|
Okay, I have a YashicaMat LM (LM stands for light meter) but I don't really trust the meter, so I was gonna use my other cameras meter....but...my minolta SRT 101 tells me 1/125 @f/5.6 and my digital rebel tells me 0.4 sec @ F/5.6 for the exact same scene. What's up with that? I know both the cameras meters work fine, so why is there this discrepency and which one should I trust or should I go with an average or what?
And btw MacG, my new tripod DOES have a bubble level, I'm just not good at remembering to look at it. 
EDIT: speelin' out.
[last edit 10/24/2004 8:08 PM by Noah Vale - edited 1 times]
"Dallas is a magnificent and wide open city, and I'm deeply envious of any urban explorers who have the good fortune to live there." -Ninj. |
|
you need to have an 18% grey card and meter on it in order to have a good idea of the difference. You Rebel probably use a matrix metering calulating the whole image while your SRT is center weighted measure.
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA |
|
You are correct about the two cameras' meters. However, there's no need for an 18% gray card to check meter calibration [in this context]. Any large solid color should work reasonably well. For the best metering I suggest that you apply a firmware patch to your digital rebel to enable the spot meter. Spot meters are the very best!
[last edit 10/24/2004 9:25 PM by EatsTooMuchJam - edited 1 times]
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits |
|
Am I wrong in suggesting that the rebel will meter for it's own ccd, while the yashica is metering for film? The two are not equivalent. With the big sensor in the rebel, it's not as pronounced as comparing 35mm to a canon a70 fpr example, but there is still a difference.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Posted by 'Dukes
Am I wrong in suggesting that the rebel will meter for it's own ccd, while the yashica is metering for film? The two are not equivalent. With the big sensor in the rebel, it's not as pronounced as comparing 35mm to a canon a70 fpr example, but there is still a difference.
|
Umm, no, the sensor/film size makes absolutely no difference. In theory, 1/125 at f/5.6 will produce the same or similar exposure on any of those cameras using the same ISO speed or equivalent sensitivity for digitals. In practice, Canon's sensors tend to be one stop faster than advertised (their ISO 100 is more like ISO 200), but no, the drastic difference is more likely due to different types of metering (spot vs. center-weighted vs. full averaging).
Noah, sorry to hear the meter is iffy -- I had tested it before and it seemed to be OK. What situations does it fail in?
[last edit 10/25/2004 3:32 AM by Servo - edited 1 times]
|
|
Posted by Servo
Noah, sorry to hear the meter is iffy -- I had tested it before and it seemed to be OK. What situations does it fail in?
|
Well, I'm not sure really, I just don't trust it. I've never even tried to use it's meter, hell; I haven't even finished a roll of night stuff yet.
"Dallas is a magnificent and wide open city, and I'm deeply envious of any urban explorers who have the good fortune to live there." -Ninj. |
|
Posted by 'Dukes
Am I wrong in suggesting that the rebel will meter for it's own ccd, while the yashica is metering for film? The two are not equivalent. With the big sensor in the rebel, it's not as pronounced as comparing 35mm to a canon a70 fpr example, but there is still a difference.
|
What Servo said. I use the same Minolta spot meter for 35mm film, 120 film, and 4x5 sheets. I've used it to give friends with a digital camera an exposure reading too. It worked fine for all of them.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits |
|
Yeah. I was talking to Krenta before about comparing readings from my digital to those from my film camera, to those from my meter, and what he said is that they should all be pretty much the same, the meter (assuming it's working correctly) will be the "correct" exposure, the film camera might under or overexpose by a little +-1/3 stop maybe, for it's "correct" exposure - as sometimes overexposed negative film is desirable, and the digital might do something similar - to keep from blowing the highlights perhaps.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." |
|
Posted by Macsbug
and the digital might do something similar - to keep from blowing the highlights perhaps.
|
Yeah, if you blow out highlights on a digital they're just gone -- no data, nothing you can do. Usually you can salvage detail out of shadows, although it'll be very noisy, but highlights just don't have any information to salvage. This is why I think the Rebel consistently underexposes by 1/3-2/3 a stop.
|
|
Up to now I had very good result using the spotmetering of my nikon coolpix as a light meter for my film cameras, Whatever you use to meter light, you need to use your judgement and experince to have the scene come out like you want.
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA |
|
I may not be phrasing this right, but with my p and s digital, I get away with 1/500 exposures in low light situations. My slr meters 1/8 at 1.4. Maybe I misinterpreted the info, but, the smaller lens, sensor, does it yield an effective "faster" lens?. My digital is always able to shoot faster than film. Always. And of course the apertures are odd.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Posted by 'Dukes
I may not be phrasing this right, but with my p and s digital, I get away with 1/500 exposures in low light situations. My slr meters 1/8 at 1.4.
|
What ISO film vs. what equivalent ISO for the P&S? Also, how well exposed is the P&S' image?
| Maybe I misinterpreted the info, but, the smaller lens, sensor, does it yield an effective "faster" lens?. |
No. A large SLR lens rated at f/4 and a small P&S lens rated at f/4 will deliver the same exposure, but the P&S lens doesn't cover as large an image circle. So actually there's much less light being gathered by the P&S lens, but the light that is gathered is collected into a smaller area, so the effective exposure is the same.
My digital is always able to shoot faster than film. Always. And of course the apertures are odd.
|
Huh and huh?
|
|
I always wondered why I got away with low light exposures with my
fuji. So I viewed the EXIF info; the digital exposure info yields shutter speeds that are way past anything that my slr could meter.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Huh? That doesn't make sense to me, unless you are talking about pretty long exposures - like 15-30+ seconds. Otherwise your SLR should be able to meter it fine, at least meter to 4 seconds fine.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." |
|
digital yields 1/320; slr yields 1/30th. The digi is always "faster"
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Posted by 'Dukes
digital yields 1/320; slr yields 1/30th.
|
What ISO setting on each? It's possible that the SLR's meter is set on ISO 50 while the digital is on ISO 400 or something... also, different metering modes could explain this as well.
[last edit 10/26/2004 2:50 AM by Servo - edited 1 times]
|
|
maybe we should bring the gray card back...
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA |
|
anyone know what kind of meter is in a cannon ae-1program?
... well yea actually this is a flashlight in my pocket .. but im still happy to see you |
|
some variety of reflected meter. likely either a simple averaging meter or possibly a center-weighted averaging meter.
Like a fiend with his dope / a drunkard his wine / a man will have lust for the lure of the mine
"If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent." |
|
Probably center-weighted. Averaging meters are actually very rare in cameras. It's easier to make it center-weighted.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits |
Ethics
