Cameras with full information viewfinder

[cuthbert]

Ouch, somebody mentioned Pentax cameras...like these?

However, after the LX the best is the K2DMD, unfortunately it's also one of the most expensive, even more than Her Black Majesty.

 

[GRHazelton]

Ouch, somebody mentioned Pentax cameras...like these?

However, after the LX the best is the K2DMD, unfortunately it's also one of the most expensive, even more than Her Black Majesty.

Sort of like potato chips, aren't they! Just can't stop with only one Pentax. As Mike at Wings Camera says, camera collecting is a relatively innocuous addition. Much cheaper than car collecting, and far, far less expensive than having a mistress ... not to mention much less hazardous!

 

[Pioneer]

In defense of the mistress, she is a LOT more exciting though quite hazardous indeed.



As for full information viewfinders, I am usually more concerned with seeing all of what I am about to photograph. Anything else in the viewfinder at that point really becomes more of an unnecessary distraction.

The LX has an absolutely beautiful, clear viewfinder that does an excellent job of showing my possible composition. It is one of the finest SLR viewfinders in existence that I know about. It also shows the aperture setting if you are using the right viewfinder, and the shutter speed. However, to be truthful, since I have just made those settings, I know what they are already. As a result I very rarely even see them when I am composing. I would say never, but since I know that they are there, I must have looked at them at some point.

 

[broncc]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I will check them out and see which ones can be found within my budget. What about the Minolta X-500/570? I didn't see it mentioned here but I think it has all the information in the viewfinder and is not overly expensive.

 

[blockend]

However, to be truthful, since I have just made those settings, I know what they are already. As a result I very rarely even see them when I am composing. I would say never, but since I know that they are there, I must have looked at them at some point.

That's about right.

 

[cuthbert]

Yes but in my case it's quite common that while I look inside the viewfinder I think about changing aperture/shutter time because I find a subject that would require a deep DOF or the opposite, or sometimes I am following a target that hides in shadow, so for me seeing aperture and shutter time is VERY useful, also because I associate that combination with a certain light and sometimes I can use it when I shoot meterless.

 

[thuggins]

I disagree. An incident meter is better (more consistent, and easier to use) than a reflected meter. The incident meter "knows" how much light is lighting the subject. The reflected meter is easily fooled by the subject itself. Of course, you need to use your judgement and compensate accordingly, but with the incident meter the task is far far easier.

Cine photographers and studio photographers all use incident metering, not reflected.

The original comment only dealt with an external meter, there was no mention of incident or reflected. If you are working in a studio and can walk right up to your subject while it stands there and waits for you to take a reading, and if you are working with artificial light that isn't changing every second with clouds and haze obscuring the sun, then an incident meter may be the "best" way to determine the lighting on the exact spot you want to expose for. But I have never had a bear, moose, elk or bird that was willing to be so accommodating to my photography, nor a landscape that had a single metering point anywhere within walking distance. Since the original poster is new to film photography, there is no call to confuse him with theoretical niceties rather than practical advice.

But since you bring it up, your point is incorrect anyway. An incident meter "knows" how much light is lighting the subject, but it doesn't know how much light is hitting the film. Incident meters rely on the subject having an average albedo, and being neither specular or nonreflective. That is why they are limited to studio work. portraiture, etc. Using an incident meter on snow will still give you overexposed snow. Using an incident meter on a coal black steam engine will still give you an underexposed steam engine. The "best" meter in the widest real world circumstances would be an OM-4 spot meter using the OTF function. This allows control of both the metering area of the subject as well as its reflectance.

 

[flavio81]

The original comment only dealt with an external meter, there was no mention of incident or reflected. If you are working in a studio and can walk right up to your subject while it stands there and waits for you to take a reading, and if you are working with artificial light that isn't changing every second with clouds and haze obscuring the sun, then an incident meter may be the "best" way to determine the lighting on the exact spot you want to expose for. But I have never had a bear, moose, elk or bird that was willing to be so accommodating to my photography, nor a landscape that had a single metering point anywhere within walking distance. Since the original poster is new to film photography, there is no call to confuse him with theoretical niceties rather than practical advice.

Practical advice when shooting a bear, moose, elk or bird is simple -- they are most likely also under the same sun as you and in the open field; thus, use the incident meter on you, as if you were the bear/moose/elk/bird, no need to approach the subject. Obvious.

Using an incident meter on snow will still give you overexposed snow. Using an incident meter on a coal black steam engine will still give you an underexposed steam engine..

Using the reflected meter on snow you will get gray snow. Using the incident meter on snow will render the snow really really bright, which is how snow looks under the sun (and can make your eyes hurt). Your eyes themselves get "overexposed" when looking at bright snow (!)

Using a reflected meter on a coal black steam engine will give you an overexposed steam engine, will render that black to grey. Using the incident meter the coal black will stay black... If you want to pump up the shadow detail then it's up to you to compensate.

I'm really surprised that we have such kind of discussion in APUG, i would have expected that the advantages and usage of an incident meter were obvious.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm really surprised that we have such kind of discussion in APUG, i would have expected that the advantages and usage of an incident meter were obvious.

Yes, but not everyone got the message and some of those that did still refuse to listen.

 

[cuthbert]

Practical advice when shooting a bear, moose, elk or bird is simple -- they are most likely also under the same sun as you and in the open field; thus, use the incident meter on you, as if you were the bear/moose/elk/bird, no need to approach the subject. Obvious.

Not so easy man...

Just to make an example of target under shadow in a sunny day.

 

[flavio81]

Not so easy man...



Just to make an example of target under shadow in a sunny day.

I understand your point, but, let's be honest, those are still very easy cases for a photographer. I don't want to brag, but in those cases you don't even need a photometer, you could meter just by eye (think sunny 16 rule + compensation for subject under shadow.). If i see a photographer thinking he would need a spot meter for this scene, i would think he/she needs to get back to photography school!! Unless, of course, he's using a really really narrow-latitude film.

Really difficult circumstances are things like being in a rock concert where the keyboardist sometimes is lit from above with a harsh spot light, and then suddenly the spot light goes off and the subject is lit by the wall next to him, which suddenly glows an intense red. Then as soon as you have corrected exposure for the scene, the whole stage glows blue and the smoke machines lower the contrast by bringing haze...

In those conditions I understand the need for in-camera incident-light metering!

 

[tokam]

...think sunny 16 rule + compensation for subject under shadow..

Yup. Those waterfowl look about f5.6 to me.

 

[f/16]

If you want a manual focus body that shows alot in the finder and has alot of features the Nikon N6000 may be a good one for you.

 

[thuggins]

Using the reflected meter on snow you will get gray snow. Using the incident meter on snow will render the snow really really bright, which is how snow looks under the sun (and can make your eyes hurt). Your eyes themselves get "overexposed" when looking at bright snow (!)

Using a reflected meter on a coal black steam engine will give you an overexposed steam engine, will render that black to grey. Using the incident meter the coal black will stay black... If you want to pump up the shadow detail then it's up to you to compensate.

I'm really surprised that we have such kind of discussion in APUG, i would have expected that the advantages and usage of an incident meter were obvious.

You must have really odd snow and matte black surfaces in South America; either that or your eyes evolve differently south of the equator. For most of the world, filled with normal folks with normal eyes, our vision accommodates the brightness of the subject being observed. The human eye also has a nonlinear response to light. This is well documented and is mimicked to some extent by film. When the eye looks at snow, it does not see a blindingly white, featureless expanse. It perceives light and shadow, texture and shape, all of which can be reproduced in a properly exposed photograph. When the eye looks at a pile of coal it does not see an undifferentiated mass of black. One can see a rich panoply of shapes, forms and reflectivity which can also captured in a properly exposed photograph. In neither case will the subject be "grey"; it will be rendered to look as it looked to the eye and the brain.

Perhaps you are surprised that we would have this kind of discussion because you are in the habit of making blanket statements the are patently wrong. The "advantages and usage of an incident meter" are far from obvious. In matter of fact, incident meters have severe drawbacks both in practicality and utility, which is why their use has always been limited to a small subset of photographers who work in extremely limited and controlled environments.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You must have really odd snow and matte black surfaces in South America; either that or your eyes evolve differently south of the equator. For most of the world, filled with normal folks with normal eyes, our vision accommodates the brightness of the subject being observed. The human eye also has a nonlinear response to light. This is well documented and is mimicked to some extent by film. When the eye looks at snow, it does not see a blindingly white, featureless expanse. It perceives light and shadow, texture and shape, all of which can be reproduced in a properly exposed photograph. When the eye looks at a pile of coal it does not see an undifferentiated mass of black. One can see a rich panoply of shapes, forms and reflectivity which can also captured in a properly exposed photograph. In neither case will the subject be "grey"; it will be rendered to look as it looked to the eye and the brain.

Perhaps you are surprised that we would have this kind of discussion because you are in the habit of making blanket statements the are patently wrong. The "advantages and usage of an incident meter" are far from obvious. In matter of fact, incident meters have severe drawbacks both in practicality and utility, which is why their use has always been limited to a small subset of photographers who work in extremely limited and controlled environments.

You are very much off base. What flavio81 stated is absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong. Reflective light meters give the reading for 18% gray brightness. So using a reflective meter will result in gray snow for black & white prints and burned out snow and black objects for everything else.

Incident meters have their uses and drawbacks just as reflective meters have their uses and drawbacks. Learn both from each and you will become a better photographer.

 

[Xmas]

You must have really odd snow and matte black surfaces in South America; either that or your eyes evolve differently south of the equator. For most of the world, filled with normal folks with normal eyes, our vision accommodates the brightness of the subject being observed. The human eye also has a nonlinear response to light. This is well documented and is mimicked to some extent by film. When the eye looks at snow, it does not see a blindingly white, featureless expanse. It perceives light and shadow, texture and shape, all of which can be reproduced in a properly exposed photograph. When the eye looks at a pile of coal it does not see an undifferentiated mass of black. One can see a rich panoply of shapes, forms and reflectivity which can also captured in a properly exposed photograph. In neither case will the subject be "grey"; it will be rendered to look as it looked to the eye and the brain.

Perhaps you are surprised that we would have this kind of discussion because you are in the habit of making blanket statements the are patently wrong. The "advantages and usage of an incident meter" are far from obvious. In matter of fact, incident meters have severe drawbacks both in practicality and utility, which is why their use has always been limited to a small subset of photographers who work in extremely limited and controlled environments.

Snow blindness is an option as you go further south...

 

[Xmas]

The "best" meter in the widest real world circumstances would be an OM-4 spot meter using the OTF function. This allows control of both the metering area of the subject as well as its reflectance.

More exactly the spot function you are describing inhibits the OTF mechanism.
It gives you three canned spot options

Mean
Highlight
shadow

Procustean

A Weston gives you three similar datum points but you can use any intermediary zone.

It is a lot easier to use as well.

Kodak did experiments and discovered that in their scenes a reflectance reading gave good results 99% of time.