Can anyone recommend me a light meter?

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks for the tip onto the Gossen DigiPro F. I'm pretty sure I've narrowed my choices down to the Sekonic L-408, L-308S, and the Gossen DigiPro F. Considering these are all in my budget, which one do you guys feel would be the best bang for the buck?

Also, as an engineer, I wouldn't mind coming up with a little light meter that accounts for reciprocity it actually wouldn't be too difficult, you could perform a curve-fitting analysis on each films reciprocity curve, and then use the function to interpolate and convert the metered readings through the function, and output the accounted-for exposure

If your need is for something pocketable, the L308. If you need something that can do the spot as well as incident and reflected, and you need something a bit more rugged, the 408.

 

[tron_]

If your need is for something pocketable, the L308. If you need something that can do the spot as well as incident and reflected, and you need something a bit more rugged, the 408.

How does the Gossen Digipro F stack up to each of these in your opinion?

I will also look into the Luna Pro meter as well, thanks for the heads up guys!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've never used the Gossen, so I have no opinion about it. My only concern would be the way the light-reading dome sticks out - it looks to me as if it has the potential to break off more easily because it pivots 180 degrees and swivels 360 degrees. I'll leave owners of that meter to comment on the durability/fragility of that component. Otherwise, it looks like a very competent, easy to use meter.

 

[tron_]

As far as the Digisix, I see it only can meter down to about a 4 second exposure. I would prefer a meter that can calculate slower than this.

 

[baachitraka]

As far as the Digisix, I see it only can meter down to about a 4 second exposure. I would prefer a meter that can calculate slower than this.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/gossen/digisix/index.htm

There is a tricks to read it till ~ -9 EV, please read the above review.


@ISO 100, -1 EV = 2 mins f/8

 

[tron_]

My mistake, sorry for the misinformation. I've been doing a lot of reading on the Sekonic L-308S, L-408, and Gossen DigiPro F. Hopefully making up my mind sometime this week!

 

[baachitraka]

Good luck. It was rather an easy decision for me since I am shooting 135 only.

At the end of the day it is just a meter....

 

[benjiboy]

I've never used the Gossen, so I have no opinion about it. My only concern would be the way the light-reading dome sticks out - it looks to me as if it has the potential to break off more easily because it pivots 180 degrees and swivels 360 degrees. I'll leave owners of that meter to comment on the durability/fragility of that component. Otherwise, it looks like a very competent, easy to use meter.

I've had one for about two and a half years Scott, and although I also have a Sekonic-L358 and a Kenko KFM 2010 (Minolta Flash meter V1) The Gossen Digi pro is my go to meter for every day use, because it's so pocket-able robust, quick and easy to use, and the case fits onto your'e pants belt.
Iv'e retired my Gossen Lunapro SBC and Weston Euromaster to my sock draw because I find modern digital lightmeters are much better in many ways and less prone to shock damage because they have solid state electronics, and no galvanometer needle to knock out of whack.

 

[Diapositivo]

I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

All light meters and all DSLR account for reciprocity, because reciprocity defines the normal behaviour of film. The fact that 1/60 @ f/8 is the same exposure as 1/125 @ f/5.6 or 1/30 @ f/11 is called (law of) "reciprocity".

The fact that we have to add exposure when the exposure is long, because beyond a certain exposure time the film does not maintain reciprocity (the law of reciprocity doesn't hold true any more) is called something like "reciprocity defect", "reciprocity failure", or whatever it is in English (difetto di reciprocità in my language).

Terminology matters.

Aahh, what a relief...

 

[BrianShaw]

I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

...

Terminology matters.

Aahh, what a relief...

Ahhh... yes... you are forgiven since you are absolutely correct.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

All light meters and all DSLR account for reciprocity, because reciprocity defines the normal behaviour of film. The fact that 1/60 @ f/8 is the same exposure as 1/125 @ f/5.6 or 1/30 @ f/11 is called (law of) "reciprocity".

The fact that we have to add exposure when the exposure is long, because beyond a certain exposure time the film does not maintain reciprocity (the law of reciprocity doesn't hold true any more) is called something like "reciprocity defect", "reciprocity failure", or whatever it is in English (difetto di reciprocità in my language).

Terminology matters.

Aahh, what a relief...

Yes, being pedantic, you are technically correct that it is "reciprocity failure". DSLRs do NOT account for reciprocity FAILURE because imaging chips don't experience this phenomenon. Neither do silicon diode light sensors in hand-held meters, for that matter. The reasons I recommend against using a DSLR as a meter are twofold: ISO 100 on a DSLR is NOT the same thing as a piece of film rated ISO 100. It varies from digital camera to digital camera, even within a brand or within a model, although the most obvious inconsistency is between Canon and Nikon and Leica (to name three random examples). I can take a calibrated handheld meter and take a reading off a gray card in direct, even sunlight at mid day at sea level and get my expected 1/100 @ f16. Point three different DSLRs at that same gray card and get 1/125th @ f16, 1/90th @ f16, 1/60th @ f16. Accurate enough for color negative film? sure, why not. But for transparency film? no. And the inverse is a pain in the ass too - set the camera at ISO 100, take a meter reading from a hand-held meter to measure strobe output, set the camera accordingly, and when you review the shots later, they have blown out highlights or blocked up shadows. Film ISO and digital ISO are NOT the same things.

Also, because digital cameras don't experience reciprocity failure and they can act like virtual Polaroids, you increase the odds of chimping the 8 second exposure, saying, "wow that looks good" and transferring the 8 seconds at f11 to your film camera, forgetting that at 8 seconds the film you're using needs two stops of reciprocity failure compensation.

With no image to suggest the exposure indicated is what you're looking for, it's easier to remember to calculate reciprocity failure compensation when going from a hand-held meter to the camera. Not that you can't screw it up just as badly with a hand-held meter if you forget to compensate.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes, being pedantic, you are technically correct that it is "reciprocity failure". DSLRs do NOT account for reciprocity FAILURE because imaging chips don't experience this phenomenon. Neither do silicon diode light sensors in hand-held meters, for that matter. The reasons I recommend against using a DSLR as a meter are twofold: ISO 100 on a DSLR is NOT the same thing as a piece of film rated ISO 100. It varies from digital camera to digital camera, even within a brand or within a model, although the most obvious inconsistency is between Canon and Nikon and Leica (to name three random examples). I can take a calibrated handheld meter and take a reading off a gray card in direct, even sunlight at mid day at sea level and get my expected 1/100 @ f16. Point three different DSLRs at that same gray card and get 1/125th @ f16, 1/90th @ f16, 1/60th @ f16. Accurate enough for color negative film? sure, why not. But for transparency film? no. And the inverse is a pain in the ass too - set the camera at ISO 100, take a meter reading from a hand-held meter to measure strobe output, set the camera accordingly, and when you review the shots later, they have blown out highlights or blocked up shadows. Film ISO and digital ISO are NOT the same things.

Also, because digital cameras don't experience reciprocity failure and they can act like virtual Polaroids, you increase the odds of chimping the 8 second exposure, saying, "wow that looks good" and transferring the 8 seconds at f11 to your film camera, forgetting that at 8 seconds the film you're using needs two stops of reciprocity failure compensation.

With no image to suggest the exposure indicated is what you're looking for, it's easier to remember to calculate reciprocity failure compensation when going from a hand-held meter to the camera. Not that you can't screw it up just as badly with a hand-held meter if you forget to compensate.

This is the conclusion some tests in the U.K Professional Photography Magazine came up with a few years ago, the light meters in digital cameras are made to suite the sensors in the individual D.S.L.R model not film, and I.S.O 100 in a DSLR and on film is not the same thing.

 

[BrianShaw]

... and I.S.O 100 in a DSLR and on film is not the same thing.

Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.

This is why I always recommend getting a proper meter and not using the digicam. There's nothing like using the correct tool, and it isn't a DSLR.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.

I don't think you can equate them - with DSLRs, ISO 100 is really just a relative marker to indicate 1 stop faster/slower than ISO 50/200. What it means varies from camera maker to camera maker, and sometimes it varies from camera to camera within a single model. If you dig around enough, you can find two different Canon EOS 5D models that will yield a properly exposed image with the ISO set to 100 that used DIFFERENT shutter/aperture combinations to produce that image. Much easier is to take a Nikon D800 and a Canon 5D mk III, set them both to ISO 100, shoot the same scene with the same lens and have one use f16 @ 1/100th and the other use f16 @ 1/70th (for example). I noticed this first when using my old Olympus E-1, which was then a really good camera, to shoot some studio shots of high-end antique furniture. I would meter the studio strobes (f11 @ 1/60th), set the camera on manual to 1/60th @ f11, take the shot, chimp it, and go 'wow- that's really underexposed'. I'd open it up to f8, shoot again, and say, "well, that's ALMOST right", open it up a titch more to f 7, click a third time and say, 'ok, GOOD'.

Then I was taking a portrait lighting class and noticed the same thing, but this time each student in class was using a different camera, and we'd all take turns metering the same lighting set up with the same model, shoot, chimp, adjust. And two folks would be able to use the indicated reading of the meter. Three would be underexposed using the meter reading, and three more would be over. And there wasn't a lot of consistency as to who was over and who was under - they were pretty well equally divided between Canon and Nikon in all categories.

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone know whether there actually is an ISO standard for light sensitivity for digital sensors?

As the film ISO sensitivity standard includes a component respecting contrast (if I understand correctly), it would be very interesting to now what components are referenced in the digital version.

Should we ask Stephen Benskin ?

 

[benjiboy]

Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.

I don't own a DSLR, and I should think we are getting into DPUG territory here, all I can tell you was the tests in Pro Photography Magazine used a Minolta Auto meter V of known accuracy and compared the readings of several DSLRs at 100 I.S.O and got different readings from each camera, and from the meter.

 

[BrianShaw]

Does anyone know whether there actually is an ISO standard for light sensitivity for digital sensors?

I'm sure Ben is right about treading in dangerous "D" waters, but since this is really a question about film metering I hope the "powers-that-be" are lenient.

I think this might be it and I probably can get a copy on Monday:

ISO 12232:2006
Photography -- D****** still cameras -- Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index

Abstract

ISO 12232:2006 specifies the method for assigning and reporting ISO speed ratings, ISO speed latitude ratings, standard output sensitivity values, and recommended exposure index values, for digital still cameras. ISO 12232:2006 is applicable to both monochrome and colour d****** still cameras.

 

[elekm]

Spend a bit more and get the meter that you want. But it, and buy it once.

In the long run, it will save you money.

That's true of most things in life.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Brian - now I wonder how the two ISO standards compare .

Off to see if I can figure it out.

 

[benjiboy]

If you buy the Sekonic L-758 you can profile the exposure reading to several DSLR camera sensors or films with your computer, but the test target costs in the U.K over £100 (about $153 U.S.) which needs to be added onto the considerable cost of the meter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7SZ58CugpY .

 

[benjiboy]

This is the latest Sekonic touch screen light meter http://www.sekonic.com/l-478/photog...ce=Lyris&utm_medium=eBlast&utm_campaign=L-478 , if it made breakfast you could marry it.

 

[Andre Noble]

Go with the Sekonic - It's Better Built

I have (had) two Sekonics and the Gossen Digi Pro F.

The Gossen is small, lightweight, and works well. But its quality truly feels like something you could buy in the 99 cent stores. I was really surprised. It is WAy over priced for the build quality.

But I do use the Gossen a lot because it does truly fit in pocket.

 

[MattKing]

I have (had) two Sekonics and the Gossen Digi Pro F.

The Gossen is small, lightweight, and works well. But its quality truly feels like something you could buy in the 99 cent stores. I was really surprised. It is WAy over priced for the build quality.

But I do use the Gossen a lot because it does truly fit in pocket.

Andre:

Do you mean the "Digipro F" or are you actually referring to the "Digiflash"?

Your reference to "it does truly fit in pocket" makes me wonder.

And if, indeed, you mean the "Digiflash", I'm not sure I agree with you about the build quality.

 

[benjiboy]

I have (had) two Sekonics and the Gossen Digi Pro F.

The Gossen is small, lightweight, and works well. But its quality truly feels like something you could buy in the 99 cent stores. I was really surprised. It is WAy over priced for the build quality.

But I do use the Gossen a lot because it does truly fit in pocket.

I have a Sekonic L-358, a Kenko KFM 2100 (Minolta Autometer V1) and a Gossen Digi Pro F and like you Andre I tend to use the Digi Pro the most because of it's pocketability speed and ease of use, deadly accuracy, and because the other two are much too large to fit my pockets, but I can't agree with your remark about the build quality of the Digi Pro F, I find mine a lot tougher than it looks, and in the almost three years I've had it it's been subject to many abuses, is still unmarked and as accurate as ever, so don't let appearances fool you I don't thing Gossen have ever made a light meter that wasn't rugged,workmanlike, and reliable.