digital camera as exposure meter

digital camera as exposure meter

looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
display for my film camera.
preferred features:
- small size
- low price
- accurate histogram
- iso range 100-1600
- zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
- manual aperture & shutter speed
- ease of use to look at histograms

resolution/noise are not important.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
> display for my film camera.
> preferred features:
> - small size
> - low price
> - accurate histogram
> - iso range 100-1600
> - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
> - manual aperture & shutter speed
> - ease of use to look at histograms
>
> resolution/noise are not important.
>
Non that I know of have a 24mm w/a end. The discontinue Sony R1 did, but
it's a big camera, and was expensive.

Film doesn't match a digital histogram, so buy an exposure meter.

Buy a dSLR, film is dead, get over it ;)

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

Spam THis wrote:
> viewerofrecphoto wrote:
>> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and
>> histogram display for my film camera.
>> preferred features:
>> - small size
>> - low price
>> - accurate histogram
>> - iso range 100-1600
>> - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
>> - manual aperture & shutter speed
>> - ease of use to look at histograms
>>
>> resolution/noise are not important.
>>
> Non that I know of have a 24mm w/a end. The discontinue Sony R1 did,
> but it's a big camera, and was expensive.
>
> Film doesn't match a digital histogram, so buy an exposure meter.
>
> Buy a dSLR, film is dead, get over it ;)


I believe there are far too many differences to be useful. I suggest
you start with a good book or two on the zone system and work from there.
Move slowly and get a good knowledge of B&W before even think about color.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
> display for my film camera.
> preferred features:
> - small size
> - low price
> - accurate histogram
> - iso range 100-1600
> - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
> - manual aperture & shutter speed
> - ease of use to look at histograms
>
> resolution/noise are not important.
>

What type of film, if you are shooting print film the digital will
tend to expose less then you would want to expose negative film. If you
are shooting slides you will find that the digital camera will loose the
shadows long after slide film does, for the same exposure.

In shot a digital camera will not make all that great of an exposure
meter, better to get a good spot meter.

Or better yet get a good digital and just shoot digital.

Scott

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

On Aug 6, 9:24 pm, Scott W <biph...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> What type of film, if you are shooting print film the digital will
> tend to expose less then you would want to expose negative film. If you
> are shooting slides you will find that the digital camera will loose the
> shadows long after slide film does, for the same exposure.

I use both slide and print film, mostly 100ASA from Fuji.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
> display for my film camera.
> preferred features:
> - small size
> - low price
> - accurate histogram
> - iso range 100-1600
> - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
> - manual aperture & shutter speed
> - ease of use to look at histograms
>
> resolution/noise are not important.

I assume you are asking this because you medium format camera
has no meter?

In contrast to what others have posted, I've been using
digital cameras for exposure metering for over 5 years.
I have shot large format for about 2 decades and originally
used a 35mm film camera as my meter. I use a zoom lens
so I could do spot metering.

Then in 2002 I switched to DSLRs, carrying 4x5, 35mm film
and DSLRs initially so I could cross calibrate them.
You will need to understand the differences in the response
of the digital camera, its characteristic curve, and its light
meter. Digital characteristic curves are like
a generic print film.

Here are some example large format images:
http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.large format
all were metered with SLRs or DSLRs.

My experience with light meters and digital cameras is
that the cheaper the camera, the more inaccurate the meter.
Higher end DSLRs work well.

But, for the last couple of years I have done digital mosaics
and find I can get more detail in less time (in the field)
than with 4x5 film. e.g., see:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http :// www .clarkvision,com /photoinfo/large mosaics

In developing my technique, I now do moving subjects
as mosaics:
http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html

http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html

Roger

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

On Aug 6, 9:32 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern...@qwest,net > wrote:
>
> I assume you are asking this because you medium format camera
> has no meter?

Actually, it does have a meter - a full averaging type. I also have
a Minolta spot meter, but don't
use it much.

>
> In contrast to what others have posted, I've been using
> digital cameras for exposure metering for over 5 years.
> I have shot large format for about 2 decades and originally
> used a 35mm film camera as my meter. I use a zoom lens
> so I could do spot metering.
>
> Then in 2002 I switched to DSLRs, carrying 4x5, 35mm film
> and DSLRs initially so I could cross calibrate them.
> You will need to understand the differences in the response
> of the digital camera, its characteristic curve, and its light
> meter. Digital characteristic curves are like
> a generic print film.
>
> Here are some example large format images: http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.large_format
> all were metered with SLRs or DSLRs.
>
> My experience with light meters and digital cameras is
> that the cheaper the camera, the more inaccurate the meter.
> Higher end DSLRs work well.
>
> But, for the last couple of years I have done digital mosaics
> and find I can get more detail in less time (in the field)
> than with 4x5 film. e.g., see:
>
> Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film http :// www .clarkvision,com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> In developing my technique, I now do moving subjects
> as mosaics: http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23...
>
> http :// www .clarkvision,com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise...
>
> Roger

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
> display for my film camera.

I think you'd be much better off getting an exposure meter that
was made for film. Take a look on eBay for used Gossen or Sekonic
meters, such as the Gossen Luna Pro. My Gossen Luna Pro F can perform
reflected, ambient and flash metering, and can handle light levels
down to full moonlight. It's in almost perfect cosmetic condition,
and it set me back less than $100.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter


viewerofrecphoto wrote:
> looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
> display for my film camera.
> preferred features:
> - small size

yeah, that would be digital.

> - low price

nope, not digital...
I mean, if all the other conditions are to be met as well.

> - accurate histogram

now, this baffles me. the histogram is really not mandatory
for exposure metering. it is useful mostly for dynamic range
and colour balance checking, particularly the rgb histogram
variety. Are you absolutely sure you are not after a colour
temperature meter?

> - iso range 100-1600

that's easy. fun starts when you push tri-X to 3200!
;-)

> - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)

that will be hard

> - manual aperture & shutter speed
> - ease of use to look at histograms
>
> resolution/noise are not important.

can't help feeling what you need is a
colour temp meter. Try google and ebay for
"color meter" and "light meter" and check out
the stuff. I think if you shoot film you'll be a lot
better off with a dedicated light meter and a colour
meter.

I use both with my 6x7 gear and the information
is quite different from what my digital camera
displays. Mostly because the response curves
and colour response characteristics of digital
sensors are much different from film.

Having said that, most good quality "bridge"
cameras will do a reasonable job of this,
with any errors being more visible on
marginal lighting situations. Forget the
compacts.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

On Aug 7, 1:22 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
>
> now, this baffles me. the histogram is really not mandatory
> for exposure metering. it is useful mostly for dynamic range
> and colour balance checking, particularly the rgb histogram
> variety. Are you absolutely sure you are not after a colour
> temperature meter?

I'm most interested in a dynamic range check. For exposure,
I usually use a gray card or my hand, with the built-in full frame
meter. I'd like to see how far out the sky is, without pulling out
my spot meter and taking several readings.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

On Aug 8, 12:48 am, viewerofrecphoto <cha...@yahoo,com > wrote:

> I'm most interested in a dynamic range check. For exposure,
> I usually use a gray card or my hand, with the built-in full frame
> meter. I'd like to see how far out the sky is, without pulling out
> my spot meter and taking several readings.

If that's what you want, a digital camera isn't that good at it.
Histograms aren't marked in stops and, even by loading special white
balance settings and tone curves into my D200 (*), the histogram isn't
anywhere near being reliable except to judge distance from highlights
clipping. That is: I could not calibrate the lower end of the
histogram to be able to read off the distance from the darkest to the
brightest points.

A spotmeter is better for this. Personally I use my camera's spotmeter
and take 2 readings in aperture priority (the digital scales appearing
in manual mode only show up to 3 stops + or minus, so it takes less
wheel-turning to switch to aperture priority, do this, and switch back
to manual) to estimate DR. I don't think it's slower than snapping a
shot and looking at the histogram, even if that worked.

(*) Note that in-camera histograms are produced from a jpeg, not the
raw data, and so is affected by white balance, tone-mapping and other
settings; so you need to calibrate for a particular set of those if
you want to use it as an accurate lightmeter, as I sometimes do.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

Recently, viewerofrecphoto <chasfs@yahoo,com > posted:

> On Aug 7, 1:22 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
>>
>> now, this baffles me. the histogram is really not mandatory
>> for exposure metering. it is useful mostly for dynamic range
>> and colour balance checking, particularly the rgb histogram
>> variety. Are you absolutely sure you are not after a colour
>> temperature meter?
>
> I'm most interested in a dynamic range check. For exposure,
> I usually use a gray card or my hand, with the built-in full frame
> meter. I'd like to see how far out the sky is, without pulling out
> my spot meter and taking several readings.
>
Since you have a Minolta spot meter, I'm also puzzled as to why you don't
just use it? As has been mentioned, the response of digital sensors
differs from film. So, "...how far out the sky is..." is likely to be
misleading. Of course, you might be able to learn how to read the response
differences, and in that case "any old" digital camera would probably
suffice.

Neil

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

If you are thinking about buying a digital camera for this purpose I would
not waste the money. However experimenting with what you have is another
matter.

You will get more accurate results with a high end exposure meter properly.
This is true whether shooting film or digitally.

The incamera histogram tells you absolutely nothing about whether you have
captured the details you are looking for in the shadows and highlights.
Ditto for the LCD screens built into dSLRs as they cannot resolve enough
detail and brightness levels to tell you anything of value. Because of their
small size the screens are often misleading about whether you even had
proper focus for the shot. This is a major drawback of EVF cameras with
which it can be difficult to even achieve critical manual focus on a tripod.

Film, negative in particular, has more latitude than digital. Hence I
suspect the results of a digital histogram will not be worth the waste of
battery power as the results will not translate into information captured on
film.

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

"gowanoh" <fac_187@hotmail,com > wrote:
>If you are thinking about buying a digital camera for this purpose I would
>not waste the money. However experimenting with what you have is another
>matter.
>
>You will get more accurate results with a high end exposure meter properly.
>This is true whether shooting film or digitally.

An external exposure meter is almost totally worthless
in conjunction with a decent DSLR. (For that matter,
the in camera light metering isn't all that necessary
either.)

>The incamera histogram tells you absolutely nothing about whether you have
>captured the details you are looking for in the shadows and highlights.

Actually it does tell pretty much what you've caught in
the highlights. Shadows analysis takes a bit more, but
not much. (Use the histogram or the
blink-on-over-exposure LCD display to set highlights;
then use the camera's spotmeter to measure the shadows.
That technique does require experimenting to know
exactly how far down from the actual exposure the
shadows can be for whatever level of detail is
acceptable to the photographer.)

>Ditto for the LCD screens built into dSLRs as they cannot resolve enough
>detail and brightness levels to tell you anything of value. Because of their
>small size the screens are often misleading about whether you even had
>proper focus for the shot.

With a good DSLR the LCD image can be magnified several
times, allowing analysis of focus. (That is cumbersome,
and I have never bothered to actually do it, but for
photographing static scenes it should work just fine.)

>This is a major drawback of EVF cameras with
>which it can be difficult to even achieve critical manual focus on a tripod.
>
>Film, negative in particular, has more latitude than digital. Hence I

That isn't true for current DSLRs.

>suspect the results of a digital histogram will not be worth the waste of
>battery power as the results will not translate into information captured on
>film.

That might be the case. On the other hand if the
photographer understands the technology it can be of
significant value. I'm not sure the significance equals
the price of a good DSLR for a person who wants to shoot
film though... But certainly one instance would be for
medium or large format film users. A DSLR would stomp
all over using a Polaroid.

--
Floyd L. Davidson < http :// www .apaflo,com /floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo,com

Re: digital camera as exposure meter

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "gowanoh" <fac_187@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>If you are thinking about buying a digital camera for this purpose I would
>>not waste the money. However experimenting with what you have is another
>>matter.
>>
>>You will get more accurate results with a high end exposure meter properly.
>>This is true whether shooting film or digitally.
>
> An external exposure meter is almost totally worthless
> in conjunction with a decent DSLR. (For that matter,
> the in camera light metering isn't all that necessary
> either.)
>
>>The incamera histogram tells you absolutely nothing about whether you have
>>captured the details you are looking for in the shadows and highlights.
>
> Actually it does tell pretty much what you've caught in
> the highlights. Shadows analysis takes a bit more, but
> not much. (Use the histogram or the
> blink-on-over-exposure LCD display to set highlights;
> then use the camera's spotmeter to measure the shadows.
> That technique does require experimenting to know
> exactly how far down from the actual exposure the
> shadows can be for whatever level of detail is
> acceptable to the photographer.)
>
>>Ditto for the LCD screens built into dSLRs as they cannot resolve enough
>>detail and brightness levels to tell you anything of value. Because of their
>>small size the screens are often misleading about whether you even had
>>proper focus for the shot.
>
> With a good DSLR the LCD image can be magnified several
> times, allowing analysis of focus. (That is cumbersome,
> and I have never bothered to actually do it, but for
> photographing static scenes it should work just fine.)

The D200 is easy to zoom in to more than 100% magnification to check
focus with one click, if you set it up right. It has a spot meter too
but to check the histogram on spot area results, you'll need to load the
image into a laptop & make a selection on the area of interest. The
metering systems on modern DSLRs are too clever, making all sorts of
assumptions, not like a manual meter. I have no idea how this translates
to film exposure but I suspect the simplest digital histogram would be
about as useful as the most advanced for translating to film exposure.
Simply looking at the LCD image is sort of useless given the variation
in visibility & contrast in different lighting conditions so for
exposure, zooming doesn't help without a laptop. Some digital's allow
cropping the image in-camera where you could then see the cropped
histogram but that's an awful lot of bother.

>>This is a major drawback of EVF cameras with
>>which it can be difficult to even achieve critical manual focus on a tripod.
>>
>>Film, negative in particular, has more latitude than digital. Hence I
>
> That isn't true for current DSLRs.

Agreed.

>>suspect the results of a digital histogram will not be worth the waste of
>>battery power as the results will not translate into information captured on
>>film.
>
> That might be the case. On the other hand if the
> photographer understands the technology it can be of
> significant value. I'm not sure the significance equals
> the price of a good DSLR for a person who wants to shoot
> film though... But certainly one instance would be for
> medium or large format film users. A DSLR would stomp
> all over using a Polaroid.

Any digital with reasonable manual control would be super-useful
tethered to a laptop as a mega-polaroid. The LCD displays are not bad
(newer ones are much better) but are a far cry from a polaroid or a laptop.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http :// edgehill,net
Bay Natives Nursery
http :// www .baynatives,com