On camera vs. Incident light metering: which is best?

[carlo_falco1]

I have a new (used) Mamiya 645. It came with a PDS prism meter and a waist level finder as well. I am new to MF photography.

 

<p>

 

My question is will I learn more about light (and take better photographs) if I use an incident light meter instead of the easy to use on-camera prism meter? My subject matter varies from white wedding cakes to landscapes, and I really don't care if one metering method is quicker or more convenient than the other: I want to improve my results at any cost to convenience.

 

<p>

 

Being new to MF, I really like the idea of using the waist level finder for composition. When I use the prism meter, it seems like just a large 35mm camera. If someone with experience would offer their thoughts, I would dearly appreciate them.

[dave_shrader]

I use both!! I use a Mamiya 645PRO with the metered prism and with a waist level finder. The prism meter is a typical 18% grey scale calibration i.e. average reflectance from average subjects. It gets fooled by very bright subjects (wedding cake) and very dark subjects (African American in black tuxedo (Groom)). So you have to know your subject and it's general reflectance to get an exposure compensation. If you can spot meter and are familiar with the Zone exposure system, the reflected meter will give excellent results.

 

<p>

 

The incident meter gives 'good' results all the time because it forces a grey scale exposure.(it ignores reflectance of subject). But I still compensate for highlights or shadows (Zone system exposure).

 

<p>

 

I would strongly suggest you go to your libraryand read on the Zone system. There was an excellent series in Shutterbug Magazine in the last year on Zone System. Once you are familiar with the exposure corrections for your film and brightness range either meter will work fine..

[mike_long]

Not to make your decision harder, but I was a die hard hand-held meter fan until I recently got a TTL prism for the PX67. My exposures were consistent with the incident meter and there is no reason to look back if you prefer it. Also, a spot attachment is very handy and there are times when only a spot reading works for me.

 

 

 

Anyway, back to the TTL prism. I am using it and finding I do so for the bulk of my metering. The "automatic" compensation for filters and extension tubes is priceless and most of the time it works for everything. When I have a lot of non mid-tone subject matter, I still pull out the incident meter.

 

 

 

I agree with the previous post - both are better than one.

 

 

 

Mike

[m._kary]

Their are certain situations that basically require reflected light meters; for example, trans-illuminated subjects, or subjects too far away for an incident reading, having different lighting from from where you are standing. An example of the latter would be a landscape covered by clouds, while you are in sunshine.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand incident meters require less fuss and bother with exposure compensation resulting from the scene not having the expected 18% grey balance. Note that exposure compensation is sometimes needed even with an incident reading, and is the reverse of that required for a reflected reading: for example, snow might require underexposure from an incident reading, but overexposure from a reflected reading.

 

<p>

 

A reflected light meter is in general more veratile because you can mimic the incident reading by metering off an 18% grey card; but in the end one can make a reflected light meter out of an incident one by removing the diffuser, with or without attaching a special attachment afterward. These are nonetheless more practical, for reducing the angle of capture. Regardless of the advantages of the reflected reading, the convenience of an incident reading for things like portaiture and still lifes is hard to beat.

[carlo_falco1]

Thank you all for your kind and very knowledgeable responses. I think I will need to add a spot meter to my collection when my checking account cools off from the Mamiya purchase. Thanks again!

[Spearhead]

This isn't specific to reflected vs incident, but to in-camera vs external metering. I find hand held metering useful for two reasons:

 

<p>

 

1) If you use several cameras, it gives you a standard basis for exposure. I find it easier to keep shutter speeds near their correct values than to do that and find some common basis for shutter speeds.

 

<p>

 

2) If you do any long exposures, there are very few in-camera meters that will help. I regularly shoot with speeds longer than 30 sec, which is pretty much the maximum for in-camera meters.

[bill_barton]

Carlo,

 

<p>

 

I use both a incident, and a one degree spot meter, it just matters on what you are shooting and what the light is like. I wind up using my Incident meter more, but there are times I kick myself when I leave the spot meter home. That's why photography is fun!

[ivan_i._singer1]

In general, I would say that a good handheld lightmeter is worth its weight in gold over any MF TTL prism. Why spend hundreds of dollars to get a TTL prism when a good digital handheld flash/incidence meter would cost you about $250? The TTL can't give you flash readings, incident readings(!), nor long exposure timings. A good digital can improve upon the capabilities of TTL by being able to "dial-in" filter settings and other EV compensations, plus give you reflected meter readings from any part of the frame. I find that if I use my meter once or twice on the key lighting ratios and ranges (my Gossen Luna Star F can give me EV ranges by scanning the entire scene and an average EV in one reading), I can use that setting for many similar exposures.

[sergio_ortega]

I own and use a spotmeter, an incident/flash meter, and several in-camera TTL meters using a variety of metering patterns. The proper use of each method of metering is too complex for this forum. Each one will give excellent results. Each method has its particularl strengths and weaknesses.

 

<p>

 

One brief question, or suggestion to meter manufacturers: Why can't they design a spotmeter-like meter with a multi-segment matrix metering pattern with a zoom lens for composing the image? any comments?