Weird thingy

Yesterday on tv there was a documentary, and the photographer had a separate plastic thingy that was reading available light and would tell what to use for the picture (1/250, F4) etc.

Do you have an idea of what it is and how much it cost ?

It's called a light meter, and how much are you willing to spend?
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ssories_Light_M​eters.html

you mean a light meter?

http://sekonic.com/mai​n/

yeah, that's it ! thanks alot. It looks really useful

Gawd.. this is one of the most controversial equipment for me..
I almost pulled a trigger on one.., but I could not help but think "Is it worth more than buying another lens?".

I see the benefit of owning one.., but I guess I need some more convincing..

I find the the incident light meter as indespensible for doing studio flash photography. Sure some will say they just eye it then take a test shot, but I like the meter route and actually have two of them. I also like the spot meter for reading various reflected light values.

I won't try to convince anyone else how to read light or what to do with their money.

Pasukun wrote in post #5508835
"Is it worth more than buying another lens?".

If you're using manual flash, yes.

You have a pretty decent meter in your camera for ambient light. Shooting studio flash is a different story and a meter is quite useful - again, not necessary. I have one and use it almost exclusively for studio light setup.

Curtis N wrote in post #5508967
If you're using manual flash, yes.

Well.. I do use manual flash alot. So I can definitely benefit from it.

One of the reason wanting it is.. because of this article.
And I absolutely hate to blow out the highlight.

I spent Saturday morning shooting second camera with a local pro. I've known him for years, and wanted to shadow him while I transition to the DSLR scene. When I first met him, years ago, his light meter was always out, and constantly referred to. It didn't come out once on Saturday. A test shot or two, and a review of the histogram, and he was good to go. We were both on location and in studio. I still like a second opinion myself though. I prefer to get it as close as possible out of the camera, and not rely on post-processing in RAW. A light meter will help you nail the exposure. I shoot an EOS 1D classic, and the highlights are easy to blow if I'm not careful.

Using the histogram (not available in film cameras) and the function that shows you overblown areas is an accurate light metering system. Why wasting money on a measuring system you can make other mistakes with? Your cam is quite accurate, using manual and make one or two test shots, that's it.

Bamamike wrote in post #5511558
Using the histogram (not available in film cameras) and the function that shows you overblown areas is an accurate light metering system. Why wasting money on a measuring system you can make other mistakes with? Your cam is quite accurate, using manual and make one or two test shots, that's it.

Not even close.

I can and do use my histogram in situations where use of an incident meter isn't possible or practical. It's a valuable tool, but to refer to it as an accurate metering system is simply false.

Histograms also require experience to interpret properly. And when the clipped areas are small, they're easy to miss, especially if you're trying to look at that thing in bright sunlight.

After about 40,000 shots, I can usually get pretty close with histogram evaluation. But when I'm getting paid to make pictures, "usually pretty close" isn't good enough. Incident metering, when practical, is also faster than the "test, chimp, adjust" method. My meter is one of the best investments I've ever made.

If you don't have a meter, a good calibration target can improve the accuracy of the histogram method tremendously. I like these that Ed Pierce sells.

Here's an example of histogram-based metering gone wrong.

Curtis N wrote in post #5511847
Not even close.

I can and do use my histogram in situations where use of an incident meter isn't possible or practical. It's a valuable tool, but to refer to it as an accurate metering system is simply false.

Histograms also require experience to interpret properly. And when the clipped areas are small, they're easy to miss, especially if you're trying to look at that thing in bright sunlight.

After about 40,000 shots, I can usually get pretty close with histogram evaluation. But when I'm getting paid to make pictures, "usually pretty close" isn't good enough. Incident metering, when practical, is also faster than the "test, chimp, adjust" method. My meter is one of the best investments I've ever made.

If you don't have a meter, a good calibration target can improve the accuracy of the histogram method tremendously. I like these that Ed Pierce sells.

Here's an example of histogram-based metering gone wrong.

+1