I don't have a light meter, or maybe I have 5

[marc_rochkind]

I haven't used or owned a light meter for about 30 years (when I got my Canon

AE-1 SLR), but with a Mamiya RB67 arriving next week, it will be time to start

again.

 

Should I actually buy a meter?

 

I'm thinking that my Nikon D200 should work fine as a meter for the RB67. Is

that what others do? Am I missing something?

 

I also have a (film) Nikon N70 that I haven't used in several years... maybe it

can take on new life as a meter for the RB67?

 

It seems to me that two advantages of an SLR over a dedicated meter, at least

like the one I used to have, are that you can aim it and that it can act as a

spot meter. Won't work as an incident meter, but I'm shooting landscapes, not

people.

 

Thoughts?

[hakon_soreide]

A digital camera will work great as a light meter since you also have the image to look at to evaluate the exposure in addition to the metering itself. Also, it can be nice to bring along for other shots than will suit the RB67.<p>

Of course, if you work with long exposures, you will have to calculate for reciprocity law failure since the digital capture is linear and won't show the effects of that on the film in your RB67, but if you've used a light meter before, you know all about that already.<p>

Good luck with your new camera =)

[marc_rochkind]

It didn't even occur to me that I could use the digital image as a preview... the equivalent to a Polaroid back on a view camera, I guess.

 

Doesn't that destroy the mystique of medium format? ;-)

[nick_wilson2]

Lots of people use an incident meter for landscape! I know I do. There must be many threads on this 'debate' on Photo.net. Some strict spot meter Calvinists might tell you they are essential, but this is not so. However, there is nothing wrong with spot metering either...just more than one way to skin the (exposure) cat.

 

An advantage of hand-held meters over the metering of another camera is they are smaller and lighter (or can be). And often easier as they are one handed operation, rather than two. Much easier to transfer setting and then slip the meter back into a pack etc. And you can get spot metering ones.

 

That said, a separate camera should work!

 

Good light meters can be cheap (eg 2nd hand Gossens) to expensive (top of the range current Sekonic). Plenty to choose from.

 

PS I for one am a bit skeptical of the 'digital polaroid' thing for landscape - perhaps it is better to learn assess the picture in the viewfinder and become comfortable with light metering. It is a bit different for complex artificial lighting set ups etc, though.

[david_henderson]

I don't ever use incident meters for landscapes unless I get really bored when waiting for light/clouds and then I might fiddle about with my Sekonic to while away some time. There's no reason why your dslr won't make a perfectly acceptable meter for your MF camera- provided of course that you've tested that following the advice of the dslr gives you acceptable exposures on your MF camera/film choice. This testing is very important if you use slide film in particular. A major advantage of theis route is to use the sophisticated and complex "matrix" or similar metering that MF camera meters and hand-helds don't offer.

 

But you might want to think about the following. An RB 67 is heavy. Are you sure you'll always want to carry a DSLR as well? A good hand-held meter will generally offer a much smaller spot than a cameras spotmeter, giving more accurate measures os smaller bright and dark areas. This is important with slide film, less so with neg. And think about your own workflow with a MF camera. Mine- created by umpteen years of using slide film is to appraise the broad exposure requirements of a scene using a spotmeter before I get any camera out of the bag or putting the bag down. I can do that easily with a relatively small hand-held.

 

So really this is more of an ergonomic preference issue than a performance issue once you've tested, though I might want to be careful about using a DSLR image on a screen as a forecast of what the RB67 image might look like- not least because the dynamic range of you film meium and DSLR sensor could well be different.

[hakon_soreide]

There is of course one more thing that is important. Listed ISO sensitivities on digital cameras might not always be the exact same as the actual ISO, so a bit of testing, or comparisons with other cameras and/or light meters might be an idea. <p>

Perhaps the best way to get a feel for how your digital camera meters compared to your choice of film on the RB67 is to shoot the scene with both cameras at the same settings and keep the digital file too for reference when you've had your film developed. That way, you will soon know exactly where your exposures should be to get the effect you want.

[john_elder1]

Unless you are trying to get in shape lifting weights get a handheld light meter. The Sekonic 308 has incident, reflective and flash mode, small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and accurate for less than 180 new at B+H.

[frank.schifano]

"There is of course one more thing that is important. Listed ISO sensitivities on digital cameras might not always be the exact same as the actual ISO, so a bit of testing, or comparisons with other cameras and/or light meters might be an idea."

 

Now that, and the fact that carrying around a DSLR in addition to the RB67 is incredibly inconvenient at best, is most sensible thing I've read on this thread so far. Fact is that digital sensors and film are two completely different capture media. I've often seen it happen that, when applying recommended exposure settings from my Sekonic L508 to a DSLR, the results are often sub-optimal. Yet those same settings work extremely well with transparency film. Whatever you choose, you'll need to calibrate the measuring device with the image capture device.

[michaelchristensen]

Yes, you should buy a hand-held meter. An RB/RZ67 is a big camera to be juggling with another camera in hand .. and quite honestly, I think it looks a little silly to dangle another camera around your neck and adjusting the RZ .. I can just hear them clanking together.

 

I know we all have read about using our digital cameras as a light meter and sure it works but remember something important and that is your camera meter is behind a lens that is different in focal lenght and light gathering capabilities of the lens you have on your digital camera -- while reading may be close, I'm not so sure they will be as precise as a hand held meter...

 

Listen, a simple small hand held meter is very inexpensive and if you read a lot of posts in the RZ/RB forum .. the hand held meter is preferred by many over the dedicated 2-pound meter that you can attach to the RB/RZ .. and well, a separate camera is about 1-2 lbs too ..

 

You will enjoy your RZ much more with a simple $100-150 meter which gives you greater freedom and flexibility to work your images without having all that digital junk around your neck.

 

check out the Gossen Digital F .. really much easier to use than changing settings on a digital camera to get a light reading .. but I know some of us enjoy the pain too .. so just consider this and what works better for you.

[lukasz_grabun]

<p>Do you shoot slides or negatives? If the latter, then lightmeter is a must; if the former then you can easily live with <a href="http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm">The Ultimate Exposure Computer</a>.</p>

[colin_elliott]

Lukasz,

 

I think you have this backwards.

 

With the "limited" exposure latitude of slide film, a lightmeter is much more of a neccesity than with the generally wider tolerances of negative film

[jean-louis llech]

If you think that a 15.8x23.6mm sensor is equivalent to a 56x68.4mm negative, use your DSLR.<br>

Of course don't forget to adapt the ISO sensitivity of your Nikon to the film you use in the RB67. If you use a 50 or 25 ISO film, just recalculate the metering results obtained with the D200 which stops to 100 ISO. That's easy to do.<br>

Don't forget too to use lenses with an equivalent focal length on both cameras, or convert the aperture/speed obtained through the Nikon lens on your Mamiya's lens focal length, angle of view....<br>

Don't forget to carry the D200 in your bag with the RB67. With a lens, it weights only 1kg or 1.2kg. Better to carry it that another RB67 lens.<p>

 

Or simply learn to measure light by yourself and buy a hand-held meter.

[User_503771]

Okay, my two cents' worth:

 

Get a nice analog spot meter like the Soligor. I think they're still around. In fact, sometimes I see them come up on eBay under some other name (which escapes me at the moment). (The Pentax is good too but I've never used one so I can't say.) I say analog because I like the needle in the viewfinder better than the digital read-out on my Sekonic.

 

It's light weight, sensitive, and exact, and fun to play with. And they're not very expensive these days. Slap a Zone System strip on it and you've got it made.

[david_henderson]

Just one further comment. From an image quality perspective I'd much rather use a DSLR meter - after appropriate testing as indicated above- than any of the cheaper wide-angle reflected light meters where you don't have a clear view of where they're taking readings from. These are difficult to use and will require much bracketing.

 

A hand-held spot meter or combination spot/incident meter such as the Sekonics 508/608/558 are a different proposition entirely, and thats the level at which the benefits of a hand held meter become for me worthwhile since it gives ergonomic advantages and facilitate the best quality exposures. A cheaper wide-angle reflected meter is likely to result in more difficult exposure than a DSLR meter.

[jean-louis llech]

Too many people believe that using a 35mm or DSLR camera as a metering cell exonerate them from learning the basic knowledge of light measurement.<br>

If you use a spotmeter or even a simple hand-meter you will understand the basics of film exposure, and you will know how to deal with shades and highlights.<br>

Otherwise, continue to use a fully automatic digital SLR, you will enjoy it, but avoid manual MF film cameras.<br>

[frank.schifano]

Daveid,

 

"These are difficult to use and will require much bracketing."??

 

Really? Only if you haven't bothered to learn how it behaves.

[david_henderson]

Frank

 

No I don't agree and believe they are a sub-optimal, borderline inadequate tool for detailed exposure control especially with slide film or for precise control with B&W. No matter how much time you spend learning its behavior.

 

I had the opportunity to try this for myself recently when a Sekonic 508 failed at the beginning of a trip. All I could find in rural New England was a Sekonic 358. Nowhere in the instructions does it indicate what angle it takes its readings from and what algorithm it uses to compute its reading. Even a tiny movement in the meter produced a stop or two swing in readings and "where to point it" is a significant issue when a half stop exposure difference makes the slide usable or not. In trying this meter maybe a thousand times over two weeks I could not develop confidence in it despite the fact that it was and is materially accurate when pointed at a plain evenly lit object. As it turned out I got better advice from my ancient Bronica prism with a fully average meter- since at least I could see where the readings were coming from and if necessary attach a longer lens to get a tighter view. The fact that most of my exposures were decent owes a lot more to the Bronica and the fact I've been using the same films for many years than to the 358 and the fact that most of my photographs were adequate whilst using different exposures than those indicated by the 358 means that I'd have been in trouble if I'd followed what it told me.

 

I have no doubt that better exposures are possible from medium format with a tested DSLR as a meter than a wide-angle reflected meter. I'm also pretty convinced that you can save the extra costs of a spot/incident meter vs something like the 358 through reduced film and processing costs.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>Really? Only if you haven't bothered to learn how it behaves.</em></p>

 

<p>David's talking about the inherent inaccuracy in the performance of cheap wide-angle

meters. Trying to learn how such a meter behaves isn't much help if the readings can't be

applied accurately because there's a mismatch between where the meter is reading and

where you're pointing it. It just becomes a case of best-guessing; for which reason

bracketing is always useful.</p>

 

<p>And I've yet to meet a professional landscape photographer who would accept an

arbitrary light meter if they could work with a precision light meter instead. The best

photographers I know invest in lenses and light meters first, cameras always last.</p>

[robert lee]

"... RB67 arriving next week ... Should I actually buy a meter? "

 

I haul a RB-67 kit into the field at times. My experience has been that while a DSLR is a good metering option in principle, it's just too much hassle in practice.

 

I shoot Neopan 400 and Acros 100 most of the time. I metered meticulously at first. After a while, it became quite easy to judge the lighting condition just by eye (and particularly the scene contrast range.) Most of the daytime exposures (for Neopan 400) ended up around EV14 anyways.

 

I do have a Gossen Digisix in the backpack though. This is a very small, rugged digital meter. Good enough.

[xato]

Difficult to find but try a Pentax 750Z. 7 megapixels, histogram and spotmeter.

[jeffpolaski]

Gossen meters, even the new Digisix, have analog readout dials that are invaluable for deciding exposure. That said, I sometimes use a Pentax Optio and sneak a look at the histogram to see what the overall exposure might be.

 

It sort of enhances the analog "experience".

[frank.schifano]

David,

 

Page 9 on the document linked to here: http://sekonic.com/images/files/L-358.pdf.

 

With the lumigrid in place, the angle of inclusion is about 54 degrees.

[marc_rochkind]

Here's my report based on my field experience today, as opposed to my original post, which was based just on thinking how it might be.

 

As a few of you have pointed out, using the Nikon D200 as a meter was a pain... too much to carry for such a limited purpose.

 

I should have used my Canon G9, which is what I'll do next time. Then I might get a meter.

 

I haven't gotten the transparencies back yet, so I don't know about accuracy.