light meter question (still about the Olympus C-2100uz)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Puzzled" <NotAt@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ok, just on the off chance that I can be any more confused about the
> Olympus c-2100uz, I have one more question. Should I invest in a light
> meter? I have been looking at several but the cost leaves me breathless
> ... thanks.

As noted, this probably should go on rec.photo.digital.zlr.

For most users, generally not (after all the camera has a reflective light
meter already). If you were getting into studio lighting then a flash meter is
definately recomended, and there are perhaps times when an incident meter is
called for.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:

> Puzzled wrote:
> > Ok, just on the off chance that I can be any more confused about the
> > Olympus c-2100uz, I have one more question. Should I invest in a light
> > meter? I have been looking at several but the cost leaves me
> > breathless ... thanks.
>
> Why would you want to do that if you can reply the image and check the
> exposure by the histogram?

So you can get a good feel for incident light on various parts of your
subject? So you can set up and balance flash sensibly?

B>

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:

> Bruce Murphy wrote:
> > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:
> >
> >> Puzzled wrote:
> >>> Ok, just on the off chance that I can be any more confused about the
> >>> Olympus c-2100uz, I have one more question. Should I invest in a
> >>> light meter? I have been looking at several but the cost leaves me
> >>> breathless ... thanks.
> >>
> >> Why would you want to do that if you can reply the image and check
> >> the exposure by the histogram?
> >
> > So you can get a good feel for incident light on various parts of your
> > subject? So you can set up and balance flash sensibly?
>
> OK, I can see that. I would still have thought it preferable to judge by
> the effect on the final image, though.

Well, I suppose you can try and judge it from a sub-2-inch LCD which
varies in contrast as you tilt it, but I don't like that much of a
challenge.

I also feel that being able to see what effect _quantified_ things
haveon an image is far preferable to just fiddling about until it
looks right. Particularly if you ever want to do it again.

But I was out and about last night with a D70 and a sekonic meter, so
it is entirely possible that I'm an a non-standard digital camera user.

B>