As I commented above, I *have* been persuaded... for the time being. I'm keeping all three, and actually learning using them before I make my final decision.
Originally Posted by CPorter
There may be some confusion regarding how I use my digital camera as a light meter; I don't look in the view finder (or the top panel LCD) and take the readings I see as gospel. Rather, I have LiveView on so that I can get a pretty good, if not perfect (as was pointed out above by Poisson Du Jour) preview of the scene were I to shoot at those settings.
To me, being able to see the preview, along with, if I so choose, a histogram of the image, *is* a significant advantage of the "DSLR as a light meter" approach. The point of this thread is really about that: if I learn & master the external, dedicated light meter, will I be able to constantly choose the same or better exposures than relying on LiveView/Preview to choose my settings?
Let's say there is someone skilled in the art, who knows lights, shadows, Evs & film latitudes.
One day, he's equipped with a lightmeter (or two). The following day, she's equipped with a mid-to-high end DSLR. In both cases, the final products will be what gets shot on 4x5 Reversal film. Which of the two days will produce more consistent, good results?
Another argument I found intriguing above is the one about learning the skill; i.e., that I would be learning so much more if I used dedicated light meters to "learn about light". Very fair, I can see how that could be, and I'm willing to take that to heart. I'm still wondering, though, once I *have* learned what needs to be learned, is the "DSLR-as-light-meter" approach always, necessarily, the inferior choice?