Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,926   Online: 873
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    My mistake, sorry for the misinformation. I've been doing a lot of reading on the Sekonic L-308S, L-408, and Gossen DigiPro F. Hopefully making up my mind sometime this week!

  2. #32
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,371
    Good luck. It was rather an easy decision for me since I am shooting 135 only.

    At the end of the day it is just a meter....
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  3. #33
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    I've never used the Gossen, so I have no opinion about it. My only concern would be the way the light-reading dome sticks out - it looks to me as if it has the potential to break off more easily because it pivots 180 degrees and swivels 360 degrees. I'll leave owners of that meter to comment on the durability/fragility of that component. Otherwise, it looks like a very competent, easy to use meter.
    I've had one for about two and a half years Scott, and although I also have a Sekonic-L358 and a Kenko KFM 2010 (Minolta Flash meter V1) The Gossen Digi pro is my go to meter for every day use, because it's so pocket-able robust, quick and easy to use, and the case fits onto your'e pants belt.
    Iv'e retired my Gossen Lunapro SBC and Weston Euromaster to my sock draw because I find modern digital lightmeters are much better in many ways and less prone to shock damage because they have solid state electronics, and no galvanometer needle to knock out of whack.
    Ben

  4. #34
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

    All light meters and all DSLR account for reciprocity, because reciprocity defines the normal behaviour of film. The fact that 1/60 @ f/8 is the same exposure as 1/125 @ f/5.6 or 1/30 @ f/11 is called (law of) "reciprocity".

    The fact that we have to add exposure when the exposure is long, because beyond a certain exposure time the film does not maintain reciprocity (the law of reciprocity doesn't hold true any more) is called something like "reciprocity defect", "reciprocity failure", or whatever it is in English (difetto di reciprocitÓ in my language).

    Terminology matters.

    Aahh, what a relief...
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

    ...

    Terminology matters.

    Aahh, what a relief...
    Ahhh... yes... you are forgiven since you are absolutely correct.

  6. #36
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,366
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I have a pedantic itch that I must scrape a bit. Sorry about that.

    All light meters and all DSLR account for reciprocity, because reciprocity defines the normal behaviour of film. The fact that 1/60 @ f/8 is the same exposure as 1/125 @ f/5.6 or 1/30 @ f/11 is called (law of) "reciprocity".

    The fact that we have to add exposure when the exposure is long, because beyond a certain exposure time the film does not maintain reciprocity (the law of reciprocity doesn't hold true any more) is called something like "reciprocity defect", "reciprocity failure", or whatever it is in English (difetto di reciprocitÓ in my language).

    Terminology matters.

    Aahh, what a relief...
    Yes, being pedantic, you are technically correct that it is "reciprocity failure". DSLRs do NOT account for reciprocity FAILURE because imaging chips don't experience this phenomenon. Neither do silicon diode light sensors in hand-held meters, for that matter. The reasons I recommend against using a DSLR as a meter are twofold: ISO 100 on a DSLR is NOT the same thing as a piece of film rated ISO 100. It varies from digital camera to digital camera, even within a brand or within a model, although the most obvious inconsistency is between Canon and Nikon and Leica (to name three random examples). I can take a calibrated handheld meter and take a reading off a gray card in direct, even sunlight at mid day at sea level and get my expected 1/100 @ f16. Point three different DSLRs at that same gray card and get 1/125th @ f16, 1/90th @ f16, 1/60th @ f16. Accurate enough for color negative film? sure, why not. But for transparency film? no. And the inverse is a pain in the ass too - set the camera at ISO 100, take a meter reading from a hand-held meter to measure strobe output, set the camera accordingly, and when you review the shots later, they have blown out highlights or blocked up shadows. Film ISO and digital ISO are NOT the same things.

    Also, because digital cameras don't experience reciprocity failure and they can act like virtual Polaroids, you increase the odds of chimping the 8 second exposure, saying, "wow that looks good" and transferring the 8 seconds at f11 to your film camera, forgetting that at 8 seconds the film you're using needs two stops of reciprocity failure compensation.

    With no image to suggest the exposure indicated is what you're looking for, it's easier to remember to calculate reciprocity failure compensation when going from a hand-held meter to the camera. Not that you can't screw it up just as badly with a hand-held meter if you forget to compensate.

  7. #37
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Yes, being pedantic, you are technically correct that it is "reciprocity failure". DSLRs do NOT account for reciprocity FAILURE because imaging chips don't experience this phenomenon. Neither do silicon diode light sensors in hand-held meters, for that matter. The reasons I recommend against using a DSLR as a meter are twofold: ISO 100 on a DSLR is NOT the same thing as a piece of film rated ISO 100. It varies from digital camera to digital camera, even within a brand or within a model, although the most obvious inconsistency is between Canon and Nikon and Leica (to name three random examples). I can take a calibrated handheld meter and take a reading off a gray card in direct, even sunlight at mid day at sea level and get my expected 1/100 @ f16. Point three different DSLRs at that same gray card and get 1/125th @ f16, 1/90th @ f16, 1/60th @ f16. Accurate enough for color negative film? sure, why not. But for transparency film? no. And the inverse is a pain in the ass too - set the camera at ISO 100, take a meter reading from a hand-held meter to measure strobe output, set the camera accordingly, and when you review the shots later, they have blown out highlights or blocked up shadows. Film ISO and digital ISO are NOT the same things.

    Also, because digital cameras don't experience reciprocity failure and they can act like virtual Polaroids, you increase the odds of chimping the 8 second exposure, saying, "wow that looks good" and transferring the 8 seconds at f11 to your film camera, forgetting that at 8 seconds the film you're using needs two stops of reciprocity failure compensation.

    With no image to suggest the exposure indicated is what you're looking for, it's easier to remember to calculate reciprocity failure compensation when going from a hand-held meter to the camera. Not that you can't screw it up just as badly with a hand-held meter if you forget to compensate.
    This is the conclusion some tests in the U.K Professional Photography Magazine came up with a few years ago, the light meters in digital cameras are made to suite the sensors in the individual D.S.L.R model not film, and I.S.O 100 in a DSLR and on film is not the same thing.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 09-13-2012 at 09:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    ... and I.S.O 100 in a DSLR and on film is not the same thing.
    Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,443
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.
    This is why I always recommend getting a proper meter and not using the digicam. There's nothing like using the correct tool, and it isn't a DSLR.

  10. #40
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,366
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Very interesting. Since I'm not a digital photographer I never knew this. I assumed that the digicam designers would have worked that out so they would be "equivelent". How are DSLR and film ISO (mathematically) related? That would be very important knowlege for all who use a DSLR for metering and proofing, I would think.
    I don't think you can equate them - with DSLRs, ISO 100 is really just a relative marker to indicate 1 stop faster/slower than ISO 50/200. What it means varies from camera maker to camera maker, and sometimes it varies from camera to camera within a single model. If you dig around enough, you can find two different Canon EOS 5D models that will yield a properly exposed image with the ISO set to 100 that used DIFFERENT shutter/aperture combinations to produce that image. Much easier is to take a Nikon D800 and a Canon 5D mk III, set them both to ISO 100, shoot the same scene with the same lens and have one use f16 @ 1/100th and the other use f16 @ 1/70th (for example). I noticed this first when using my old Olympus E-1, which was then a really good camera, to shoot some studio shots of high-end antique furniture. I would meter the studio strobes (f11 @ 1/60th), set the camera on manual to 1/60th @ f11, take the shot, chimp it, and go 'wow- that's really underexposed'. I'd open it up to f8, shoot again, and say, "well, that's ALMOST right", open it up a titch more to f 7, click a third time and say, 'ok, GOOD'.

    Then I was taking a portrait lighting class and noticed the same thing, but this time each student in class was using a different camera, and we'd all take turns metering the same lighting set up with the same model, shoot, chimp, adjust. And two folks would be able to use the indicated reading of the meter. Three would be underexposed using the meter reading, and three more would be over. And there wasn't a lot of consistency as to who was over and who was under - they were pretty well equally divided between Canon and Nikon in all categories.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin