One of the problems using flashes is they don't have modelling lights. Is anybody using a digital in place of a polaroid to judge lighting?

I've a need for small digital camera. My needs would be filled by a cell phone or maybe a PDA camera. That's the quality I need. Just some thing I could snap and later add notes to. But I'm thinking about getting something that could be used to judge lighting to. If the digital camera could be used to judge lighting I figure I could pick something used up with a hotshoe.

I've done this occasionally with my old Coolpix 990. I add a hotshoe attachment and a Wein Safe-Sync HS hot shoe to pc adapter for use with studio strobes. The result is similar in contrast to slide film.

Unlike Polaroid, though, it doesn't tell you about DOF, or the composition from the point of view of the real lens, or whether the camera is otherwise working properly, lens stopped down, etc., so I prefer to proof with Polaroid.

One of the problems using flashes is they don't have modelling lights. Is anybody using a digital in place of a polaroid to judge lighting?

I've a need for small digital camera. My needs would be filled by a cell phone or maybe a PDA camera. That's the quality I need. Just some thing I could snap and later add notes to. But I'm thinking about getting something that could be used to judge lighting to. If the digital camera could be used to judge lighting I figure I could pick something used up with a hotshoe.

If you have any 35mm lenses you could always go for the cheapest smallest oldest DSLR you could find that your lenses will fit. They are surprizingly affordable now and you would be able to see what you are dealing with better than just a pic from a cellphone or p&s digi-cam.

Be careful though, it's a slippery slope to the dark side! Hehe.

If I can see the ugly shadow because I put the subject too close to the wall I'd be happy. Things like that.

No worries about the darkside. All I really want a small digital for is note taking. Plus taking photos of landmarks might help me not get lost -)

Thanks

If you're going compact digital, go for the canon A series, which has full manual capabilities(A priority, S priority, M, P). As far as having an actual hotshoe, thats where it becomes tricky. Generally speaking, only mid range models have hot shoes. Though you might be able to find one used for the price of a new lower model. Digitals are good for their instant nature, histogram readout, etc... Once you become used to them they are good tandem cameras for their analog cousins. One of my friends actually uses a sony w7 to meter and record when he uses large format. Using it for landmarks is a capitol idea. good luck! David's suggestion with the Wein safesnyc is definately something to invest in if you do pick up one with a hot shoe.

I was thinking about one of the Nikon P&S. They have some models [8400 etc] that seem to have almost everything. They've supposedly been discontinued. I'm hoping that means when the replacements start hitting the shops the 8400s will drop in price. If not some of the older Nikon models seem to fit the bill.

The problem with the cheapo route is that they will be auto-everything so it will be hard to get reproducable results from the camera. An old 'pro' camera might be your best bet. I think a d30 can be had pretty cheap.

The Coolpix 990/995 and probably most of the later ones have an all manual mode, but another issue is that these lenses don't stop down very far, so you might need a ND filter to match the exposure of the other camera.

I'm not too worried about exposure. I can get that right with the light meter. My problem is visualizing what the flash will do with out a modelling light. Developing the negatives and seeing an ugly shadow isn't good.

The Nikon I was looking at will hopefully be cheap used but I don't think it started out cheap. I saw one review with a price not far below $1000. I can't believe people ran out to buy a P&S for that money but Nikon made three models in the line so somebody must have been buying.

Stops down all the way to F/7 I think. But the film speed can be played with to.

Yes, the 990 that I have was originally $1000 for 3.3 Mpix. It was the _Time_ magazine machine of the year, because it was the first such camera that produced an image good enough for photojournalism. Fortunately, I had some grant money that I had to spend by a deadline, and didn't have any other relevant use for it (I use the camera for archiving documents related to my academic research--it's good enough for OCR).

The f-stop issue is one of convenience, so you don't have to be dialing the strobes up and down between cameras, adding another potential source of error. An ND filter on the digicam takes care of it, though.

If you have any 35mm lenses you could always go for the cheapest smallest oldest DSLR you could find that your lenses will fit. They are surprizingly affordable now and you would be able to see what you are dealing with better than just a pic from a cellphone or p&s digi-cam.

Yes, I was looking at a used Nikon D100 for $600 last week; I may buy it if the price drops another $100. I don't know about the "slippery slope" though - I just don't like the images that digital cameras produce. The same store has a Toyo 45CX and lightbox for $400 that I am more interested in - I'm still very much in love with LF, especially Velvia.

With everybody talking me out of the Sunpak strobes I've decided to put the digital device money towards a better strobe. So digital is going to have to work harder to just get me to the edge forget down the slope-)

I Have been using my Fuji F610 as a light meter while taking picture of car trails in town, Now will the image on the digital camera be acurate enough.

For example I found I got a good picture on the digital using an exposure of 3sec @ F/5.6 ISO 200

I converted this to 12sec @ F/8 ISO 100

Does the fact that the exposure on the back of the digital is right mean that the film exposure will be right?

No.

I originally bought my first D1 to use as a Polaroid of sorts for my F5. Although the shots looked good, the exposures weren't the same. Digital is *different* than film...it's hard to explain how and why, but it's just different.

I think that the people that have a very very very very strong aversion to digital haven't been around enough high-end cameras with users that are skilled enough to show off what it can do.

I don't think though, that even a high-end digital camera would suffice as a light meter.

I went out shooting yesterday with my D2x and my Mamiya 7II. I made sure my Sekonic light meter worked and had a fresh battery even though I had my D2x.

Does that mean the the 200 ISO equiverlent setting on my digital compact isn't actually ISO 200?

I don't know how they do it, but years ago (1999), when I was thinking of doing the Polaroid thing with my D1 it wasn't correlating to the main slide film I was using at the time, Kodak 100VS.

I remember that I was dissapointed that they didn't match exactly.