1D MkII-Camera vs. Handheld Light Meter

[robekert]

I have never been happy with the in-camera metering of the 1D Mark II. My 1D Mark II is now just over 1 year old. I have tried all of the metering modes and they have left me, for the most part, disappointed. I have never shot a film SLR camera so I have never had the opportunity or need to use a hand held light meter. I figured what the heck. I will give it a try. I purchased a Sekonic L358 light meter.

The in-camera meter measures only "reflected" light. The Sekonic L358 measures reflected light by using the spot feature, but more importantly, it can measure "ambient" light in "incident" mode. (To do "distance spot metering" you have to purchase an additional accessory. They do make an all in one model but it was a bit cost prohibitive just to try a meter.) "Incident Mode" measures the light falling on the entire scene. The meter is very flexible in the way you can initiate the reading. It works along the same lines as the camera. All settings are flexible. You can set the ISO you would like to use. You can set it for Shutter Priority (Tv), Aperature Priority (Av) and it can also be used as a flash meter, I have not really gotten into this feature yet. After taking the reading, on the handheld, you can use the Jog Wheel to scroll through all of the Shutter/Aperature combinations from the reading at the chosen ISO.

As I had stated, I have never shot a film SLR, but from what I have read some films can be "pushed" with great latitude. Film seems to be more forgiving in this respect. I have found that digital is not as forgiving as some would lead you to believe. I trust my own experiences and my own eyes. I have found that even shooting in RAW and adjusting the exposure I am losing too much of the informational details of the shot if my exposure is not "on". Even with the high pixel count of the 1D Mark II, I am losing too much information.

I did a few preliminary tests to see if the metering, Camera vs. Lightmeter, was merely a duplication step..........It was not. The ambient reading was different (slightly) and was nailing a good exposure. I was shooting in Manual Mode so it was just a matter of transferring the settings to the camera and shooting. When using the in-camera meter, you have to look through the viewfinder and turn this wheel and turn that wheel while studing the reading. If anyone has shot in manual mode you know to what I refer. I started to trust the handheld meter totally. I think my trust was rewarded.......

1D Mark II-24-70L (no flash)
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/1509DPP_0051.jpg?7677

1D Mark II-70-200 2.8 IS
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/150905-07-05_Jacob_Batting.jpg?2502

I find I am now freed to look at composition and framing of the shot from the get go. I am not tossing shots just to get to the correct setting by shooting and looking at the histogram over and over and hoping it is correct. Lets be honest, the LCD screen is small. How many times have you thought you got the shot only to view it on the computer and see the small problems not evident in the LCD zoom of the shot.

This is merely my experience. Some may find the in-camera meter "spot on". For those of you who have traveled a path similar to mine.........try a handheld meter.

*Note-B&H has a smaller meter for sale than the one I purchased. It looks like it will fit in your pocket and has most of the features of the L358. It is the Sekonic L-308BII Flashmate. It is listed at $179 but when you add it to your cart you get an instant rebate and the cost is lowered to about $145.
Cheers,
Rob

[Todd Jacobsen]

Rob,

I'd agree if my purpose was to shoot jpeg only. I'd also agree if no post processing was the end goal (which essentially negates the need to shoot raw).

I have, so far, shot RAW+jpeg and I am definitely more pleased with the RAW output vs jpeg since it is very easy to get underexposed jpegs. That doesn't mean the data is lost, just underexposed. Any picture is "recoverable" as long as the data is within the histogram limits.

The reason why film is "forgiving" is the same reason digital raw is "forgiving". But if the data is not contained within the mediums limits, you cannot "push" it to get that data back.

[sp00g3]

For $50 more you can get the L-358 at bh its only 197 when you add it to the cart.

[robekert]

Rob,

I'd agree if my purpose was to shoot jpeg only. I'd also agree if no post processing was the end goal (which essentially negates the need to shoot raw).

I have, so far, shot RAW+jpeg and I am definitely more pleased with the RAW output vs jpeg since it is very easy to get underexposed jpegs. That doesn't mean the data is lost, just underexposed. Any picture is "recoverable" as long as the data is within the histogram limits.

Todd,
Thanks for your comments. I may have not stated clearly, in the initial post, that the two shots were captured in RAW format. I have performed post-processing on both images but they did not require as much manipulation as some of my images in the past. It seems as though the light meter gets me much closer to the desired exposure. Each of the images were the first captures after metering the scene. I can't say that happened a lot when I used the in-camera meter, the process seems to take a few more shots to get me there.
Cheers,
Rob

[robekert]

For $50 more you can get the L-358 at bh its only 197 when you add it to the cart.

Yea,
I know I bought the L-358. I just wanted to present subsequent findings after my pruchase. The 358 has more features hence the higher price. The noted meter fits into your pocket. Just an FYI.
Cheers,
Rob

[booggerg]

Yeeah but with in-camera TTL meter, you can't just meter something in the scene blindly without any consideration of it's surroundings. If you compare metering blindly to using an incident meter, you'll no doubt see a big improvement.

[robekert]

Yeeah but with in-camera TTL meter, you can't just meter something in the scene blindly without any consideration of it's surroundings. If you compare metering blindly to using an incident meter, you'll no doubt see a big improvement.

I did not see in my post that I stated that I metered blindly. I have used the 1D Mark II for 1 year now. I have used all of the different metering modes. As I stated in my original post each has left me unsatisfied. I seem to have a higher level of satisfaction using the hand held.
Cheers,
Rob

[Todd Jacobsen]

I did not see in my post that I stated that I metered blindly. I have used the 1D Mark II for 1 year now. I have used all of the different metering modes. As I stated in my original post each has left me unsatisfied. I seem to have a higher level of satisfaction using the hand held.
Cheers,
Rob

Question1: What is your preferred shooting mode?
a) manual
b) creative zone
c) basic zone


So, walk me through your lighting scenario...

1) Your sitting in the "stands" (or lawnchair)
2) You decide to take action photos of a specific subject at a specific location (home plate)

Question 2: You used lightmeter for:
a) An incident reading (walk to subject location and meter)
b) A reflective reading (point lightmeter towards subject location)
c) Ambient reading (you feel your close enough to subject)

Question 3: You take the meter reading
a) When you felt like it
b) A moment before taking the photo
c) Within the last hour

3) You then manually adjust camera to metered apeture/shutter speed

Question 4: You use this adjustment
a) for this subject and location only
b) for the rest of the afternoon
c) until you can lightmeter again

If I were in your situation and wanted to take a lightmeter reading, I'm not sure I would agree that the lightmeter would do a better job - particularly with the camera you are using (spot meter capable).

Question 5: Did you ever cross-check what the lightmeter gave you vs what the camera would have (let say, in Program, Av or Tv mode)?

You may be dealing with a specific offset based off of your camera's metering vs lightmeter.

I own the 358 but have not yet found it usefull to use in an action setting. I much prefer using a grey card (Whibal) to achieve better WB. Some people use CWB+grey card but I prefer post processing use of the test shot (via ACR).

[DocFrankenstein]

POP QUIZ!

Question1: ....
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[robekert]

If I were in your situation and wanted to take a lightmeter reading, I'm not sure I would agree that the lightmeter would do a better job - particularly with the camera you are using (spot meter capable).

I guess you are entitled to your opinion. I am not a pro. Just some guy attempting to take a few nice shots with equipment that some day I may be as good as.
Cheers,
Rob

[Mike H]

I have never been happy with the in-camera metering of the 1D Mark II. My 1D Mark II is now just over 1 year old. I have tried all of the metering modes and they have left me, for the most part, disappointed ...

I have found that digital is not as forgiving as some would lead you to believe ...

I did a few preliminary tests to see if the metering, Camera vs. Lightmeter, was merely a duplication step..........It was not. The ambient reading was different (slightly) and was nailing a good exposure ...

I find I am now freed to look at composition and framing of the shot from the get go. I am not tossing shots just to get to the correct setting by shooting and looking at the histogram over and over and hoping it is correct ...

Cheers,
Rob

This has been my experience as well. The meter is usually off a bit, sometimes quite a bit. And while RAW does give some margin for error, the closer you get to a correct exposure (whatever that is!) the better your image quality. So I've worked out my own solution.

My work generally falls into two categories, event photography and portraits. For event photography taking incident readings is often not convenient since you have to move quickly to get some shots in constantly changing light. I know that I'm in deeper trouble if I get overexposure than if I get underexposure, so I take two-shot brackets of everything (it's a personal function on the 1DM2). The first shot is at the meter's automatic setting (using evaluative metering), or at the auto setting plus 1/3 step. The second shot is always one stop less. The Mark II will take two shots in the blink of an eye, so they're basically the same image, except for the exposure level. I could do three-shot brackets, but the card would be filled faster, and again, I'm not as worried about underexposure because it can be fixed a little easier.

For portraits I always use an incident meter, in my case the Minolta Auto IVF. This nails the exposure the first time, though I usually remember to check the histogram. In the end it's quicker, and I'm happier with my results.

[Curtis N]

Interesting thread.

I have asked the "histogram vs. light meter" question elsewhere, and when pro photogs answer it, I get the feeling that their opinions are biased by their entrenched training and years of shooting film. Since robekert's background in photography more closely resembles my own, I appreciate his perspective.

It has occured to my that my 300D has essentially 6.3 million light meters. Every time I take a shot, the camera compiles the data from all of them in a fairly detailed bar graph (histogram). I have learned pretty quickly how to interpret this data and adjust for the exposure I want. Obviously these millions of meters are behind the lens, aperture and shutter, so using them requires a different approach.

I agree that in-camera metering systems have their shortcomings, and it's worse with the 300D since my ability to select the metering mode is limited. While trying to understand the value of hand-held light meters, I'm still not convinced that using one would help me find the "right" exposure more quickly than histogram analysis. A light meter could be a good learning tool, but in my mind it's hard to justify the investment.

[Todd Jacobsen]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry,

Not intended as a quiz, but wanted to better understand Rob's use of the lightmeter during an action event.

Rob,

Not saying your use of the lightmeter is wrong, I currently can't grasp the process (action shots with lightmeter) and was hoping you could describe it better. I gots da equipment (L358), but my purchase was for studio settings and remote trigger capabilities (w/ PW transmitter). I also consider it my incident meter (vs reflective), thus my questions above.

[robekert]

This has been my experience as well. The meter is usually off a bit, sometimes quite a bit. And while RAW does give some margin for error, the closer you get to a correct exposure (whatever that is!) the better your image quality. So I've worked out my own solution.

My work generally falls into two categories, event photography and portraits. For event photography taking incident readings is often not convenient since you have to move quickly to get some shots in constantly changing light. I know that I'm in deeper trouble if I get overexposure than if I get underexposure, so I take two-shot brackets of everything (it's a personal function on the 1DM2). The first shot is at the meter's automatic setting (using evaluative metering), or at the auto setting plus 1/3 step. The second shot is always one stop less. The Mark II will take two shots in the blink of an eye, so they're basically the same image, except for the exposure level. I could do three-shot brackets, but the card would be filled faster, and again, I'm not as worried about underexposure because it can be fixed a little easier.

For portraits I always use an incident meter, in my case the Minolta Auto IVF. This nails the exposure the first time, though I usually remember to check the histogram. In the end it's quicker, and I'm happier with my results.

Good tips Mike,
I was aware of the bracketing functon of the camera. To be honest I just wantd to give a handheld meter a try. As I had stated the in-camera meter left me unstatisfied. All I wanted to do was to impart my positive findings to the board community. I have no reason to work fast and quick. I am not a pro and do not have any events to shoot. If I did have an event I may try using your method.
Cheers,
Rob

[robekert]

Sorry,

Not intended as a quiz, but wanted to better understand Rob's use of the lightmeter during an action event.

Rob,

Not saying your use of the lightmeter is wrong, I currently can't grasp the process (action shots with lightmeter) and was hoping you could describe it better. I gots da equipment (L358), but my purchase was for studio settings and remote trigger capabilities (w/ PW transmitter). I also consider it my incident meter (vs reflective), thus my questions above.

Todd,
I did not offer answers to your questions because I am not a pro and do not have a very tight workflow with the hand held light meter. I am learning too.
Rob

[robekert]

Interesting thread.

I have asked the "histogram vs. light meter" question elsewhere, and when pro photogs answer it, I get the feeling that their opinions are biased by their entrenched training and years of shooting film. Since robekert's background in photography more closely resembles my own, I appreciate his perspective.

Glad to know I am not the only one. I sometimes feel that some with film SLR background instinctivly do some things without realizing it. As you stated they possess "entrenched" knowlege.

I agree that in-camera metering systems have their shortcomings, and it's worse with the 300D since my ability to select the metering mode is limited. While trying to understand the value of hand-held light meters, I'm still not convinced that using one would help me find the "right" exposure more quickly than histogram analysis. A light meter could be a good learning tool, but in my mind it's hard to justify the investment.

Imagine my dismay, my 1D Mark II was purchased the week it released 4/2004. I paid full retail of $4500. That was a tough nut to swallow. I also had a 300D then moved to the 1D Mark II. I am aware of the shorcomings you refer to with the DRebel. The 1D Mark II has one limitation........the guy standing behind it. I also like threads like this. I think this is POTN at its best.
Cheers,
Rob

[robekert]

I found this link to a very simple tutorial about the L-358. It could not get any easier.

http://www.eddiebonfigli.com/L358.html

Cheers,
Rob

[CyberDyneSystems]

Although I have not opted to get a light meter,. mostly because my methods and subject matter would make it's use cumbersme.. I am sure that the in camera meter is lacking as compared to a good hand held meter.

The 1D posed significant metering problems for me to overcome after the 10D which seemd to "nail it" a lot more often for me.

After using the 10D for over a year and essentially NEVER checking the histogram in the field it took me some time to come to grips with the MkII. Much "chimping" and learning later I feel confident with the MkII's exposure now..

Some observations of my 1D MkII;
1. Almost allways needs "plus" compensation in any metering mode (at least 1/3)

2. The Spot meter is off by at least a full stop (needs at least a full stop "plus" compensation)

3. "Partial" metering is far more usefull on moving subjects than spot metering where a slight shift will ruin exposure.

[robekert]

Although I have not opted to get a light meter,. mostly because my methods and subject matter would make it's use cumbersme.. I am sure that the in camera meter is lacking as compared to a good hand held meter.

The 1D posed significant metering problems for me to overcome after the 10D which seemd to "nail it" a lot more often for me.

After using the 10D for over a year and essentially NEVER checking the histogram in the field it took me some time to come to grips with the MkII. Much "chimping" and learning later I feel confident with the MkII's exposure now..

Some observations of my 1D MkII;
1. Almost allways needs "plus" compensation in any metering mode (at least 1/3)

2. The Spot meter is off by at least a full stop (needs at least a full stop "plus" compensation)

3. "Partial" metering is far more usefull on moving subjects than spot metering where a slight shift will ruin exposure.

CDS,
Thanks for your input of your experiences.
Rob