digital camera as exposure meter

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Noons wrote:
Care to specify exactly what is that "magic
wand" "advanced technology"? Or do you expect
the rabble to just gawk in awe at the statement?
Start with reading and understanding the significance
of
"A Mathematical Theory of Communication" published in
1949 by Claude Shannon. That is the basis of
_Information Theory_, which is what has defined the
leading edge of data technology for nearly 6 decades.
And it is the theory behind imaging technology today.
The digital photography technology involved is mixed
between communications and computational.
Sorry, remind me: what has this got to do with metering?

*Everything*, when you are talking about digital cameras.

You're the only one who's feeling the need to talk about digital as a picture
taking medium. The OP wanted to know if using one as a meter was a good idea.


That's nice. Anyway, this guy is using MF film.

He has his mind open though, which doesn't appear to
be a universal trait for those in this discussion.

Pot, meet kettle. He's black.


Jolly good. So, why is a DSLR a better meter than a meter?

For all of the reasons previously stated that you didn't
want to hear about, and still don't.

You never gave one. Because it's got a computer in it? So's a meter. Because
the next generation of cameras will be as powerful as PCs? Doesn't help now.


I said it is not better because it is digital.

And that has been demonstrated as a false statement.

Oh FGS no it hasn't. Nowhere in your inane ramblings about how great high
technology is and how it's going to be a brave new world tomorrow have you
"demonstrated" (which you'll find does not mean what you think it does) that
the meter in a digital camera is better than a dedicated meter simply because
of being attached to a digital camera.

Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snipped

Floyd, you have a scary level of blind faith in high technology.
I have a *really* scary level of experience with it.

No more'n a lifetime.

Exactly.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Noons wrote:
Care to specify exactly what is that "magic
wand" "advanced technology"? Or do you expect
the rabble to just gawk in awe at the statement?
Start with reading and understanding the significance
of
"A Mathematical Theory of Communication" published in
1949 by Claude Shannon. That is the basis of
_Information Theory_, which is what has defined the
leading edge of data technology for nearly 6 decades.
And it is the theory behind imaging technology today.
The digital photography technology involved is mixed
between communications and computational.

Sorry, remind me: what has this got to do with metering?

*Everything*, when you are talking about digital cameras.

That's nice. Anyway, this guy is using MF film.

He has his mind open though, which doesn't appear to
be a universal trait for those in this discussion.

Jolly good. So, why is a DSLR a better meter than a meter?

For all of the reasons previously stated that you didn't
want to hear about, and still don't.

I said it is not better because it is digital.

And that has been demonstrated as a false statement.

So you suggest the OP gets a DSLR instead of a meter and
then compensates for the deficiencies instead of getting
a meter for half the price?

I'd suggest that you stick with very simple technology.


I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get the
job done is Always the best.

Lest I be thought a Luddite - at term badly abused in this thread - I'll
note that I wrote my first computer program for pay in 1965.

Richard Polhill wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
Noons wrote:

Total nonsense. A histogram and a "blink-on-over-exposure"
are not a result of the metering function itself!
Not only that, but the histogram is available in Many point and
shoot digitals. DSLR not needed. The guts are the same for the same
resolution.
I sometimes use a G7 as a meter for some of my vintage kit when I
haven't got a meter to hand, but the range isn't ideal as typical
"P&S" cameras do not have the range of apertures usually. Often they
stop down to F/8 or if you're lucky F/11. With such a small sensor
they have no need of F/22 or F/32.


Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Of course, if you look at the entry level kit for a DSLR, you're
probably getting a similar range of stops for the stock lens. Meaning
you need to buy yet another expensive lens. Or two. At which point
you might as well buy the best meter you can find.

For me the best meter I could find was £70 but then I already have
the T90 to use a really good multi-spot meter.

But $500 (£250) should get the top-of-the-range Sekonic which is
still a lot cheaper than a DSLR kit.


Precisely.

Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Noons wrote:
Care to specify exactly what is that "magic
wand" "advanced technology"? Or do you expect
the rabble to just gawk in awe at the statement?
Start with reading and understanding the significance
of
"A Mathematical Theory of Communication" published in
1949 by Claude Shannon. That is the basis of
_Information Theory_, which is what has defined the
leading edge of data technology for nearly 6 decades.
And it is the theory behind imaging technology today.
The digital photography technology involved is mixed
between communications and computational.
Sorry, remind me: what has this got to do with metering?
*Everything*, when you are talking about digital
cameras.

You're the only one who's feeling the need to talk about
digital as a picture taking medium. The OP wanted to
know if using one as a meter was a good idea.

Please cease making such an effort at being obstinate.

*YOU* are the idiot who claimed that digital has no
significance for anything. And we *are* talking about
digital cameras.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Lobby Dosser wrote:

I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get the
job done is Always the best.

Every fly anywhere in a airplane? You really do not
want the pilot to use the simplest technology...

Lest I be thought a Luddite - at term badly abused in this thread - I'll
note that I wrote my first computer program for pay in 1965.

But did you ever get it to work?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:
Noons wrote:
If you did "matrix" metering, it was probably
digital, even if the camera was a film camera.

I don't believe that the type of electronic circuitry in the meter is
important. "Matrix metering" is simply the combining of readings from
multiple sensors, and there is no reason why this couldn't be done
just as well with analog circuitry as digital.

The type of electronic circuitry is extremely
significant. A very rudimentary form of matrix metering
is possible without digital, but it doesn't compare at
all with a digital meter.

Have you ever owned an analog electronic calculator? I have, and can tell
you that their accuracy far exceeded what is required for photographic
metering which is typically only single-digit resolution. No need to try
to support your assertion, btw.

A typical matrix metering system using digital
technology has a lookup table to match the matrix
against various reading patterns, and adjusts according
to what it therefore perceives the scene to be. The
lookup table has thousands, or even tens of thousands,
of patterns stored.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Matrix metering, no
matter how "sophisticated", is not more accurate than proper spot
metering. In fact, matrix metering is aimed at people who don't know how
to use a spot meter. AFAIC, it's simply a lot of effort spent on coming up
with an uninformed guess of the shooter's intent.

Nobody is denying that a T90, or other film camera,
would work. Just that a digital system would be
even nicer.

Well, I disagree. I used to think the same thing as you, but after
trying it found that the meters in my Rolleis, Leicas, and Olympus
film cameras are far easier, more flexible and more accurate to use
than using my Nikon

You know, you could say you like them better,
etc. etc. and I would believe you. Saying they are more
flexible and more accurate is *clearly* little more than
pontification. The blowing of blue (Luddite?) smoke...

More accurate, because they are calibrated for film and take into
consideration the construction of the cameras they are in; easier and more
flexible because the metering options and controls are at my fingertips
while I'm shooting. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp
that you feel the need to toss out insults (that only show that you have
no valid argument, btw)?

Neil

Recently, Niccolo Machiavelli posted:

Please make up your mind Mr. Gould. The OP was looking for
recommendations on using a digital camera as a light meter for his
medium format equipment. you said, among other things, "A $600 camera
(Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense [sic]) will run circles around
any $600 light meter."

To begin with, your attributions are incorrect. I did not write any of the
above. So, the rest of your commentary is also incorrect, and has nothing
to do with what I *did* write.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:
Noons wrote:
If you did "matrix" metering, it was probably
digital, even if the camera was a film camera.

I don't believe that the type of electronic circuitry in the meter is
important. "Matrix metering" is simply the combining of readings from
multiple sensors, and there is no reason why this couldn't be done
just as well with analog circuitry as digital.

The type of electronic circuitry is extremely
significant. A very rudimentary form of matrix metering
is possible without digital, but it doesn't compare at
all with a digital meter.

Have you ever owned an analog electronic calculator? I have, and can tell

Can you tell us exactly how accurate? And how small it
was too... ;-)

(You just shot yourself in the foot with that sort of
silly comparison.)

you that their accuracy far exceeded what is required for photographic
metering which is typically only single-digit resolution. No need to try
to support your assertion, btw.

You didn't win any points with that one. *Your*
assertion is so ridiculous that it hardly merits
anything other that ridicule and laughter.

A typical matrix metering system using digital
technology has a lookup table to match the matrix
against various reading patterns, and adjusts according
to what it therefore perceives the scene to be. The
lookup table has thousands, or even tens of thousands,
of patterns stored.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Matrix metering, no
matter how "sophisticated", is not more accurate than proper spot
metering.

And nobody has suggested that it is. So one has to
wonder why you make such a statement.

In fact, matrix metering is aimed at people who don't know how
to use a spot meter. AFAIC, it's simply a lot of effort spent on coming up
with an uninformed guess of the shooter's intent.

So Noons ), who is the one that
brought up using matrix metering, is apparently misled
about what it is for? I wouldn't be surprised at that,
given his mistaken understanding of what it is...

Of course you haven't done but barely better here!

Nobody is denying that a T90, or other film camera,
would work. Just that a digital system would be
even nicer.

Well, I disagree. I used to think the same thing as you, but after
trying it found that the meters in my Rolleis, Leicas, and Olympus
film cameras are far easier, more flexible and more accurate to use
than using my Nikon

You know, you could say you like them better,
etc. etc. and I would believe you. Saying they are more
flexible and more accurate is *clearly* little more than
pontification. The blowing of blue (Luddite?) smoke...

More accurate, because they are calibrated for film and take into
consideration the construction of the cameras they are in; easier and more

That is not true in any way that makes it more accurate.

flexible because the metering options and controls are at my fingertips
while I'm shooting.

Ah, more blue smoke... That is no more, or less, true of
one camera than another. The options and controls *are* at
your fingertips with the digital camera, just the same as
with an older film SLR.

Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp
that you feel the need to toss out insults (that only show that you have
no valid argument, btw)?

If accurate characterization of what you say is
insulting to you, perhaps you shouldn't have said it to
start with! I do *not* engage in gratuitous insults and
stick religiously to discussing what you do post.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Neil Gould wrote:
snipped

Please do not feed the trolls.