MattKing
Moderator
Just pick the right sub-forum, and the discussion is welcome.
Just pick the right sub-forum, and the discussion is welcome.I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome.
If I use more fingers on a camera where I manually focus, set aperture, and shutter speed, wind the film on and take off the lens cap (rather then press the power button, the internal lens cap opens, auto-exposure is set, auto-focus occurs, and then with a second touch of the same index finger I press the 'shutter' button), is not the first camera more 'digital'?
I know, I'm being silly. But sometimes silly people exist to point fun at silly rules. Probably doesn't apply here.
Still, it seems there is room for a discussion about choosing an external meter, especially with old film cameras that may have agëd and faulty internal meters. And even when they work as new, incident metering, or spot metering may be better than the built-in meter. I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome. Ultimately, a good incident meter either outperforms all that bother, or gets to the same result with one press of a digit, rather than use of many digits, extending into the billions.
I don't see the advantage of carrying a digital camera around to use as a light meter. It is a lot easier to just to carry around a light meter. Besides, after a while, you might think it is a lot easier to just carry around a digital camera. I mean you've got it right there; you might as well use it.If I use more fingers on a camera where I manually focus, set aperture, and shutter speed, wind the film on and take off the lens cap (rather then press the power button, the internal lens cap opens, auto-exposure is set, auto-focus occurs, and then with a second touch of the same index finger I press the 'shutter' button), is not the first camera more 'digital'?
I know, I'm being silly. But sometimes silly people exist to point fun at silly rules. Probably doesn't apply here.
Still, it seems there is room for a discussion about choosing an external meter, especially with old film cameras that may have agëd and faulty internal meters. And even when they work as new, incident metering, or spot metering may be better than the built-in meter. I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome. Ultimately, a good incident meter either outperforms all that bother, or gets to the same result with one press of a digit, rather than use of many digits, extending into the billions.
I don't see the advantage of carrying a digital camera around to use as a light meter. It is a lot easier to just to carry around a light meter. Besides, after a while, you might think it is a lot easier to just carry around digital camera. I mean you've got it right there; you might as well use it.
I have never done the math, but that sounds about right to me. Besides, when you get old, you take smaller steps, which means you have to go further to get there.Large cameras especially if accompanied by tripods increase in mass by the cube of the distance carried.
I have never done the math, but that sounds about right to me. Besides, when you get old, you take smaller steps, which means you have to go further to get there.
I've done a number of tests with a spotmeter and going through the whole zone system exercise to determine an exposure and then compared to the matrix metering on my Nikon. Every time the Nikon gave the correct reading, so I have just used it. The only time I use a hand held meter if if I am using a large format camera exclusively and have left the 35mm at home.
Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.It's hard to beat matrix metering. It's fast too!
Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.
It's hard to beat matrix metering. It's fast too!
…
The idea being that no two frames were identical, even if the camera was moved by only one millimetre, there would be an ever so slight change in the evaluation.
Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.
Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.
I’d sure enjoy a matrix metered match-needle on a camera with fully mechanical shutter.
This link wrongly calls it 'calibrating', but it really is cleaning the contact so that oxidation no longer prevents the contacts from connecting!
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...ype=&tbs=#kpvalbx=_N8LgYYfnEMvLkPIP59mI8Ak119
To test, remove the incident dome and locate a spring-loaded pin beneath. The meter reading should be different when the pin is fully extended than when you push it into the housing. If there is no difference, the contacts need to be cleaned.
I found an old post of mine:
"On the Autometer IVf, there is a metal pin which is revealed when the hemisphere is removed. The pin is normally depressed by a raised surface on the underside of the black plastic ring around the white hemisphere. This same pin is NOT depressed by the reflected light attachment (hole in the center) black ring. The pin is actually a switch and it alters meter sensitivity and readings.
It sometimes occurs that the pin/switch stops functioning, so that the white hemisphere presses on the pin but the switch does not alter the readings. Sometimes, if the pin/switch stops functioning correctly, if you merely press and release the pin multiple times it starts working again (oxidation on the contacts of the switch?!?!). In other cases, it was necessary to send it to Minolta repair to have the switch replaced. My own Autometer IVf meter acted up a couple of times, and pressing and releasing the pin multiple times would fix it."
That's a great idea especially if you need a series of pictures to look the same from shot to shot.When Nikon released AMP metering (I think in 1983 and I first saw it in 1984 in Australia) one of the big claims was the speed with which the metering system evaluated every single frame, even if the camera (Nikon FA) was being driven by a motor drive attached.
The idea being that no two frames were identical, even if the camera was moved by only one millimetre, there would be an ever so slight change in the evaluation.
I have been using a Gossen Profi-Six meter for most pictures I take since 1985 when I picked it up in Germany. If I don't have the Gossen I invariably use a Wallace Expo-Disc on the end of the lens with the camera pointed to the light source to get an extremely accurate light reading.
When using 35mm cameras I don't take a light reading prior to every shot, I take a light reading, set the camera and unless the light changes, or the subject reflectance matter changes, I leave the exposure settings as they are. Pretty much worked very well ever since.
I seem to remember that Nikon received some kind of scientific award from the Japanese government for this metering system.
Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.
Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.
Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.
Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.
That's true of course but I don't quite understand your point. If I'm photographing something and reframe and the light's different, I'm going to take another meter reading anyway.
- and what the heck good is TTL matrix metering in those cases?.
Bracket.
In my experience, I can spend a whole bunch of time making spot readings, calculating zone system placements and finally coming up with an approximate exposure ( by which time the light has changed anyway because the sun went behind a cloud while I was futzing about taking a hundred million readings with my hand held meter), or I could just use the matrix meter in the F6 and get the correct value in a fraction of a second. Transfer it to the LF camera and press the shutter. Done. Correct every time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?