Handheld Light Meters

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

As i am new to using a Digital Slr,i was wondering if to buy a light
meter,so when i am using the camera in one of the manual modes A,S,M,P mode
the meter wil select the correct Apeture and Shutter speed,does the meter
work only on close subjects,or if shooting a scene in the distance can it
read that,also what type of meter do i need and what prise should i pay
thankyou Stephen.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A meter doesn't know what a "close subject" is. All it knows is an amount of
light is hitting the sensor. Unless you are using studio lights, I wouldn't
bother getting one. Just trust the camera and adjust the exposure as and
when necessary.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen Manaton" <meade@tivvy.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> As i am new to using a Digital Slr,i was wondering if to buy a light
> meter,so when i am using the camera in one of the manual modes
> A,S,M,P mode the meter wil select the correct Apeture and Shutter
> speed,does the meter work only on close subjects,or if shooting a
> scene in the distance can it read that,also what type of meter do i
> need and what prise should i pay

I don't find an external light meter particularly useful when working
with my DSLR (though I own two meters, from my film days). If you
don't already have one, and don't have habits adopted from years of
working that way, I'd say there are better ways to spend your money on
photo equipment today. (So, please, don't anybody accuse me of
calling them "useless" or anything stupid like that, okay?)

Your camera already has a light meter in it. In manual mode, it will
display how far from "correct" the exposure is with the current
settings. There are some arguments for why certain types of external
light meters are better than the built-in ones; however, when you
couple the built-in one with the ability to shoot a test picture and
examine it on the LCD, and with the DSLRs I know to get the histogram
for the exposure displayed, I think all the arguments for separate
meters for use with DSLRs go away. (They're still quite useful with a
4x5 view camera, I know. They may well be useful with a digital
scanning back on such a camera as well.)

At the very least, learn to really understand the light meter in your
camera and how to use it. If you reach a spot where you understand
that, and know how a separate meter would help you take better photos,
then by all means go for it. And report back here, I at least would
learn something from such a report, I suspect.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A light meter may come in handy for time laps, landscape or studio photography
or perhaps your a student and your class requires one for your studies - if your
camera was made after the early eighties then you won't need a light meter -
your camera is equipped with a good light meter - A Sekonic Light meter would be
the way to go - I like and use the Sekonic 608, a wireless gem <grin>
--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply

"Stephen Manaton" <meade@tivvy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news5lqq7$nif$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As i am new to using a Digital Slr,i was wondering if to buy a light
> meter,so when i am using the camera in one of the manual modes A,S,M,P mode
> the meter wil select the correct Apeture and Shutter speed,does the meter
> work only on close subjects,or if shooting a scene in the distance can it
> read that,also what type of meter do i need and what prise should i pay
> thankyou Stephen.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <m2psw1mclw.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>I think all the arguments for separate
>meters for use with DSLRs go away.

Well, you can do a couple of things with a separate meter that you can't
do well with (some) DSLRs.

You can meter for the brightest highlight that you want to keep detail
in, and expose so that it is, say 3 stops above middle grey, when you
have a 1 or 2 degree spotmeter.

An ambient light meter may also be a little more accurate than using a
grey card, especially one that is a bit glossy, when you are doing lots
of shooting in high-contrast scenes. If you know that everything is
matte (diffusely reflective), then there is really no content more than
2.33 stops above middle grey, and you can set manual exposure such that
max-reflective white matte is 3 stops above middle grey, and just keep
shooting away (this will result in exposures that are probably +1 stop
over what the camera would read with a grey card, at least on the
Canons. So, when you shoot like this, ISO 100 is really 50, if you're
shooting RAW.

Of course, you need to know how your camera works re exposure, and this
information is not exactly made public by manufacturers.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <XsmdnespLeaKYx7fRVn-1Q@giganews.com>,
"Backbone" <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

>> Canons. So, when you shoot like this, ISO 100 is really 50, if you're
>> shooting RAW.

>if that were true then setting canon at iso 50 would be 0 when shooting RAW
> LOL -- give me a break!! Hahahaha

Maybe you should go to the library and borrow Sesame Street videos on
the difference between division and subtraction!

Anyway, the Canons that have "ISO 50" as an explicit camera feature are
just doing exactly what I just said, although they may be losing the
least significant bit.

This is not a joke; if you want highlights like reversal film, the
stated ISO is close. If you want slide-like dynamic range in the
highlights, you can shoot metered at half the stated ISO, and the
quality is better than shooting at the stated ISO.

In other words, if you want slide-like headroom, you'll get a better
image with the camera set to ISO 200, but exposing for ISO 100, than you
will setting the camera to ISO 100 and exposing for the same. It will
only be greatly advantageous in the shadows, or if you want to expand
the contrast in the midtones and highlights.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Backbone" <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:lImdnb3mpcHguRnfRVn-og@giganews.com...
>> >> Canons. So, when you shoot like this, ISO 100 is really 50, if you're
>> >> shooting RAW.
>>
>> >if that were true then setting canon at iso 50 would be 0 when shooting
>> >RAW
>> > LOL -- give me a break!! Hahahaha
>>
>> Maybe you should go to the library and borrow Sesame Street videos on
>> the difference between division and subtraction!
>
> What library? and what is Sasame Street Videos - never heard of such a
> thing -
> is that a new type sesame sead drink or??
>
> > Anyway, the Canons that have "ISO 50" as an explicit camera feature are
>> just doing exactly what I just said, although they may be losing the
>> least significant bit.
>>
>> This is not a joke; if you want highlights like reversal film, the
>> stated ISO is close. If you want slide-like dynamic range in the
>> highlights, you can shoot metered at half the stated ISO, and the
>> quality is better than shooting at the stated ISO.
>>
>> In other words, if you want slide-like headroom, you'll get a better
>> image with the camera set to ISO 200, but exposing for ISO 100, than you
>> will setting the camera to ISO 100 and exposing for the same. It will
>> only be greatly advantageous in the shadows, or if you want to expand
>> the contrast in the midtones and highlights.
>
> Perhaps - but a stated setting of iso 100 is not like iso 50. the only
> time that
> I might use iso 50 is when there is too much light!
> In the day light I primarily shoot at iso 100 - 400 I do allot of action
> shot
> i.e. I use a canon 1D Mark II! that has iso setting ranges from 50 to 3200
> <grin>
>
> some of my photos are posted at news:alt.binaries.photos.original !
>
>

Hi there.

This little argument is getting just a bit silly, if you don't mind me
saying so.

Was it Ansel Adams who invented the "Zone" system?
That system advocates changing the ISO by a factor which depends on the
contrast of the lighting and the subject.

There is nothing set in stone about ISO numbers, unless you happen to be a
Film manufacturer.

There is no ONE correct exposure for any scene.

It all depends on what result, you the photographer, wants to achieve.

So if you wish to set your camera to expose for what the meter thinks is
correct at ISO 100, and actually set your camera to ISO 200, then feel free
to do so. You will get the result you want and that will, by definition, be
the Correct Exposure.

Serious Photographers always used to have their own ideas about what ISO to
set for each kind of Slide Film, and it was rarely the one printed on the
box.

Roy G

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <lImdnb3mpcHguRnfRVn-og@giganews.com>,
"Backbone" <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

>Perhaps - but a stated setting of iso 100 is not like iso 50. the only time that
>I might use iso 50 is when there is too much light!
>In the day light I primarily shoot at iso 100 - 400 I do allot of action shot
>i.e. I use a canon 1D Mark II! that has iso setting ranges from 50 to 3200
><grin>

Not really; its "ISO 50" is just like I said; ISO 100 amplification with
the RAW numbers halved.

The 1DmkII can't do ISO 50 any more than the 10D, DRebel, or 20D can!
It's all just camera-setting semantics.

In fact, you may get a *better* quality ISO 50 on the 1DmkII with "ISO
100" and +1 EC, in RAW mode, than with its "ISO 50" (JPEG is another
story).

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><