Reliable metering

[kryn_sporry1]

Guys,

 

I'm looking for a Digital Compact with reliable metering. With that

I don't mean a DC that produces shots that are always well exposed,

but I mean a camera where ISO 100 is in fact ISO 100. Many DCs tend

to use ISO settings, just for reference, but really, when compared

with a good SLR they turn out to be way off. I don't want. Reason is

that I will be using it to preview any shots I will make with Medium

and Large Format Cameras (until I mastered metering with a light

meter).

Hence I need a DC that is well calibrated, has manual, apperture and

shutter priority. It would be nice if the camera is small with a

decently large screen (1.8" or so). B&W would also be a bonus, but

is not a must.

Does anyone know what DC has these features?

[bobatkins]

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT?

[godfrey]

I've compared gray card exposure readings in several lighting setups with Sony F7x7, Oly

C8080WZ, Konica Minolta A2, Panasonic FZ10, Canon 10D and Pentax *ist DS against gray

card reflective and incident readings with a Sekonic L328 hand held meter, at the full

range of ISO settings possible on the cameras. (Spot or CW Averaging readings on the

cameras, not evaluative multi-segment metering.)

 

The variation has been approximately +/-0.3EV, which is about as close as you're going to

find in any set of meters. The only solution is to pick a camera you want to work with,

calibrate yourself to its meter's behavior, and go with it.

 

The DSLRs meters tend overall to be more accurate, as they are separate from the sensor

itself used by the other cameras for focus, light metering, etc.

 

Godfrey

[jbq]

Given that the ISO sensitivity is defined differently for B&W film, color neg films, slides, and digital, what you feel is the proper setting might not agree with the standard definition.

 

I'm not saying that cameras are always properly calibrated, just that you're looking at different scales.

[kryn_sporry1]

Hmm, if they deviate from the standard, it is no longer a standard is it? ISO stands for International Standard Organisation. In teh case of Photography, an ISO (or ASA) value will give you a light sensitivity that will always require the same amount of light to expose properly. It doesn't matter if this is B&W film, Colour slide, negative, or digital sensor. A standard is a standard. So if ISO 100 requires a shutter speed of 1/125 at an aperture of 5.6 for a certain light condition, it means that any combination of shutter speed and aperture, resulting in the same exposure as 1/125 at f5.6, will give you the correct exposure. This is regardless of the medium you are using. Film (B&W, slides, negative) and sensors get classified to a certain light sensitivity, i.e. ISO value, which will define a certain combination of shutter speeds and apertures that will always give the right exposure for that light sensitivity (ISO value). Hence film is classified as ISO 100, 200, 400, etc. This allows people to select film with a certain light sensitivity.

 

Since I read on several forums that Digital Compacts tend to deviate from the standard for their so called "ISO setting", when compared to traditional professional film SLRs, I wanted to know how large the deviation was between Digital Compact and more decently calibrated equipment (EOS 10D, 1V, 1N, Olympus OM-1N, light meters).

 

Hmm, unfortunately the cameras you mention Godfrey, are all rather high end for Digital Compact and leaning towards DSLR. I was looking more in the direction of Canon A95 or Fuji F810, something like that. If someone happened to have tested such a small compact, and can tell me about it, great!

 

I guess I can always borrow my girlfriend's F810 and check it against my 10D. If they compare, I will just buy the same camera (I worked with it before and it is actually quite nice, except for battery which runs out after a day's shooting)

 

 

PS Bob: you may consider the Rebel XT as a Digital Compact, but I think most of us still consider it a D-SLR, i.e. not Compact... If I want DSLR, I will use my 10D.

[jbq]

We're talking about 4 different standards here, not "the" standard. And we're talking about two aspects here:

 

-there's an issue of calibrating the meter. When the camera indicates ISO 100, it is supposed to pick an EV equal to the LV. There's indeed only one way to do that.

 

-there's an issue of what ISO 100 means for a digital camera (which is a different standard than the meaning of ISO 100 for different films).

 

So, it's highly possible that the requirements of more-or-less following the standard, giving consumer ISO sensitivities that they're familiar with, and getting acceptable exposures could mean that the first requirement (which is really an issue of calibrating a given meter against other meters) would take a serious hit.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Hi Kryn,

 

I think you are confused about what "digital" ISO settings do.

 

On digital cameras, ISO settings amplify the captured signal to match the behavior and metering of different film speeds. That is all. The sensors themselves are "stuck" at one and only one "ISO", and no camera manufacturer is gonna tell you what it is they have chosen for their particular implementation of their sensor chip. My Konica Minolta DiMage A1 is reported to be anywhere from 133 to 166, but the settings range are 100 to 800 (apparently in auto steps of ~1/3rd), and then with the continuously variable aperture and shutter speeds, meters exactly as any film camera would.

 

However, DEMANDING "ISO" purity is silly, as it only matter in film AND development choices. Since you ain't got no film nor chemical development, there is absolutely NO value to ISO "purity" even if you could find such a thing! Geesh!

 

Do you mean you want to SEE the difference on the LCD immediately before shutter release? Then you want an EVF camera, as no DSLR can show you that!

 

Good luck, buy something, try it, then return and tell us what hands-on experience means to you rather than all your unsubstantiated speculation so far.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Pete Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[akajohndoe]

ISO is meaningless.

 

I went with a Pentax Optio SV because it allows me to go totally manual.

[kryn_sporry1]

Pete,

It is the mimicking of the ISO speed I am concerned with ofcourse. When I set the ISO speed setting on my 10D, the metering will give the right exposure for any Apperture/shutter combination that will give a correct exposure at the ISO setting I set on my camera.

Sure you are right that sensors have different light sensitivity and that ISO values have to be manipulated using software/hardware. But most manufacturers could do this better than they do now. It is just a matter of calibration. Not that difficult with software.

 

Also, there is a reason why I seek advice from these forums: To prevent having to buy 5-10 Digital Cameras and returning them because the behaviour is not acceptable to me.

 

Furthermore, I thought my english was quite clear on why I want this: To preview an image before I use Large Format Film. In Layman english: I want to see if certain aperture/shutter combinations give a good exposure for ISO 100 (or 200 or 400, or 50, or whatever I want to use for film). If I can see if the results are over/under exposed, I know I should take a different aperture/shutter combination on the LF camera. Simple as that. Gees! Is that so difficult to understand? Guess you never work with Large Format (or Medium Format for that matter...)

[jcuknz]

The whole point about manufacturers ratings has always been that they are guides not absolutely accurate.

 

So if you get a camera which is slightly off then with the EV settings found on most cameras, even P&Ss, with 1/3 stop increments under and over, it should be possible to set the camera to match what the MF/LF cameras will do ...... without the expense of getting a DSLR :-)

[kryn_sporry1]

1/3 stop would be fine with me. It is just that I read about a G2 or G3 that was 1 stop off, which ofcourse is not acceptable. Correctable, but not acceptable

[peterblaise]

.

 

Kryn,

 

= = = = =

 

First, a few observations about Internet chat groups:

 

1 - Supposedly "simple" questions invariably get the most complex answers. Complex, well researched, well thought out questions invariably get the simplest, most direct answers. Someone has to do the work on one side of the question or the other. If the person with the original inquiry does most of the ground work before they pose their question, the resulting answers are usually much more appropriate, accurate and useful.

 

So, do more work at your end.

 

2 - It usually takes at least 3 go-rounds before there is a common understanding between asker and answerers. That's just what's needed to align our different life dictionaries.

 

So, be patient. Do not resent rephrasing your situation at least 3 times before we understand each other unambiguously.

 

= = = = =

 

On to your inquiry one more time (have you clarified your question 3 times already?)

 

Since FILM usually also requires a developing process and a printing process before you're through, you're comparing apples and oranges when asking an in-hand digital camera to forecast what your film, developing and printing process may do with the same subject scene.

 

Do you have experience with a Polaroid back and trying to make a correspondence between the Polaroid output and predicting subsequent film capture AND processing AND printing? It took a lot of trial and error, right?

 

Just like in the darkroom, you were exploring and refining a CLOSED system where YOU were the only control over the required criteria. There is no Polaroid "standard" just as there is no film exposure, development or printing "standard". All these are subjective ARTISTIC decisions based on your experience of your particular gear and your own preferences at every step. Expose for the highlights (another artist may expose for the shadows), develop for grain enhancement (another artist may develop for contrast enhancement), print for dynamic range (another artist may print for mid tone accutance), and so on. No standards.

 

Yet you ask us if any of our digital cameras, that you have never seen, will act as a useful predictor of your film's performance, which we have never seen. Uh, huh.

 

Well, Kryn, just as with Polaroid versus your film/development/printing preferences, there is NO direct correspondence between ANY DIGITAL capture, processing and display AND YOUR film capture, processing and display - regardless of ISO settings on either system! What ISO "agitation" do you use for film development? ;-) You are looking to create yet another CLOSED system FOR YOURSELF, and we cannot help you there!

 

Plus, unlike Polaroid BACKS, which use the same camera the film is going to use, with digital, you are using entirely DIFFERENT camera, metering and capture SYSTEMS upon which you plan to base your comparisons and predictions! That is why I said, "Good luck!" You will have different lenses, at cetera, so UV/IR effects on the metering and film versus digital metering and sensor and other efficiency and color differences are all NOT equivalent NOR predictable. That's why I said, "Buy one and try it, and YOU tell US!" There is no alternative since WE have NO IDEA if our digital ANYTHING corresponds to the choices YOU have made in YOUR own FILM capture, development and printing system!

 

Are you gonna fully process your digital RAW capture to inspect and tweak the capture and then print it, with proper calibrated profiles on screen and for your choice in a calibrated and profiled printer/ink/paper before returning to the scene to shoot FILM?

 

Or, are you gonna make your decision based on the little, tiny LCD on the back of some digital camera ... NOT knowing in advance the LCD's gamma / gamut, contrast ratio, brightness range, and so on? Plus you will need trial and error experience to determine and predict the LCD image's relatedness, or not, to the exposure being calculated for and captured by the separate and different responsiveness of the sensor and the internal camera software, AND for your film, development and printing choices. ANYTHING will be shown on the LCD display regardless of the actual metered capture of the sensor being different. And believe me, capture is different when finally seen and inspected on a calibrated profiled screen and calibrated profiled printer/ink/paper system than was POSSIBLE to observe on a little camera LCD.

 

Good luck! Buy one and try it and you tell us!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Pete Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Guy and GALS, maybe? Is gender important to whom you get to help you with your challenge?

[peterblaise]

.

 

Kryn wrote: "... until I mastered [?] metering with a light meter ... I want to see if certain aperture/shutter combinations give a good exposure for ISO 100 (or 200 or 400, or 50, or whatever I want to use for film). If I can see if the results are over/under exposed [on a 1.8" compact digital camera LCD], I know I should take a different aperture/shutter combination on the LF camera...."

 

Aside from learning to use a meter FIRST, try bracketing. Also with large format, you can develop each sheet to whatever you prefer, exposure wise, and hold subsequent sheets until you see what's happened on prior sheets.

 

An alternative shortcut is to have someone else do your homework for you. I subcontracted my developing and contact sheets, the "jobs" I hated the most. Worked for me!

 

What part of ANY photography book 50 years old or older are you having difficulty with? I'm reading Andreas Feininger "On Photography" 1953 at the moment, and it's RIGHT ON THE MARK for your inquiry.

 

I think you are hoping and wishing for digital to obviate your learning and mastery of the underlying craft and artistic choices in your own photography, and I just don't think digital is gonna do all that for you! Sorry!

 

Please keep us informed of your progress!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[kryn_sporry1]

Pete,

 

Yeah, you are right.

I know polaroid is what will give me the best answer (as it is made using the same camera I use for making the photo). It is just that it might be a bit expensive.

I was planning to bracket, with, say 0.5 stops.

 

As a side note, when I say guys, I obviously mean men as well as women. This is just how things are said in England: women are also referred to as guys, they use it with eachother as well...

So ladies, don't worry, I wasn't addressing my questions just to the boys :O))