Best LightMeter to use with Hasselblad?

[jon_kobeck1]

I am looking for a good meter to use with my Hasselblad.

I have been using a Digisix but find it very time consuming, moving back and forth between subject and camera. I also get totally

different readings when metering ambient and reflective. I also have trouble reading the setting on that wheel.

 

I really want something as accurate as the built in meter on my Nikon FM2, that I can point and click quickly.

 

Any recommendations?

[charles_freeland]

<p>Hi, Jon;<br>

I'd recommend a Sekonic l-508 or the Sekonic L-308S. I have used both for a long time now. Both have reflective and incident meter capabilities, but the former offers a spot meter and has a zoom viewfinder, plus it can make averages obtained from three different meter readings. The latter has an incident bulb but obtains reflective readings by just pointing the whole meter at the subject. I'll take the former when using transparency film and want pinpoint accuracy, and the latter when I'm using other manual cameras for street photography and want something quick and lightweight.<br>

Charles</p>

[lwg]

I usually use a Pentax one degree spot meter for landscapes. With practice it's very fast. It's also very accurate. An

incident meter is great for portraits.

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Then, I would use Nikon FM2 if I were you.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>To take an ambient (incident) light reading, the meter needs to have the same light falling on it as the subject. If the light is the same at the camera position and the subject, you can take an incident light reading from the camera position with the meter pointing over your shoulder. This saves running around! Incident and reflected light readings will be the same only if the reflected readings are of an 18% (reflectance) gray surface. The Digisix is a fine light meter, I own one, you can take a quick averaging reflected light reading from the camera position with it if you want to, the only thing is that the meter is very small and the layout of the buttons means that it is difficult to aim the meter downwards holding it between a finger and thumb and press the button. Any good quality but physically larger meter would be fine for your purposes - I have several meters but tend to use my Sekonic L308 most often - take a look at this and see if you like it.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The tiny Digisix is as good a meter as any other, so switching to any other one will not make a worthwhile difference. It appears that the problems you are having is with the metering methods, not with the meter anyway.<br>So perhaps it would be better to invest a little time in getting to the bottom of how to use a handheld meter?<br><br>You do not need to read that Digisix's wheel at all. Just transfer the EV value it shows in the display to the lens.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Q.G. de B. said it, I think. If the lettering is too small, you need a meter with larger numbers on it. But even the lettering on my Digilux, which is a hefty fellow, is quite small. You might consider something with a digital read-out.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Digisix <i>does</i> have a digital read out.<br>What's more, the tiny letters on the disc do not matter for Hasselblad users. They are only there to translate the reading the meter provides in EVs to aperture and shutterspeed settings. Hasselblad users do not need that.<br><br>I would stil not even begin considering spending more money on another meter, looking for a solution to the problems. As said before, it sure doesn't sound like the problem is with the meter, but with how it is used. A little time devoted to incident metering, and the peculiarities of refected light metering, will be enough.<br>Buying another meter will just result in having less money, and in having difficulties using not one, but two meters.

[kens]

<blockquote>

<p>...Just transfer the EV value it shows in the display to the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Q.G. de B: this is something that has bugged me for a long time. Maybe you can help me understand it better. Even Ernst Wildi describes setting the EV directly with no mention of the dependency on film ISO. But I've come to the conclusion that setting the EV directly on the lens assumes you are using ISO 100 speed film.<br>

For example, I use a Pentax 1-degree spotmeter. If I am using a 100 ISO speed setting, and take a reading of EV 12, and set the lens to EV 12, one of the lens combinations is f/8 at 1/60th sec, and this agrees with the spotmeter settings. All good so far.<br>

However, if I switch to ISO 400, still EV 12, the spotmeter indicates f/8 at 1/250th sec - 2 stops faster and in line with the 2-stop faster film. Since the lens has no setting for ISO, it continues to recommend f/8 at 1/60th sec, now 2 stops overexposed.<br>

So the ability to directly transfer EV readings to the lens depends on film speed, and if you're not using ISO 100 you need to do some recalculating.<br>

Is this right, or am I missing something?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ken,<br><br>Both film speed and light level (why do you think that film speeds matter, but forget about light levels? ;-) ) are <i><b>not</b></i> part of what EVs are. They only play a role in deciding what EV to set for what sort of exposure.<br>So a big <b>NO</b>: there is absolutely no assumption about film speeds. The ability to transfer EV numbers does not depend on film speed. Just as what f/8, or 1/250, is does not depend on either film speed or light level.<br><br>All EV numbers are, is a combination of apertures and shutterspeeds that - per same EV number - produce the same exposure. (No matter what film speed or light level - f/8 at 1/125 will produce the same exposure as f/22 at 1/15, or as f/11 at 1/60, so all have the same EV number).<br><br>And that's all there is to it: <i>same</i> EV number, <i>same</i> exposure.<br><br>Whether that is the correct exposure, under or overexposed is an entirely different matter.<br>To decide whether it is, you must know the film speed, the light level, and how you want your exposure to be. For that you use a light meter. A meter suggests a setting tailored to a scene (and only that scene) based on the actual amount of light present and the speed of the film you are going to use.<br><br>So it's really simple. There are two questions: <br>a) what is an EV number, i.e. what does an EV number represent?, and <br>b) what EV number to use to achieve a particular exposure.<br>Only the second question (b) involves film speeds and light levels. And many light meters suggest what to set to achieve a particular exposure in EV numbers.<br><br>(Some manufacturers (a manufacturer? Pentax?) do make life difficult by using EV in a way that is not correct. Any explanation that makes EVs depend on film speed and light level is using the term incorrectly. It's like making what f/8 is depend on film speed. A silly thing to do.)

[sfcole]

<p>I have several meters, including a Pentax digital spot meter, and a Sekonic 558. However, I think the one I'll be using the most is the one I just picked up, a Sekonic 308. <br>

I would not recommend the Pentax spot meter. One would think that a spot meter would solve all your metering problems, but in fact they can introduce a new level of woe and worry, especially for color transparencies. The problem is, it's very difficult to know what exactly to point it at, especially as few scenes have a middle-gray anything in them. I sometimes use grass or other greenery, but there can be many shades of green. The only thing I'm confident aiming a spot meter at is a known gray target.</p>

<p>QG, isn't EV standardized at iso 100, with an EV of 1 being 1 second at F1? It seems to me the Pentax does do it correctly (though in a round about way), because anything other than iso 100 will be compensated for by setting the dial. </p>

[kens]

<p>I'm not one to reference Ken Rockwell very often, but in this case I think he explains the difference I'm seeing... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ev.htm <br>

From this I get that the Pentax meter is displaying LV (Light Value), not EV (Exposure Value). These two coincide only at ISO=100.<br>

I'll have to compare the Pentax readout with the PME 45, but I suspect the PME is calculating a directly transferrable EV (not LV) by taking the ISO into account.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Scott,<br><br>No. ISO values have nothing to do with EVs.<br>All EV numbers are, are a shorthand notation for all the aperture-shutterspeed combinations that (per number) produce an identical exposure.<br>And that is all (as in: "all") there is to EVs.<br><br>ISO values and light levels only come into play when (and no sooner then) you want to know what EV you should set for a particular exposure.<br><br>Pentax is that manufacturer i mentioned who does this incorrectly (or at least manages to confuse the issue brilliantly).<br>It's like re-using the aperture notation in a way in which f/8 only coincides with what we all already know f/8 is at a specific ISO value. As if the film's speed has a say in what f/8 is.<br>Or like re-using the shutterspeed notation in a way in which 1/125 only coincides with what we all already know 1/125 is at a specific ISO value. As if the film's speed has a say in what 1/125 is.<br>Or like re-using the shutterspeed notation <i>and</i> the aperture notation in a way in whichf/8 at 1/125 only coincides with what we all already know f/8 at 1/125 is at a specific ISO value. As if the film's speed has a say in what f/8 at 1/125 is.<br><br>See? A silly thing indeed. Eternal shame on Pentax! Good luck to Ricoh! ;-)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ken,<br><br>The PME45 (as other Hasselblad meters, and most meters other manufacturers make) do indeed provide a reading in true EV numbers.<br><br>The meters do indeed take the ISO into account, as they do take the light level into account as well, to arrive at a recommendation for <i>what</i> EV is the one that would provide a 'correct' exposure.<br>But (i stress this to avoid prolonging the confusion Pentax created) those EV values do <i>not</i> contain, or depend in any way on, either the ISO or light level. The <i>meter's recommendation</i> which one to use does. The EVs do not.

[kparratt]

<p>One I often use, even now, is the Hasselblad winder knob with esposure meter.</p><div></div>

[kparratt]

<p>The winder knob in use on the camera, for easy read off of EV values.</p><div></div>

[kparratt]

<p>The others I use are Gossen Lunasix 3 and a predecessor, the Gossen Sixtar.</p><div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Good meters, Kevin. The 'knob', Lunasix 3 or Sixtar. But more modern ones are even nicer. ;-)<br>Selenium cell meters (like the 'knob') are slow to respond and insensitive. CdS meters (like the LunaSix 3 and Sixtar) are even slower, and though quite sensitive, they need switching to a second circuit to make use of the entire range, and have a memory that falsifies readings.<br>In comparison, the Silicon "blue cell" Digisix is fast, sensitive, very accurate, small, and versatile (it will even tell you the time, and how warm it is).

[kparratt]

<p>Thanks QG. I have taken note.<br>

Digisix Manual download at <a href="http://www.gossen-photo.de/pdf/ba_digisix_gb.pdf">Gossen-Photo.de</a><br>

Cheers, Kevin</p>

<p> </p>

[warren_nagourney]

<p>With reference to the EV issue, the exposure value (EV) is defined as the base-two logarithm of the ratio of the f-number squared to the exposure time. Thus, any change of these two quantities (square of f-number or time) by a factor of two will result in a change in the EV number by one -- i.e., the EV values are in units of *stops*. </p>

<p>Thus, as has been mentioned, the EV setting on the camera has absolutely nothing to do with the film speed. On the other hand, (as also has been stated), the EV number provided by the light meter for the correct exposure *does* depend upon the film speed.</p>

<p>I agree that it can be confusing.</p>

<p>Warren Nagourney</p>

[martin_wouterlood1]

<p>To revive an oldish thread, I would like to know if the Digisix talked about here is easy to read in dim light, meaning, the f-stop and shutter speed settings to use after a measurement is taken...my aging eyes are losing sharpness and more particularly contrast in low light, the lanyard holding my Pentax digital spottie around my neck is becoming too short and its scales not big enough nor clear enough to read.<br>

I'm also considering the move to a digital back and have an impression that either a light meter is no longer needed because I can keep shooting until the histogram looks about right, or the 1 degree narrow angle accuracy for highs and lows is not needed for digital like it is for transparencies.<br>

Q.G. et al, please set me straight. Thank you. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Digisix is not particularly easy to read in dim light, no.<br>The LCD-display is unlit. And the numbers on the scales are not very large (the ones on the EV-scale being worst).<br>But it's not worse in this respect than other meters.<br><br>Failing eyesight (i know what you are taking about...) calls for the right glasses. ;-)<br><br>Trying to work your way towards the right exposure by trial and error will work, yes.<br>But why spend all that time, again and again, when a simple light meter could get you where you want to be quickly and accurately? And will you always have an opportunity to go through an expose-check-adjust-go back to the beginning cycle?<br><br>Accurate exposure is as necessary with digital as it is with film.

[martin_wouterlood1]

<p>Yes, about the specs, if I could only always remember to bring them along... ;-)<br>

Agree about the need for exposure accuracy with either; I just heard that some forego the metering stage with digital...also, I'm not the type to rattle off a lot of shots.<br>

Would you think your Digisix is as quick and easy to get an accurate reading as my 1 degree spotmeter? If it makes things easier I might get one, sell mine and pocket the change ...it certainly looks a lot smaller and lighter than the Pentax.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Hard to compare a meter like the Digisix and a spotmeter.<br>The Digisix is as easy and fast to use, and as accurate, as any other larger handheld meter of similar type i have used.<br>And all of those incident + 'unsighted' reflect light meters are quite different from a 1 degree spotmeter.<br><br>Discussions whether a spotmeter or an incident light meter is the quickest and easiest tool to get acurate results typically are lengthy.<br>And in such, i am to be found on the 'spot meters are the more difficult, slower, and most-error prone type of meter' side. So in answer to your <i>"If it makes things easier [...]"</i>, i will say that it does, and you should.

[martin_wouterlood1]

<p>Many thanks Q.G., I think I'll give one a try.</p>