flash metering?"

[urs0polar]

Yes. We should remember that many of the Sinar features were intended to achieve two goals: 1.) absolute repeatability for studio setups that might have to be re-erected and still achieve identical results to previous setups, and 2.) complete functioning of the camera from behind the camera.

That's cool; I didn't know the thing about the pantones, but it makes sense. The probe isn't a color meter though (is it?) -- but obviously it would help with getting the exact exposure again.


Rick "who, like Leigh, considered this for a while and then rejected the notion as impractical for field work" Denney

Dang, I can feel the resale value of my probe dropping like a rock :)


Rick "whose accidental overexposures usually turn out better" Denney

So, the one time I used this probe setup outside (on my roof), I was up there with JohnNYC from this forum and his 8lb 8x10 (My P2 8x10 setup weighs about 22 lbs without lens), undergoing some evening/sunset photography what-have-you. He took about 15 shots after spot metering like twice throughout. I was still connecting the probe, building the P2 from its requisite pieces out of my pelican case (15 lbs by itself, and the wheels don't help with stairs), and the light had fallen quite a bit. Given that the light was fast disappearing, I did what a lot of people probably do in that situation ... I metered (with the probe, naturally) what looked like zone 5-ish on the side of a building (I couldn't see my old favorite, the sidewalk, from that angle, and my arm isn't long enough to get in front of the bellows and lens for a palm-reading) and went for it. I later developed the shot in the bathroom, and I think I took too long filling the jobo (that fall off the uniroller didn't help either) because the sky is a little uneven.

Urs0 "But I felt like a badass all the same" Polar

[rdenney]

If you carried all that stuff up onto your roof, you are a badass!

Rick "who feels badass enough with a 4x5 F2, let alone an 8x10 P" Denney

[buggz]

Wow, those are expen$ive.


Nobody has mentioned a Gossen Starlite. Which would do everything you want>

"I think I would like to get a separate meter though.
I see many prefer the Pentax Spot.
However, I was thinking maybe one of the Sekonics, one that also does flash metering?"

[aporodagon]

The iteration of this probe for any camera is the Sinar Booster 1. It has a lightweight cassette that takes the position of the film holder, into which the probe is inserted. These things are best suited for the studio. Advantages of using the probe are automatic bellows compensation, on axis metering (hand metering requires readings from the side of the camera which could be less accurate), reading through filters,and spot flash metering which will prove accurate even if your aperture scale is off.

[Helen Bach]

One option with the Sinar Booster is to use it with the Sekonic L508 rather than the Minolta IV or V - these meters have a compatible accessory cell system. The L508 gives you the possibility of spot metering albeit without a viewfinder readout. You can also use the Minolta Booster II to give a very sensitive system (Sekonic/Minolta combination shown in picture - it can read quite accurately down to at least EV -8 at ISO 100, as shown). The later Sekonic spot/incident meters (558, 758) have viewfinder readout but no accessory socket. They also added independent spot/incident calibration, which the 508 does not have.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5603458-lg.jpg

Best,
Helen

[DKirk]

Perhaps a little late in the day to add, but atleast for ambient and flash I'd recommend the Minolta V flashmeter. Quite straight forward to use, and runs on a common as muck AA battery that seems to last ages - I've had the meter for five or six years, and it was last August I had to replace the battery for the first time.

That said, I've just spent £320 on the Sekonic 758D, as I begin to use 5x4 more often outdoors, I notice I need the use of a spotmeter. Only real reason I went with a new one was there was about £50-60 difference in price for a second hand older model that only had a 12 month warranty. Being in the UK, the sale of goods and services act covers a new item pretty much like an extended warranty.