External light meters or internal?

[kshapero]

Which is better? An external light meter like a Gossen Digisix, or the internal meter on the camera itself?

 

[StaaleS]

An external one is _better_ , as such, simply because you can take both incident and reflected measurements. More handy? Perhaps not 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

What sort of external meter? For ultimate accuracy (defined as 'getting precisely the exposure you want, with slide, digital or negative)') an intelligently used spot meter wipes the floor with everything else, but it's also the slowest route. I'm talking about true spot meters here, 1 degree or even 1/2 degree (SEI) not the so-called 'spot' meters in cameras. For slides or digi, an incident meter is 'better' if you can read the light falling on the subject, or equivalent light, and it's a lot quicker.

But the truth is that any meter needs some interpretation, depending on where you point it and the effect you want to achieve, and that if you know what you're doing, almost any meter is as good as almost any other. The meter you use is always better than the meter you don't use, except when there's no time to use a meter.

If you don't know what you're doing, and follow the meter blindly, you might as well leave the camera on 'auto' anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David William White]

I usually take an ambient reading, incident handheld, set the camera, and if the light doesn't substantially change, just shoot light and shadows as they fall. The photographs most closely match what I saw.

If using an internal TTL meter, assuming center-weighted, the standard technique (RF or SLR) is to:
1) aim at the object you want for midtones, lock or set exposure, then
2) aim the focus patch or cross-hairs at your target and focus, then
3) recompose the frame spatially, and fire.

That way, there are no surprises. However, if doing the furtive, shoot-from-the-hip thing, then set exposure for ambient, set to hyperfocal distance, and go.

If using an internal meter for doing a portrait, zoom in (or step closer) to your subject to find your exposure -- just so the meter isn't fooled by the background.

 

[payasam]

In-camera meters are the best for fast work. Separate meters for incident readings are the most accurate.

 

[kshapero]

Haven't used external meters in 20 or so years. Can pickup a Gossen Digisix for about $60.

 

[coelacanth]

One downside of in-camera meter I felt is that you'll have to look into the VF to read it. I don't like holding camera up any longer than absolutely necessary for street shots. This is very personal preference, though. On-camera meter (like the MC on leica or Rollei 35) is good for this aspect, but they aren't accurate as real external incident metering.

I use no meter for most of b/w shots. When I need a read, I cheat with iPhone LightMeter app. 😛

 

[Al Kaplan]

Incident whenever possible! Selenium cells require no battery but aren't as sensitive in low light. They do have a spectral response closer to film, however.

Topcon used to make an incident diffuser that screwed into the front of the lens. A white plastic cup (not foam) would probably work just fine but you'd have to calibrate it against another meter.

Another advantage of a seperate light meter, a BIG advantage, is that you'll still have your camera to use while your meter is in the shop.

 

[kshapero]

Incident whenever possible! Selenium cells require no battery but aren't as sensitive in low light. They do have a spectral response closer to film, however.

Topcon used to make an incident diffuser that screwed into the front of the lens. A white plastic cup (not foam) would probably work just fine but you'd have to calibrate it against another meter.

Thanks, i knew you would pipe in, Al.

 

[Al Kaplan]

;-) thanks

 

[alexz]

I use Digisix routinely as my main meter (unless guessing the exposure with also happens at a times). Excellent tool, small and intimate...albeit tend to have its buttons pressed accidentally in your pocket...(which may switch it to other mode such as timer, alarm clock temp. meter, etc..)

 

[david.elliott]

Incident meters are very quick and easy to use. Meter and thats your setting until the light changes. Easy.

 

[ZeissFan]

I will use an in-camera meter, if it's working correctly.

Otherwise, I use a small hand-held incident meter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Incident meters are very quick and easy to use. Meter and thats your setting until the light changes. Easy.

Dear David,

Unless you are shooting neg and want to be sure of shadow detail when metering on a sunny day with deep shadows. Then you'd better meter the shadows directly!

Cheers,

R.

 

[david.elliott]

Dear David,

Unless you are shooting neg and want to be sure of shadow detail when metering on a sunny day with deep shadows. Then you'd better meter the shadows directly!

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Agreed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Agreed.

Dear David,

Except, of course, that it's very seldom a problem, so your system is fastest and best for the vast majority of pictures once you know what you are doing, as of course you do. My reply was of course aimed at others who see incident metering as a panacea, not at you. (Sorry, thought I'd better apologise in case I seemed abrupt).

Cheers,

R.

 

[david.elliott]

No worries Roger - no apology necessary at all.

I generally think of my incident meter reading as a midpoint with a range of values around it. That is the easiest way for me to visualize it anyway. To each his own though, of course.

If I wanted to capture the shadows on a sunny day, I either meter the shadows directly, or just adjust aperture / shutter speed - all just to shift the midpoint. Can't say that I have ever wanted to do that though since I generally shoot in dim lighting. 😉

But you are absolutely right to make the point. It is good to have the information out there. I believe you have it covered in your modules too if I remember right. 🙂

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

"for ultimate accuracy (defined as 'getting precisely the exposure you want, with slide, digital or negative)') an intelligently used spot meter wipes the floor with everything else.."

Sorry, in my experience this is not true. In fact, using a spot meter can cause much more confusion. It's difficult in practice to know whether what you're spot-metering is really a middle-gray tone or not, especially with different colors involved. Asphalt or grass may be close to middle gray, but then again they may not. It all depends. I believe that a good incident meter is the most accurate of all. By the way, I have both Pentax and Sekonic spot meters and use them regularly and there are certainly uses for them, but 80% of the time incident is simplest and best.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"for ultimate accuracy (defined as 'getting precisely the exposure you want, with slide, digital or negative)') an intelligently used spot meter wipes the floor with everything else.."

Sorry, in my experience this is not true. In fact, using a spot meter can cause much more confusion. It's difficult in practice to know whether what you're spot-metering is really a middle-gray tone or not, especially with different colors involved. Asphalt or grass may be close to middle gray, but then again they may not. It all depends. I believe that a good incident meter is the most accurate of all. By the way, I have both Pentax and Sekonic spot meters and use them regularly and there are certainly uses for them, but 80% of the time incident is simplest and best.

Well, you shouldn't be using a spot meter to read a mid-tone: that's what I meant by 'intelligently used'. After all, no film speed or sensor speed system is keyed to a mid-tone.

Negative film speeds are keyed to the darkest area (shadow) in which you want texture and detail, without 'blocking' the shadows to a solid black (I.R.E. 1 on the spot meter): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html

Slide speeds (and in effect digital too) are keyed to the lightest area (highlights) in which you want to preserve texture and detail without 'blowing' to a pure white (I.R.E. 10 on the spot meter):
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo slide.html

The first commercially successful spot meter, the SEI, didn't even have a mid-tone index, because mid-tone indices are substantially useless: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/sei.html

I completely agreee that incident is simplest, at least after a through-lens meter, but it is only best if the brightness range of the subject is below about 6 stops (which it normally is, hence your 80% figure) or if you don't care about the shadows.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[icebear]

I totally agree with Roger about the intelligently used spot meter....
Using T90's way back when, I absolutely enjoyed the multispot metering for concert shots.
That brings up another aspect which hasn't been mentioned : The internal meters angle is always depending on the lens used. I.e. with a wide angle lens the accuracy is far lower than with a tele lens. That's why I meter externally when using my VC12.