If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Richard Polhill wrote: viewerofrecphoto wrote: looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram display for my film camera. preferred features: - small size - low price - accurate histogram - iso range 100-1600 - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv) - manual aperture & shutter speed - ease of use to look at histograms resolution/noise are not important. But a good (Ã,£300) meter is a lot cheaper than a digital camera and 24-200 lens. A $600 camera (Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense) will run circles around any $600 light meter. At $800 for a DSLR the OP might nearly want to simply ditch shooting with film at all, and use only the "meter"! Thereby solving all his problems, bring world peace, banish poverty, hunger and suffering. Of course. How exactly will it "run rings around" a meter? It IS a meter. And just what the **** is a "lense"? So, you had no substance to add, no discussion of any real point you might have made; but your ego insisted that you make *some* kind of a response? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Richard Polhill wrote: viewerofrecphoto wrote: looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram display for my film camera. preferred features: - small size - low price - accurate histogram - iso range 100-1600 - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv) - manual aperture & shutter speed - ease of use to look at histograms resolution/noise are not important. But a good (Ã,£300) meter is a lot cheaper than a digital camera and 24-200 lens. A $600 camera (Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense) will run circles around any $600 light meter. At $800 for a DSLR the OP might nearly want to simply ditch shooting with film at all, and use only the "meter"! Thereby solving all his problems, bring world peace, banish poverty, hunger and suffering. Of course. How exactly will it "run rings around" a meter? It IS a meter. And just what the **** is a "lense"? So, you had no substance to add, no discussion of any real point you might have made; but your ego insisted that you make *some* kind of a response? Ditto. But actually, the point I made was that if the guy wants a lightmeter for use with his MF kit, there is no reason on earth that he'd want to pay $1000-$2000 for a DSLR when a $500 meter will do the job of a meter better. Ignoring your fatuous argument that if he buys the DSLR he can then use that instead of his MF kit, I refute your claims that the DSLR can do a better job of being a meter than a meter. I challenged you to substantiate your claim that a cheap plastic DSLR will "run circles around" a $500 meter AS A METER. It is up to you whether you choose to do so. I suspect you won't but will *have* to respond anyway. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
On Aug 8, 4:58 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted: But if one actually uses a "spot" meter to determine the an appropriate exposure level for the highlights, and then confirms that the shadows are within the dynamic range of the film (or the electronic sensor with a digital camera), a "reflected meter" reading is by far more acurrate. I don't follow your thinking here. If one uses a spot meter to sample the highlight areas and the shadow areas, there is no guessing involved in the dynamic range of the scene. From there, the photographer can accurately expose for the areas of interest. I don't see how a reflected meter would be a better tool. A spot meter is a reflected meter. In fact Floyd and you are saying the same thing. He was replying to the statement (by Richard Polhill) Or alternatively, something you can't do with a camera is incident light metering, measuring the light falling on a subject rather than that reflected. by pointing out the same thing as you. Polhill, I might add,replied by calling this notion (to wit, that reflected spot readings are a more accurate means of determining exposure than incident readings) as "unmitigated bull****". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:
Richard Polhill wrote: viewerofrecphoto wrote: looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram display for my film camera. preferred features: - small size - low price - accurate histogram - iso range 100-1600 - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv) - manual aperture & shutter speed - ease of use to look at histograms resolution/noise are not important. But a good (£300) meter is a lot cheaper than a digital camera and 24-200 lens. A $600 camera (Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense) will run circles around any $600 light meter. At $800 for a DSLR the OP might nearly want to simply ditch shooting with film at all, and use only the "meter"! As this thread is being cross-posted to a medium format group, if the OP is using a MF camera such notions are not necessarily so. But if one actually uses a "spot" meter to determine the an appropriate exposure level for the highlights, and then confirms that the shadows are within the dynamic range of the film (or the electronic sensor with a digital camera), a "reflected meter" reading is by far more acurrate. I don't follow your thinking here. If one uses a spot meter to sample the highlight areas and the shadow areas, there is no guessing involved in the dynamic range of the scene. From there, the photographer can accurately expose for the areas of interest. I don't see how a reflected meter would be a better tool. That might well be just about as useful as a $600 meter. But just like a light meter, it pales by comparison to a DSLR. For the OP's task and question at hand, I think a DSLR is the wrong tool altogether. YMMV. Neil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
acl wrote:
On Aug 8, 4:58 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote: Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted: But if one actually uses a "spot" meter to determine the an appropriate exposure level for the highlights, and then confirms that the shadows are within the dynamic range of the film (or the electronic sensor with a digital camera), a "reflected meter" reading is by far more acurrate. I don't follow your thinking here. If one uses a spot meter to sample the highlight areas and the shadow areas, there is no guessing involved in the dynamic range of the scene. From there, the photographer can accurately expose for the areas of interest. I don't see how a reflected meter would be a better tool. A spot meter is a reflected meter. In fact Floyd and you are saying the same thing. He was replying to the statement (by Richard Polhill) Or alternatively, something you can't do with a camera is incident light metering, measuring the light falling on a subject rather than that reflected. by pointing out the same thing as you. Polhill, I might add,replied by calling this notion (to wit, that reflected spot readings are a more accurate means of determining exposure than incident readings) as "unmitigated bull****". I did that. Admittedly it depends on the scene, but once to remove the reflectivity of the subject from the readings you should get more accurate exposure. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Film, negative in particular, has more latitude than digital. Hence I That isn't true for current DSLRs. Agreed. A persistent myth... :-) how many stops of latitude shooting in RAW mode does a D80-class dSLR offer? Negative film offers something like 5-stops of overexposure latitude. It is next to impossible to blow highlights. Yet the dSLR's I've tried (I don't own one) seem to easily blow highlights. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Richard Polhill wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Richard Polhill wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Richard Polhill wrote: viewerofrecphoto wrote: looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram display for my film camera. preferred features: - small size - low price - accurate histogram - iso range 100-1600 - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv) - manual aperture & shutter speed - ease of use to look at histograms resolution/noise are not important. But a good (Ãf,Ã,£300) meter is a lot cheaper than a digital camera and 24-200 lens. A $600 camera (Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense) will run circles around any $600 light meter. At $800 for a DSLR the OP might nearly want to simply ditch shooting with film at all, and use only the "meter"! Thereby solving all his problems, bring world peace, banish poverty, hunger and suffering. Of course. How exactly will it "run rings around" a meter? It IS a meter. And just what the **** is a "lense"? So, you had no substance to add, no discussion of any real point you might have made; but your ego insisted that you make *some* kind of a response? Ditto. But actually, the point I made was that if the guy wants a lightmeter for use with his MF kit, there is no reason on earth that he'd want to pay $1000-$2000 for a DSLR when a $500 meter will do the job of a meter better. Ignoring your fatuous argument that if he buys the DSLR he can then use that instead of his MF kit, I refute your claims that the DSLR can do a better job of being a meter than a meter. If you can refute it, go right ahead. But so far you haven't. The ball is *still* in your court. Why not try an honest discussion of facts rather than these emotional rants you've posted twice now? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
On Aug 8, 8:39 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
A $600 camera (Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lense) will run circles around any $600 light meter. At $800 for a DSLR the OP might nearly want to simply ditch shooting with film at all, and use only the "meter"! and of course a $800dslr produces quality comparable to MF film. and of course, there is no need to buy a lens on said $800dslr, it does it all by magic. snork life is so easy, isn't it? :-) Use of an incident light meter eliminates the need to adjust the average in relation to 18% reflectance, but there is still the problem of relating the highlights to the average. But if one actually uses a "spot" meter to determine the an appropriate exposure level for the highlights, and then confirms that the shadows are within the dynamic range of the film (or the electronic sensor with a digital camera), a "reflected meter" reading is by far more acurrate. beg to disagree: it won't be by far more accurate. it will just be giving a measurement and exposure that takes into account the highlight and shadow limits of the sensor/film. the incident light meter will be measuring light accurately, but that doesn't mean it will produce the best exposure for the scene under consideration, in combination with the traits of the recording media. Just one other thought, if you still find a £300 meter too expensive, you can spend half that on a Canon T90 and lens which is one of the finest meters ever made. Hell, you can even get one with a stuck shutter for peanuts as you don't want to take photos with it. That might well be just about as useful as a $600 meter. But just like a light meter, it pales by comparison to a DSLR. disagree completely: there is nothing magically "better" about meters in dslrs compared to meters in film cameras. Absolutely nothing. In fact, if anything for someone using MF film it will be a much better choice to grab a T90 than to grab a dslr: at least the T90 meter will be calibrated for film, something the dslr will never be. and I can vouch for that: I've used MF film with a 35mm film matrix meter camera as a MF meter and the exposure is spot on. Have tried it with a dslr and it just plain won't work without special calibration. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Richard Polhill wrote:
acl wrote: On Aug 8, 4:58 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote: Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted: But if one actually uses a "spot" meter to determine the an appropriate exposure level for the highlights, and then confirms that the shadows are within the dynamic range of the film (or the electronic sensor with a digital camera), a "reflected meter" reading is by far more acurrate. I don't follow your thinking here. If one uses a spot meter to sample the highlight areas and the shadow areas, there is no guessing involved in the dynamic range of the scene. From there, the photographer can accurately expose for the areas of interest. I don't see how a reflected meter would be a better tool. A spot meter is a reflected meter. In fact Floyd and you are saying the same thing. He was replying to the statement (by Richard Polhill) Or alternatively, something you can't do with a camera is incident light metering, measuring the light falling on a subject rather than that reflected. by pointing out the same thing as you. Polhill, I might add,replied by calling this notion (to wit, that reflected spot readings are a more accurate means of determining exposure than incident readings) as "unmitigated bull****". I did that. Admittedly it depends on the scene, but once to remove the reflectivity of the subject from the readings you should get more accurate exposure. You cannot do that with an incident light meter... for reasons that were previously explained. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
digital camera as exposure meter
Mike M wrote:
Film, negative in particular, has more latitude than digital. Hence I That isn't true for current DSLRs. Agreed. A persistent myth... :-) how many stops of latitude shooting in RAW mode does a D80-class dSLR offer? The dynamic range of current DSLR's runs at about 10 or 11 fstops. Typical color negative film does not match that. Here is a web site that has far more data and information than we can plug into a Usenet thread: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html The main points a "Here are some of the issues in the Digital vs Film debate: + The question really is film versus electronic sensors. + Both are analog capture. + Electronic sensors: an analog charge gets digitized in the camera. + Film can be scanned at high resolution. + Image detail requires many megapixels. + Until recently, "digital" cameras could not meet film resolution. + Digital cameras only meet/exceed film cameras in some restricted areas. + E.g. Wildlife action photography. + Images have tonality and dynamic range. + Both film and electronic sensors are good in this regard. + Electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film (at least the better sensors do). + Electronic sensors have lower image noise. + Noise in an image has a big impact on the perception of image quality. + The size of the pixels in the electronic sensor are directly related to the signal-to-noise in the image produced by the camera. Larger pixels are better." Negative film offers something like 5-stops of overexposure latitude. It is next to impossible to blow highlights. That depends on your definition of "blow highlights". I personally think that if you get more than about 1 fstop into the non-linear region of the curve you *have* blown the highlights. The fact that there is "detail" (which is actually more noise than not) has little meaning when the detail is no longer a useful representation of the original scene. Which is another way of saying that "dynamic range" is only a useful term when it is defined within a *useful* signal-to-noise range. (Keeping in mind that if you wish to toss that requirement for film it is a two way street and the low end for an electronic sensor extends farther than does the high end for film, when SNR is not considered.) Yet the dSLR's I've tried (I don't own one) seem to easily blow highlights. And with digital it is easier to *avoid* blowing the highlights in the first place. In perspective though, *none* of the above discussion is a reason to choose film or digital either one! Both have advantages and disadvantages in certain circumstances that are much more significant, and each individual's perception of what is *fun* is more important than any technical characteristic. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Calibrarting an exposure meter of one camera from another | Seán O'Leathlóbhair | Digital Photography | 4 | May 4th 07 12:00 PM |
Exposure meter | [email protected] | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 28th 05 11:43 AM |
Weston 348 exposure meter | nestler at att.net | Other Photographic Equipment | 3 | September 5th 04 06:01 PM |
Exposure meter Sekonic L 206 | Andries van der Meulen | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 1 | February 2nd 04 08:48 PM |
Nikon F Exposure Meter | George Relles | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 7th 03 06:15 AM |