Using a DSLR as a light meter?

[michael_trump1]

<p>Scott - Re: your rant. Good for you. It's that snobbish, elitist attitude that I just abhor in this hobby. I suppose when you came out of your mother's womb you had a Flashmeter IV in one hand and an F2 in the other (with dead batteries I might add). While the rest of us had to go through a learning process whereby we started with small steps and worked our way into Jedi zen intuitive light metering. Give me a break, please. Taking your rhetoric to it's logical conclusion, I suppose if someone didn't manufacture their own film emulsions, wire up their own spot meters, and build their own lenses and camera bodies from scratch, they are not experiencing the <em><strong>true art</strong></em> of photography either... I don't see how your answer contributed anything toward my original question, so if you don't mind, get off my thread.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>

<p>Michael, getting back to your original question, from my limited understanding I have appreciated that digital sensors have a more linear response to light and so highlights get clipped. I am not much on the technical details but when Christopher made a point about digital being inherently off I enjoyed going through the process of comparing my film cameras with a digital camera and today I used a calibrated Wallace ExpoDisc from my film camera days to check all my camera meters exposure accuracy including my D200. It does provide me with a confidence level that all my cameras meters have a fairly similar response according to the calibration data on the disc to within plus or minus 1/6 a stop. The d200 is spot on and zeros out exactly the same as my older Nikon film cameras using a calibrated Wallace ExpoDisc. It is nice to have the same starting point for all my cameras meters so if exposure problems are encountered I can be reassured that its not because of equipment inconsistencies or errors. Of course it never is. When shooting film I never used matrix and always spot metered either exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows fall where they may or using a mid tone to draw my exposure. With digital I can be much more in the moment exposurewise. I use the time that I would have taken carefully spot metering to check the RGB histograms after I have used the cameras matrix meter for the 95-99% solution. I have several dedicated hand held meters for underwater and land and thought about buying a super nice one for land use but seem to always have something else more important to buy. The meter accuracy of the D200 at present obviates a new purchase along these lines. This is becoming an old saw but one I think for the right reasons justifies using your digital camera to derive exposures for your film camera. So my answer would be to use the D200 as a meter for your P67. Good hunting. Vr Andy</p>

</p>

[michael_trump1]

<p>Thanks for everyone's thoughtful answers, they are much appreciated. I have had a chance to do some more comparison testing and the D200 matrix meter is within +2/3 stop from the P67, and since I will be using E6, I think the P67's default "at speed" settings are more than adequate. I'll still probably spot meter the scene with my D200 just to be on the safe side since the P67's meter is highly sensitive to biasing the exposure when bright light sources creep into the frame. The D200 does a much better job "averaging out" the exposure for these high contrast scenarios.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Michael - you will p[robably be very happy uising the DSLR as a meter and "polaroid system". As I said earlier with time you will probably find that it underexposes slightly - I believe DSLRs have a slight tendency to do this to reduce the chances of blown hilights and i understand that Nikon is slightly more conservative than Canon in this respect. As I said earlier the 5DII is about 1/3 rd of a stop underexposed when I use it with my Fuji GX680. As an FYI I compared meters in an old thread somewhere on this forum using a tripod, indoor light and a grey card - all of the 14 cameras i shot were withing 1/2 a stop and they were a mix of Canon, Contax and Mamiya spread over a 28 year period (and I compared spot with CW, partial and evaluative which with a frame filling grey card should - and did make no difference).</p>

[jox]

<p>What Would Ansel Do? (WWAD?)<br>

I'm pretty sure he didn't have a digital camera, so he would've probably used a light meter then bracket his shots.</p>

 

[colin_elliott]

<p>What Would Ansel Do? (WWAD?)</p>

<p>After lugging an 8 x 10 camera, tripod and a handful of double dark-slides up a mountain, the last thing Ansel would have done is "waste film" by bracketing<br />As a true craftsman who had honed his skills, he would "pre-visualise" his desired result, take multiple spot readings and make one exposure.</p>

 

[pieter_de_bruin1]

<p>I have used a DLSR as a meter a number of times - usually in difficult to meter situations like night scenes with light sources in the frame. It works a treat, but as ever it's worth taking the time to experiment before using in anger. Regardless of the technical issues surrounding sensors, film and meters, I believe that most people are more likely to make a mistake in their interpretation of a light meter reading than from interpreting the histogram on the back of a DSLR. I usually take the reading as is for slide film or give an extra 2/3rd stop if it's print film, and try to remember the differences in dynamic range between the DSLR and the film I'm using.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Colin is half right. Ansel would take multiple meter readings to decide on the zone placements that he wanted, record the desired development (N, N+, or N-) that would give the desired zone range, but take two identical exposures so that if one negative were ruined in development or later one would survive.</p>

[colin_elliott]

<p>Glenn, As you state, Ansel was insuring against a "chemical catastrophe". Not sloppy technique.<br>

I started my photographic experience at the age of 10. with a quarter plate camera. As a young student I could not afford a lot of sheet film and therefore learned correct exposure interpretation and technique very quickly. A trusty Weston Master II and Invercone by my side. Like your comment, if I take 2 exposures of the same subject, it is for "insurance", not for the chance of "getting one right". <br>

I find that today I can "assess" the correct exposure of a subject within half an f stop by using the meter between my ears!! I only use my electronic exposure meter after I have made this assessment, even with 35mm. This confirms that <strong>all </strong>my equipment is working as it should.</p>

<p> </p>

[k5083]

<p>Everything's been said, but I will put in one more Yes vote for using a digi cam as a light meter. In my case I use a digi P&S, specifically a Sony DSC-H2. It has always agreed with my TTL metered cameras as near as I can figure, and it is accurate enough to exposure slides on my RB67s, MF folders and TLRs, and antique meterless (or meter-dead) 135 rangefinders and SLRs. </p>

<p>It could be that the cruder and cheaper and less fancy the digi cam, the less likely it is to feature sophisticated "corrections" that would throw it off as a light meter for a film camera. I dunno, just an idea.</p>

<p>A good ambient meter is better still, and also good to have in the bag. The digi cam is still useful because there are times when you can't get yourself into the same illumination as the subject to use an ambient meter, plus you can grab a quick picture with it. The digi also takes the place of a spot meter, because it is a megazoom and at max optical + pseudo zoom, it has about the same angle of view as a 1200mm lens on a 135 camera.</p>

 

[dave_randolph]

<p>Hey Michael...<br>

Just go ahead and use the DSLR as a meter, transfer the exposure settings to the P67, bracket if you think it'll help, and shoot! If it's successful, Great! It it's not, your kids aren't going anywhere soon and there's always next weekend. Plus, the education you get by the process you'll never forget.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p><em>"</em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=566127"><em>Colin Elliott</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Aug 24, 2009; 03:08 a.m.</em></p><p><em>What Would Ansel Do? (WWAD?)</em><br /><em>After lugging an 8 x 10 camera, tripod and a handful of double dark-slides up a mountain, the last thing Ansel would have done is "waste film" by bracketing<br />As a true craftsman who had honed his skills, he would "pre-visualise" his desired result, take multiple spot readings and make one exposure."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

 

<br /><strong><em>AMEN</em></strong> Colin, I could not have said it better. With the "auto everything" trend in modern cameras, digital especially, it seems to me that the photographer is now pretty much "along for the ride" and the only thing they need to do is compose. The true art of photography is being lost to technology. Were the photography "Hall of Fame" members like Ansel, Imogen Cunningham, Alfred Steiglitz, et al, alive today, they would be shaking their heads in utter disbelief. My Lord, Adams exposed one of his most memorable photographs, Moonrise over Hernandez, NM, <em>without even using a meter</em>, since he left it in the car and did not have time to retrieve it before the light was lost!!! He knew the luminance of the moon and back-calculated his exposure from that. Now <strong><em>THAT</em></strong> is true mastery of his craft. If beliefs like yours and mine make us "elitists" as Michael Trump put it, well then so be it. I prefer to be called a <em>"purist"</em> when it comes to photography. The only machine I want to turn control over to in the photographic process is my spot and incident meter. Only my mind knows what I really want to do with the image, not a programmed computer.<br>