Hi Bruce, > I'm trying to figure out why everyone > thinks the LX meter is so fantastic.
If you're not going to be using it for photography in very low light, I don't see it as necessarily any better than other meters. However, if what you mean is the exposure system, then it does have some benefits since the meter will read the light and make adjustments during the exposure itself. How important is that in most situations? Not very, however if situations require exposures longer than, for example, 1/4 second in rapidly changing light, it can be helpful. > Other than low light sensitivity, isn't > it just a normal center weighted meter? > Does it have special powers that other center > weighted meters don't (outside of low light > sensitivity)? See above. > Isn't it mostly about understanding the > equipment and how it works to be able > to use it wisely? That's always the case, but if the system doesn't have the capability, you can't use it, no matter how wisely. > > Bruce Dayton > > Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:24:30 PM, you wrote: > > PS> I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation are > PS> superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, very good > PS> and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an experienced > PS> an knowledgable photograher. Of course you have to consider what's in frame and > PS> what your meter is reading. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an old but > PS> very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the results. > PS> Paul > > PS> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:43 PM > >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) > >> > > >> > > >> > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter > >> > > much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. > >> > > >> > I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, > >> > yet agonize > >> > over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this > >> > developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as > >> > much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much > >> > development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be > >> > affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I > >> > don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, > >> > "sunny sixteen" exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other > >> > atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within > >> > more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much > >> > of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering > >> > with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so > >> > speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the > >> > advantage of > >> > working without it. > >> > Paul > >> > >> The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type meters > >> and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are pointed > >> at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and transfer > >> the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. > >> > >> Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different exposure > >> values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT CHANGED!! > >> I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with > >> the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY annoying. > >> Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in > >> printing > >> but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are not > >> changing. > >> > >> Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been near > >> perfect. > >> It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then again I > >> dont > >> like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting > >> conditions > >> is probably the single most important factor in getting a good photograph. > >> JCO > >> - > >> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > >> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > >> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > PS> - > PS> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > PS> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > PS> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
