Peter H Posted October 4, 2012 Share #41 Posted October 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you not find that with digital, reading the histogram is as useful as either type of light meter? I expect I have so much to learn that this may be a silly question, but I'd still be interested in your views. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Hi Peter H, Take a look here How many of you use a light meter?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
KanzaKruzer Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share #42 Posted October 4, 2012 I found Thorsten Overgaard's article on light meters interesting. I just ordered my first rangefinder (Leica M) and and was curious how many of you use a light meter. Do you find it more accurate and does it give you more control how to light the subject? Do you use a light meter all the time? Do you not find that with digital, reading the histogram is as useful as either type of light meter? I expect I have so much to learn that this may be a silly question, but I'd still be interested in your views. Peter, I am learning as well. The article referenced in the original post may address some of your question. I sold my X100 which had a histogram in the EVF. I am unaware if Leica's liveview would offer a histogram, but I suspect using an incident light meter would be easier. I have been looking at the Kenko KFM-1100 Auto Digi Meter, but wanted to obtain feedback to determine if it is a useful tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 4, 2012 Share #43 Posted October 4, 2012 Do you not find that with digital, reading the histogram is as useful as either type of light meter? I expect I have so much to learn that this may be a silly question, but I'd still be interested in your views. Definitely not silly. In my experience, the meter + histogram of a digital camera entirely displace the traditional external reflected-light meter. But the camera histogram doesn't give all that much information: it shows you that clipping is occurring, but not exactly where (compare with the displays in RAW "development" software). If there are light sources or specular highlights in the frame that will be clipped, it's impossible to be certain from the histogram that the brightest highlights you do want will be properly rendered unless you allow a safety margin. By contrast, a correctly adjusted incident meter will consistently place the brightest non-specular highlights just short of clipping at the right hand edge of the histogram. Likewise, a 1° spot meter can be useful for understanding the shadows and highlights. What it boils down to IMHO is that most of the time the histogram will tell you all you need, but in difficult situations an external meter is a big help. And the incident meter retains its advantage (in most situations) of giving a good exposure without requiring as much thought as reflected meters do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 4, 2012 Share #44 Posted October 4, 2012 Thank you John. I think that intuitively that is probably how I now tend to use an incident meter, which is only when I'm finding it difficult to get the exposure I want, probably for the reasons you say, but without thinking it through correctly. (Me, that is, not you!) So its helpful to have it explained in straightforward terms as you have. I've entirely neglected to use a spot meter for many years, but I might revisit it now and start experimenting again. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanzaKruzer Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share #45 Posted October 5, 2012 Is the Kenko KFM-1100 compatible with PocketWizard Plus III Transceivers? Doe's the light meter act like a transceiver if you have the PocketWizard on the camera? How are they used together? Or do I need something like the Sekonic Litemaster Pro L-478DR Light Meter which does have built in PocketWizard technology? If I am not using studio lighting, would the Sekonic Litemaster Pro L-478D Light Meter be adequate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 5, 2012 Share #46 Posted October 5, 2012 Is the Kenko KFM-1100 compatible with PocketWizard Plus III Transceivers? Doe's the light meter act like a transceiver if you have the PocketWizard on the camera? How are they used together? I have a KFM-2100, which is like a KFM-1100 with a 1° spot meter built in. Both are revived Minolta designs, and neither has built-in wireless of any kind. Each has a PC synch socket which can be used to trigger the flash via cable for flash metering, and I'm sure you could connect a PocketWizard for wireless triggering (you'd need one for the meter, one for the camera, and one for each flash unit). But they each have a "non-cord" mode where they meter any flash they detect. This works fine in many studio situations: put the meter in position at the subject, walk back to the camera and trigger the flash, then go and read the meter. (Or use an assistant:).) Or do I need something like the Sekonic Litemaster Pro L-478DR Light Meter which does have built in PocketWizard technology? Only if you want to trigger the flash and adjust the power of each flash unit wirelessly from the subject position, and the rest of your gear permits this. If I am not using studio lighting, would the Sekonic Litemaster Pro L-478D Light Meter be adequate? IMHO it would be overkill as a first light meter. Maybe start with something simpler and cheaper and more pocketable such as the Digiflash (or Digisix if you don't really need a flash meter) or Sekonic L308S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanzaKruzer Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share #47 Posted October 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a KFM-2100, which is like a KFM-1100 with a 1° spot meter built in. Both are revived Minolta designs, and neither has built-in wireless of any kind. Each has a PC synch socket which can be used to trigger the flash via cable for flash metering, and I'm sure you could connect a PocketWizard for wireless triggering (you'd need one for the meter, one for the camera, and one for each flash unit). But they each have a "non-cord" mode where they meter any flash they detect. This works fine in many studio situations: put the meter in position at the subject, walk back to the camera and trigger the flash, then go and read the meter. (Or use an assistant:).) Only if you want to trigger the flash and adjust the power of each flash unit wirelessly from the subject position, and the rest of your gear permits this. IMHO it would be overkill as a first light meter. Maybe start with something simpler and cheaper and more pocketable such as the Digiflash (or Digisix if you don't really need a flash meter) or Sekonic L308S. John, Thanks for the response. I am looking for something simple and easy to use. There is a $60 difference between the L-478D and KFM-1100 and both are below my $400 maximum budget. I'll spend more time looking at online tutorials to get a better idea how light meters work and what functions I really need. I'll check out the L308S as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcoles Posted October 5, 2012 Share #48 Posted October 5, 2012 After buying a current digital meter I found I did not use it enough to justify the cost and space in my bag. So, I settled on the analogue Gossen Digisix meter. It very small and light, but provides both incident and reflected light readings. I use it to check difficult lighting conditions and to check the dynamic range of a subject when using my M9. In actual practice I use it very little, but it is nice to have when needed. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 5, 2012 Share #49 Posted October 5, 2012 What it boils down to IMHO is that most of the time the histogram will tell you all you need, but in difficult situations an external meter is a big help. And the incident meter retains its advantage (in most situations) of giving a good exposure without requiring as much thought as reflected meters do. I fully agree with the first part but not the second. A meter is only as good as the person taking the reading and a lot of thought can come into that especially in 'difficult' situations. But here's my take on this. Firstly the M concept is about minimalism. As far as I'm concerned the less I have to carry the better, and a meter is yet another thing to carry and lose. And secondly, if you have time to use a handheld meter then you have time to bracket, use the histogram, whatever. I haven't used a hand held meter since my first digital camera and haven't missed one in the slightest. Whilst meters may have their place I don't see them significantly helping much of the time. Mine is a lazy, practical approach I know........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 5, 2012 Share #50 Posted October 5, 2012 Paul's philosophy works for me, too - except when I really do need to meter ambient with flash off the camera without TTL metering. For studio work one usually has just a few different flash setups and with some easy mental arithmetic one can work without a meter. As mentioned earlier, the Kenko is a resurrected Minolta. I have the Minolta brand of the same model you mention, and I put it away after too many really bad readings due to some design bug of the pin used to detect the meter attachment (sphere, plate, or reflective). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 5, 2012 Share #51 Posted October 5, 2012 IIMHO it would be overkill as a first light meter. Maybe start with something simpler and cheaper and more pocketable such as the Digiflash (or Digisix if you don't really need a flash meter) or Sekonic L308S. Overkill indeed. I have a Sekonic 308S and it will do everything I need in the studio and out. At around $225, it is hard to beat. But there are smaller, less expensive Gossens that don't have flash meter capabilities if you don't need a flash meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 5, 2012 Share #52 Posted October 5, 2012 I have a Sekonic 308S and it will do everything I need in the studio. I second that recommendation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 6, 2012 Share #53 Posted October 6, 2012 Hi Peter (better late than never, perhaps). I do think you need to understand what a light meter has to offer (statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one). I dragged out my Sekonic 398A when I started using my M3 - the little App on my iPhone wasn't doing it for me. What I like about the Sekonic, apart from its size and robust build, is that it excels at taking incident readings. Even in tricky, strong backlit situations, if I face the lumisphere towards the camera, I get reliable exposure. Intuitively, I like incident readings as highlights and shadows are preserved. I used to use a 1 degree spotmeter, but to be honest I found it a drag and not as reliable as an incident reading. The centre weighted average reading on the M9 is sufficient for most purposes, I find, and with the histogram, I tend not to use my light meter so much - the LCD is good enough that I can see if I've got the exposure roughly right, and I can always bracket. Initially, I found my pictures with the M9 almost uniformly under-exposed. I'm not sure what has changed, but now I find that I am taking readings of better parts of the image. So, for me I still prefer the M9 meter for every day use, but if I'm unsure, I will take an incident reading. I never use my meter for reflective readings. With the Monochrom, I suspect I will use a hand held meter more, to get a feeling for what I'm doing. Hope this helps. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitstik Posted October 6, 2012 Share #54 Posted October 6, 2012 I know that I am new to the forum so I hope what I have to say is not taken as insolence. From what I have read there are a lot of good answers and a lot of technical jargon as well but in my humble opinion no one really hit on the underlying question. I use an assortment of equipment when shooting and they all have there place but it is nether the camera or the other tools that make the shot but the photographer wielding them. If you are a less than skilled photographer an expensive camera will NOT make you a fabulous photographer. I apologize for being blunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 6, 2012 Share #55 Posted October 6, 2012 Don't apologise - blunt can be interesting. How does your post, apart from being true and interesting, relate to the OP? I found Thorsten Overgaard's article on light meters interesting. I just ordered my first rangefinder (Leica M) and and was curious how many of you use a light meter. Do you find it more accurate and does it give you more control how to light the subject? Do you use a light meter all the time? I would love to learn how to take photos like the following ones from Timothy Allen and would think a light meter would help capture the correct exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 6, 2012 Share #56 Posted October 6, 2012 Hello Everybody, 1 of the drawbacks of a 308S is that it is a shutter speed preferred meter (you choose the shutter speed & the meter tells you the aperture). Meters can just as easily be designed to be aperture preferred (you choose the aperture & the meter tells you the shutter speed). Many meters allow you to choose either or both. When using a camera w/ a built in meter or when using a separate hand held meter: If you must choose to have only 1 way & not the other: Aperture preferred is usually more useful. What Thorsten is describing as a Minolta IVF is really a Minolta V. A Minolta IVF, which I used for many years, is the V's more boxy-shaped predecessor. The Kenko 1100 is a copy of a Minolta V . A Kenko 2100 is a copy of a Minolta VI & a Kenko 3100 is a copy of a Minolta Colormeter. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanzaKruzer Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share #57 Posted October 6, 2012 I’ve only had two experiences using light meter. The first was with my dad’s Leica IIIc when I was a teenager. I also used a Pentax Digital spot meter when I was experimenting with a 5X7 view camera. I enjoyed photography during the 70’s and 80’s, but only used the internal camera light meter. Four years ago I sold all my Nikon film equipment which had not been used for 10 years to help pay for my first DSLR. Shooting RAW I saw even less need to use an external light meter. With both kids in college, I wanted to take my photography in another direction, so I sold most of my photographic equipment and DSLR lenses to help fund a rangefinder kit. I kept my D800E with 24-120/4 for action shots and Zeiss 100/2 for macro. The style of Timothy Allen’s photos are a big switch from my normal photography which has been limited to landscape, high school sports, prom shots, etc. I’ve ordered a Leica M, and purchased a great three lens kit. I plan to use the Leica M to capture people shots, although not quite as exotic as the samples I provided from Timothy Allen. With this switch I was curious how important it is to use an external light meter and if it is common practice among the digital rangefinder community. It appears most of those that responded have a basic light meter available in the bag if needed. After researching, I don’t see a need for wireless features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 6, 2012 Share #58 Posted October 6, 2012 Hello Again Everybody, Welcome to the Forum Bob, guitstik & David. I don't understand the aversion to light meters on this Forum. Personally, I see having a light meter w/ me to use the same as looking @ the engraved apertures & engraved shutter speeds on their respective rings & dials instead of memorizing how many clicks for an unengraved aperture ring or for an unengraved shutter speed dial & remembering where to use which, when & how. I have & use a meter. Sometimes more than 1. Sometimes incident is what works best, sometimes averaging is all a person needs & sometimes spot is better. People have different or combined meters for the same reason there are zoom & different lenses for different situations. Don't forget flash. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 6, 2012 Share #59 Posted October 6, 2012 […]I don't understand the aversion to light meters on this Forum. Personally, I see having a light meter w/ me to use the same as looking @ the engraved apertures & engraved shutter speeds on their respective rings & dials instead of memorizing how many clicks for an unengraved aperture ring or for an unengraved shutter speed dial & remembering where to use which, when & how.[…] This is a very aversionary forum. Lots of people here do violently dislike not only hand meters. Many hate or fear accessory wide angle finders. Not a few seem to hate even the built-in finder. An eveready case, in the eyes of the cognoscenti, brands you as not-U. And there is an entire section of people who actually claim that 'the M concept' is about minimalism (so out goes the clutter of interchangeable lenses). And, tell that to the designers of the new Satanic Abomination, the M … The old man from the Age of the Box Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted October 6, 2012 Share #60 Posted October 6, 2012 A true minimalist would only and always use a Leica I (A). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.