Sekonic L358 beats 10D's meter...

[yalemba]

After using my 10D for primarily portraits for over six months now, finally today I bought a Sekonic L358 light meter; and folks, it has made a differece on my portrait photography!!!

The readings from this meter are dead on and seem to be more precise than the 10D readings. I took several pictures using 24-70L 2.8 lens and compared results...the meter is well worth its price and extra work.

I look forward to hearing back about your experience with L358.

[Morden]

I have heard and read numerous good things about this meter. I've wanted a decent light meter for a while. I might get myself one of these!

[defordphoto]

After using my 10D for primarily portraits for over six months now, finally today I bought a Sekonic L358 light meter; and folks, it has made a differece on my portrait photography!!!

I should hope so. That's a sweet meter. I couldn't imagine trying to tackle 'real' portrait photography without one. The 10D does a fine job as a built-in on-camera metering system, but can't match a meter-only like the Sekonic.

[DaveG]

After using my 10D for primarily portraits for over six months now, finally today I bought a Sekonic L358 light meter; and folks, it has made a differece on my portrait photography!!!

The readings from this meter are dead on and seem to be more precise than the 10D readings. I took several pictures using 24-70L 2.8 lens and compared results...the meter is well worth its price and extra work.

I look forward to hearing back about your experience with L358.

How are you using the Canon's meter? To meter available light? If it is available light use the camera on manual. Set the camera to that exact exposure and take a shot. Check the histogram on the review. Adjust as necessary. With the L358 do the same thing.

Can the Canon's meter be fooled? Yup. But so can an incident meter, so don't think that these things are fool proof.

The single biggest advantage of digital photography - to me - is the ability to REVIEW what the camera did, NOT what a meter is going to PREVIEW (or more correctly: predict) it will. If you are using either meter, in camera or incident, and aren't reviewing the exposures then you are missing a truly important part of the digital package.

Of course if you are using studio flashes then you'll need a flash meter and there is none in the Canon. But for ambient light the camera's meter will get you close enough and then the post review adjustments will make it perfect.

[dennykyser]

I plan on ordering a meter tomorow, I too am leaning to the L358. Glad to hear your results.

[yalemba]

Dear DaveG:

Yes, I have been using the 'histogram-based' techniques for some time now. The 10D does a fine, but not a great job, of metering for portraits.

First, it's using the "reflected technique, which is not considered as precise as Sekonic's "incident-based" technique. In this technique, the camera seems to be averaging out the overall exposure to arrive at the aperture/shutter values, and is more vulnerable to deviations in overall light conditions.

The histogram is a good reference tool when one wants to check the overall distribution of colors/tones in a landscape picture, but for portrait photography, one has to ensure that the exposure on subject's face is captured as precisely as possible. In my case, the new Sekonic meter has taken the guessing out of the equation by giving me the exact aperture and shutter values.

[Malaxos1]

I also have a Sekonic 358 and love it. The reason for the great results is thatthe meter measures light falling on the subject while the camera's meter measures reflected light. Unless you know how to properly use a reflected meter all measurments will be at 18% gray. I have recently learned the zone system and found myself using the camera's meter a more often without haveing problems with exposure. I bought the Sekonic for weddings and will still use it for that. Also the Sekonic 358 meter can be seen on the Lord Of the Rings/ Duracell comercial...Dean

[DaveG]

I also have a Sekonic 358 and love it. The reason for the great results is thatthe meter measures light falling on the subject while the camera's meter measures reflected light. Unless you know how to properly use a reflected meter all measurments will be at 18% gray. I have recently learned the zone system and found myself using the camera's meter a more often without haveing problems with exposure. I bought the Sekonic for weddings and will still use it for that. Also the Sekonic 358 meter can be seen on the Lord Of the Rings/ Duracell comercial...Dean

I have a Minolta IVf meter. I use it all the time with studio strobes and when I'm using
large format cameras. I have nothing against incident meters and they provide important
functions, especially for calculating lighting ratios with strobes. But as I've said before
the Canon's meter will get you more than close enough for digital exposures and then
bracketing after reviewing the histogram will do the rest.

Try using an incident meter with transparency film where the subject is very dark or very
light and see how wrong it can be.

I don't really see why you site the Zone system in support of an incident meter. If you
have used Zone then the meter that everyone uses is a spotmeter not an incident meter.
You select a value to a "Zone" ("I want that dark part to still retain detail. I want that
light part to retain detail as well." and that requires a spot meter. Most of Zone is moot
anyway with digital since the next step is goosing the development in order to control the
contrast range so that the negative matches up with the previsualization, and that doesn’t
really happen with digital.

Finally the exposure comes down to one shutterspeed and one aperture. No more and no
less. All any meter can do is estimate what the "correct" aperture/shutterspeed
combination should be.

Using a histogram sees how that combination has worked. If you let in more light the
histogram peaks move to the right. If you let in less light the peaks go left. The peaks
themselves are the construct of the scene and all you do with the exposure is move them
around.

[Malaxos1]

Sorry if you missunderstood me. I am not siting the zone system in support of the incedent meter. What I am saying is that I use the incedent meter with indoor lighting where contrasts are extreme, like with a white wedding dress and a black tux at a wedding. I use the zone system for simple point and shoot times. One good thing about this meter by the way is that you can get a 1 degree spot meter attachment for the it for $100...Dean

[Malaxos1]

I forgot to mention something; I used to use the hystogram with my Olympus E10 all the time. However I found it too time consuming to go back and change things. Sometimes you miss a ver important shot doing it this way. Some people have been successful with using the hystogram, but for me I would rather meter right the first time and not waste a shot. I like breaking the image down to it's simple tones and compensate exposure with either changing shutterspeed, aperture ar exposure compensation. :)

[mjordan]

Both meters, handheld and camera meters see light different. They can both be just as accurate as the other... as long as both are consistant. The key is to use the light meter the same each time and learn how it reads light based on the exposure that you want for the results that you are after. Once you learn how your light meter reads light and you use it consistantly the same (or know it well enough to know what you have to do if you use it a different way) you will be able to get consistant correct exposures time after time.

If you use your camera meter from your shooting position but you walk up and put the handheld meter in the person's face aiming back to the camera, you will get two different readings. The camera is reading in a lot different light than what the handheld light meter is seeing falling on it. You will get a better reading if you walk up and fill your meter sensor with the area that you want to meter (it doesn't matter if it's in focus or not). This will give you a lot more accurate reading than standing back 10 or 15 feet.

I've had the L-358 for a couple of years, mostly for a flash meter. It's an excellent meter with a few more bells and whistles than the Minolta IVf (which is also an excellent meter). I like that my L-358 can take the Pocket Wizard transmitter module so I can test fire my studio lights without hooking the pc cord to it. I use this feature a lot.

Mike

[Vegas Poboy]

I've been using the the 358 for over a year now & it's well worth the purchase I was lucky to get it on a student discount. When using regular film you can't see the value in it due to the lattitude in the film but when shooting B&W, E6 and the digital it helps a great deal. In the fall semester it save my butt due to all of the different lighting assignments that we had. The one thing I do recommend to all is if you have the extra $$ go ahead & purchase the next grade up with the built in spot meter it may help one day in the field. So far I have had the time to bracket all of my outdoor shots but I'm not big on landscapes.
L358 is a good buy !!!

[slin100]

I also have a Sekonic 358 and love it. The reason for the great results is thatthe meter measures light falling on the subject while the camera's meter measures reflected light. Unless you know how to properly use a reflected meter all measurments will be at 18% gray.

It should be noted that the Sekonic L-358 is calibrated at 12.5% gray. Evidence also points at, at least, the 10D also being calibrated at 12.5%.

[Malaxos1]

I also have a Sekonic 358 and love it. The reason for the great results is thatthe meter measures light falling on the subject while the camera's meter measures reflected light. Unless you know how to properly use a reflected meter all measurments will be at 18% gray.

It should be noted that the Sekonic L-358 is calibrated at 12.5% gray. Evidence also points at, at least, the 10D also being calibrated at 12.5%.

That makes no sence as 18% is the standard. If it were 12.5% than you would have to rethink anything you may have learned about photography to get the right exposure. I have used an 18% gray card, my Sekonic 358 and the zone system to get correct exposures and have found them all to be geared towards the 18% gray. I have read that from time to time you will need to have your meter calibrated. Perhaps this is the case, mine is brand new however...Dean

[DaveG]

I also have a Sekonic 358 and love it. The reason for the great results is thatthe meter measures light falling on the subject while the camera's meter measures reflected light. Unless you know how to properly use a reflected meter all measurments will be at 18% gray.

It should be noted that the Sekonic L-358 is calibrated at 12.5% gray. Evidence also points at, at least, the 10D also being calibrated at 12.5%.

That makes no sence as 18% is the standard. If it were 12.5% than you would have to rethink anything you may have learned about photography to get the right exposure. I have used an 18% gray card, my Sekonic 358 and the zone system to get correct exposures and have found them all to be geared towards the 18% gray. I have read that from time to time you will need to have your meter calibrated. Perhaps this is the case, mine is brand new however...Dean

"If it were 12.5% than you would have to rethink anything you may have learned about photography to get the right exposure."

Yup

[slin100]

It should be noted that the Sekonic L-358 is calibrated at 12.5% gray. Evidence also points at, at least, the 10D also being calibrated at 12.5%.

That makes no sence as 18% is the standard. If it were 12.5% than you would have to rethink anything you may have learned about photography to get the right exposure. I have used an 18% gray card, my Sekonic 358 and the zone system to get correct exposures and have found them all to be geared towards the 18% gray. I have read that from time to time you will need to have your meter calibrated. Perhaps this is the case, mine is brand new however...Dean

Check your manual, or look at the Calibration Constant used by Sekonic online (http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-358.html). The constant is listed as K=12.5. A Google search on "Kodak gray 18% 12.5%" will return a number of sources that claim that 12.5% reflectance is an ANSI standard.

You will also find reports that Kodak gray cards manufactured between 1979 and 1999 omitted instructions to open up 1/2 stop from a reflected metering off of the card.

Time to start rethinking. :)

Seriously, the difference is not worth worrying about.

[Malaxos1]

It should be noted that the Sekonic L-358 is calibrated at 12.5% gray. Evidence also points at, at least, the 10D also being calibrated at 12.5%.

That makes no sence as 18% is the standard. If it were 12.5% than you would have to rethink anything you may have learned about photography to get the right exposure. I have used an 18% gray card, my Sekonic 358 and the zone system to get correct exposures and have found them all to be geared towards the 18% gray. I have read that from time to time you will need to have your meter calibrated. Perhaps this is the case, mine is brand new however...Dean

Check your manual, or look at the Calibration Constant used by Sekonic online (http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-358.html). The constant is listed as K=12.5. A Google search on "Kodak gray 18% 12.5%" will return a number of sources that claim that 12.5% reflectance is an ANSI standard.

You will also find reports that Kodak gray cards manufactured between 1979 and 1999 omitted instructions to open up 1/2 stop from a reflected metering off of the card.

Time to start rethinking. :)

Seriously, the difference is not worth worrying about.

Well, 12% gray would be around 2/3 stops less than 18%, and just 1/3 stop above the 9% dark gray level. So if it really is only 12% do you compensate 2/3 everytime you want to hit 18%? I just recently tooks some photos of a snow storm that we got here in Portland, and just to check it out, I shot a few photos. One was shot normal exposure and one at +2 stops to get 72% white and a third at 1 1/2 stops. Anyway here is a link to see the samples...Dean

http://groups.msn.com/CanonDigitalRebel300DSupportGroup/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message =410&LastModified=4675455253404298237

[slin100]

Well, 12% gray would be around 2/3 stops less than 18%, and just 1/3 stop above the 9% dark gray level. So if it really is only 12% do you compensate 2/3 everytime you want to hit 18%? I just recently tooks some photos of a snow storm that we got here in Portland, and just to check it out, I shot a few photos. One was shot normal exposure and one at +2 stops to get 72% white and a third at 1 1/2 stops. Anyway here is a link to see the samples...Dean

http://groups.msn.com/CanonDigitalRebel300DSupportGroup/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message =410&LastModified=4675455253404298237

12% is .584 stops less than 18%, and 12.5% is .526 stops below 18%, so I'd say the difference is closer to 1/2 stop.

A scene filled with snow is not a scene with average reflectance. For this kind of scene where the goal is to capture some detail in the snow, the limited dynamic range of the camera forces one to depart from where the meter would want to put the midtone, which is exactly what you did by increasing the exposure.

Note that if you had metered off of a gray card, you probably would have had to decrease exposure to retain detail in the snow. IMO, the +1 1/2 stop overexposure looks best. That means that a approximately -1 stop exposure from a metered gray card should have produced the same result.

[Malaxos1]

Well, 12% gray would be around 2/3 stops less than 18%, and just 1/3 stop above the 9% dark gray level. So if it really is only 12% do you compensate 2/3 everytime you want to hit 18%? I just recently tooks some photos of a snow storm that we got here in Portland, and just to check it out, I shot a few photos. One was shot normal exposure and one at +2 stops to get 72% white and a third at 1 1/2 stops. Anyway here is a link to see the samples...Dean

http://groups.msn.com/CanonDigitalRebel300DSupportGroup/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message =410&LastModified=4675455253404298237

12% is .584 stops less than 18%, and 12.5% is .526 stops below 18%, so I'd say the difference is closer to 1/2 stop.

A scene filled with snow is not a scene with average reflectance. For this kind of scene where the goal is to capture some detail in the snow, the limited dynamic range of the camera forces one to depart from where the meter would want to put the midtone, which is exactly what you did by increasing the exposure.

Note that if you had metered off of a gray card, you probably would have had to decrease exposure to retain detail in the snow. IMO, the +1 1/2 stop overexposure looks best. That means that a approximately -1 stop exposure from a metered gray card should have produced the same result.

Yes but, its funny how it came out exactly how the book "The confused photographer's guide to the simplified zone system" said it would if I did it as the said I should? It's amazing but I have been getting the correct results after using this technique. The dynamic range with digital is the same as with slides and does not have as much range as negative film...Dean

[DaveG]

Dear DaveG:

Yes, I have been using the 'histogram-based' techniques for some time now. The 10D does a fine, but not a great job, of metering for portraits.

First, it's using the "reflected technique, which is not considered as precise as Sekonic's "incident-based" technique. In this technique, the camera seems to be averaging out the overall exposure to arrive at the aperture/shutter values, and is more vulnerable to deviations in overall light conditions.

The histogram is a good reference tool when one wants to check the overall distribution of colors/tones in a landscape picture, but for portrait photography, one has to ensure that the exposure on subject's face is captured as precisely as possible. In my case, the new Sekonic meter has taken the guessing out of the equation by giving me the exact aperture and shutter values.

The reflected technique is NOT considered to be less precise than incident. In the Zone system, where precision is very important, the photographer will use a spot meter, which is a reflected meter with a tiny (1 degree) area of coverage. And I want to make the point that even a spot meter - or ANY METER - can be fooled if you are not careful or know how to use one.

Now, you say that the camera's meter: "... is more vulnerable to deviations in overall light conditions.", and this isn't true. It IS more vulnerable to the different tones of what you are pointing it at, but the what kind of light conditions would affect it? How could it affect it? And once again remember that after all of this metering (of any kind) plus any histogram viewing, an exposure boils down to ONE shutterspeed and ONE aperture.

Of course the meter in the Canon isn't as precise as a spot meter, but neither is an incident meter. An incident meter will meter the light that has "incidently" fallen on it and depending on which authority you believe it will give you and exposure based on 18% or 12% grey. Now this works great as long as the subject isn't really dark or really light while you are using a film (or digital) with a narrow latitude. In spite of what you think the incident meter will not give you the correct exposure every time.

As I say else where on this thread I use an incident meter for large format film exposures and for calculating flash lighting ratios. When I shoot transparency film I usually do a three shot bracket. One on, one over, and one under. But when I shoot something like leaves in a dark stream I know that I have to open up a stop to start, or my base exposure will be too dark and even the one stop of over exposure may not be enough. This is where using an incident meter without interpreting its results will get you into trouble. And I had to prove this to myself believe me!

If I was doing an ambient light portrait with a digital camera I would use the camera's meter. If the lighting was really tricky (say low key) I'd move as close as I could to meter the subject's face close up. Then I would make an exposure. I'd check the histogram and change that exposure as necessary. The rest of the shoot would be done at that modified exposure, assuming that the light didn't change. This would be quick and accurate, and you don't need the incident meter.