I sort of agree with you. If it works why change it. But I think it could work a lot better with a dedicated spot meter from my past experience. I tried using my digital and my film SLR as a meter for large format and got fine results. It wasn't as quick, zone placements (in b&w and color) were not as intuitive, shutter speed and fstop combos were somewhat difficult to calculate, and it proved a distraction in the field. This was all apperent to me after I got the spot meter, which was mainly purchased to decrease the bulk I was hauling. So I still think it would pay to try out a dedicated meter before settling on using the digicam. If after that the digicam is still in the running then use it - it isn't costing anything (which is a major point).
Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
Just works does'nt cut it in my book. I've a Sekonic L-228
Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
which I like. It works But is slow, uses mercury batteries,
has an eight degree 'spot', and the view is not all it
I've an AEIII, an eye level finder/meter, for my ETRSi which
is a pain in the neck when placed at less than eye level.
I made the camera usable by puting that finder in the
drawer, installing the rotary, and using off camera
metering. If I'd gone 6 x 6 and a waist level I'd
have saved money and be packing lighter.
I think a narrow field meter a good idea. Most of them have
too many bells and whistles. The L-228 fills the bill but
like I said, But. An update of same basic type meter
is what I'd like. The L-228 is very compact. Dan
Okay Dan, I didn't realise you weren't happy with what you've got. By all means, seek out a real spot meter for your needs: it will be easier to use than a digital camera.
Go with a real spot meter (Pentax?), or if your needs are more varied, I thoroughly recommend the Gossen Starlight.