John, care to elaborate? I stated in my first post, that
when it comes to optimising exposure to capture the most dynamic
range, multi-segment matrix meters and fully-electronic cameras
may even have the edge.
But when it comes to accuracy, a reflected-light meter is denied
the simple fact of "how much light is there, actually?". I maintain
that an incident light meter will always be more accurate to capture
the chosen subject correctly (of course, provided you can actually meter
the light, i.e. that it's not distant).
I am open to discussion though :-) But you'll have to make a very strong
argument, as the past couple of years of experience have taught me this.
With any reflected-light meter, you have to become good at guessing
exposure
compensation, or taking multiple shots.
With any of my mechanical cameras + incident meter, I am making much
more accurate
exposures than what my Canon 1-series SLR with multi-segment-matrix-
metering
ever did. Of course, it's a slower process.
Dawid
On 13 May 2010, at 2:48 AM, John Hudson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:37 AM
> Subject: [OM] Incident Light metering
>
>
>> An incident light meter simply cannot be equalled by any other in-
>> camera reflected-light
>
> ****SHIT !!!
>
>
> jh
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|