Many YT photographers say that an incident reading is superior to a spot metering, and in theory, I overstand that. The problem, as I see it for landscape photography, is that, as you described in your example of shooting the trees behind you that are in the sunlight, is that very often the scene/object you're shooting is in the distance, which doesn't make for a convenient way to measure the same quality of light. Not wild about buying a used meter either, however, the Pentax Digital Spot is so elegantly simple.
The Pentax Digital Spotmeter is the best of it's kind, but they have not made them in decades. They are all getting pretty old and finding a reliable and not too banged up copy is hard. The Raveni is actually not that bad it just doesn't do low light well. The Sekonic is very expensive for what it is and that it's not been updated in 15 years. If I had to buy one today it would be the Raveni and I'd pass on the Pentax and the Sekonic.
Yes for sure, proper processing is where it's at. I'll have to give it a try and see what it's like. Have you toned it at all and how did it do if you have?
No I’ve never toned Art 300 prints. Art 300 is a warm toned paper as is- and ethol lpd can be a warm toned developer at certain dilutions. So I was able to get the look I wanted without it. If you tone for permanence then it’s a different story. I don’t sell my darkroom prints so I’m not super concerned with that.
My Gossen Luna-Pro light meter (in a very nice leather case) stopped working (it only lasted me 35 years😂). How would you compare the accuracy of the built-in light meter in today’s cameras (X-T4 in my case) to a proper light meter.
Good question. Honestly I think modern in camera meters are way over complicated. Though you do have the option to choose spot or center weighted which is much simpler and if you know what you're doing much more useful. For bracketing shots I use matrix, and for critical exposure I use spot in camera. But non of those exposures are as accurate as a good incident reading or a carefully curated spot interpretation if you have the time.
The "clear memory function" is the clunkiest bit of design ever. Did no one at Sekonic take it out for a test? I'd like to see a scrolling zone system ribbon at the bottom of the main screen. Can't be beyond the wit of man? Or can it?
@@joecalabresi4072 If you need a spot meter and don't want to buy a thrashed used one for $400, then yes... But you might want to try the Raveni Labs spot meter for under $200. It's kind of quirky but it works.That's what I would have bought if it had been available when I bought the Sekonic.
I've never really understood the attraction of the design of these Sekonic meters, packing an incident meter on top of a spot meter. There is a place for each meter type, but rarely will the twain meet. Frankly, just looking at YT, it seems clear that 90% of the younger incident meter users have no clue as to its proper use or limitations. This group has a large coincidence with the "shoot at half box speed" crowd, and IMO, there is a direct link between the two groups. Incident meters are unsurpassed in controlled lighting situations, like a studio. Outside the studio, you are either shooting studio shots "in the field" with the incident meter, using reflectors and flash to modify light levels, or you might as well be shooting "Sunny 16". Spot meters surpass elsewhere, although their "spot" function often is not necessary to get a good result from wide area reflection meters. So, if you are really into precise metering, IMO get a Minolta Spot M or F, which is a marginally superior meter to the Sekonic (better color accuracy), and any one of the excellent Minolta incident meters. Use each were appropriate, and use the money saved to buy a year's supply of film.
I just didn't want to buy a used meter... So the Sekonic was the only game in town. I really am quite pleased with the Sekonic now that they sorted out the menu and function buttons with the new firmware. And it is convenient to have a one stop shop for all kinds of metering. But I get your points... 🙂
Boy, you really poo-pooed the ZV-1 with its "postage-sized sensor". I've noted you large-sensor snobbery. 🙂 Wouldn't it be nice for people to just "buy" their way into higher-quality photos and videos? However, in the right hands, that camera could blow away you or anyone watching this channel in terms of content. The fact is that smaller sensors mean smaller lenses and that's a huge deal in the real world of having a camera with you at all times. I'm not a Sony user, but you mention GoPro's... the ZV-1 isn't even in the same league, with the ZV-1 having a 24-70 (FF equiv) with proper controls and the GOPro having a fixed focal length with no AF and no controls. If anything, the GoPro can easily be replaced by a phone (especially because they actually have an AF system!)... not the ZV-1 in terms of output, controls, and versatility. In terms of video quality, the ZV-1 has something that even your Fuji's don't- a moiré-free image (which is a deal-breaker for many of us who care about video). ...just some thoughts.
The stills images from the ZV-1 are pretty bad actually, compared to the A7IV or A7RIV. (Everything is relative.) To the point of I can't use them for what I want to do. But I never intended to use that camera for stills so it's not an issue for me. So, no, I don't think the "hands" that use it could improve the stills image quality in any significant way. As for video, it's a competent video camera and capable of producing current competitive video. I'd rather use it than the Xt4 to put that into perspective. My criticism is mainly about the poor tripod socket location and poor battery life which combine to make for a camera that is VERY inconvenient to use. I find myself bringing and using either my GoPro for lightweight stuff, (like today,) or my A7IV if I can stand the weight. And the ZV1 gets little use. It has nothing to do with video image quality. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Many YT photographers say that an incident reading is superior to a spot metering, and in theory, I overstand that. The problem, as I see it for landscape photography, is that, as you described in your example of shooting the trees behind you that are in the sunlight, is that very often the scene/object you're shooting is in the distance, which doesn't make for a convenient way to measure the same quality of light.
Not wild about buying a used meter either, however, the Pentax Digital Spot is so elegantly simple.
The Pentax Digital Spotmeter is the best of it's kind, but they have not made them in decades. They are all getting pretty old and finding a reliable and not too banged up copy is hard. The Raveni is actually not that bad it just doesn't do low light well. The Sekonic is very expensive for what it is and that it's not been updated in 15 years. If I had to buy one today it would be the Raveni and I'd pass on the Pentax and the Sekonic.
I love Ilford Art 300. I processed it in Ethol LPD. I don’t recall any issues with staining. Use Hypo Clear!
Yes for sure, proper processing is where it's at. I'll have to give it a try and see what it's like. Have you toned it at all and how did it do if you have?
No I’ve never toned Art 300 prints. Art 300 is a warm toned paper as is- and ethol lpd can be a warm toned developer at certain dilutions. So I was able to get the look I wanted without it. If you tone for permanence then it’s a different story. I don’t sell my darkroom prints so I’m not super concerned with that.
Thanks! I'll have to give it a try. Sounds interesting for sure.
My Gossen Luna-Pro light meter (in a very nice leather case) stopped working (it only lasted me 35 years😂). How would you compare the accuracy of the built-in light meter in today’s cameras (X-T4 in my case) to a proper light meter.
Good question. Honestly I think modern in camera meters are way over complicated. Though you do have the option to choose spot or center weighted which is much simpler and if you know what you're doing much more useful. For bracketing shots I use matrix, and for critical exposure I use spot in camera. But non of those exposures are as accurate as a good incident reading or a carefully curated spot interpretation if you have the time.
Good video.
Thanks!
The "clear memory function" is the clunkiest bit of design ever. Did no one at Sekonic take it out for a test?
I'd like to see a scrolling zone system ribbon at the bottom of the main screen. Can't be beyond the wit of man? Or can it?
It really is terrible. But the last man standing so you put up with it. It also hasn't been updated in at least 10 years. The touch screen sucks too.
There is a reason my favorite meter is my digital 1 degree Pentax meter
Simplicity itself and they worked great. There were a few lads over at Pentax that really knew what they were doing at one time.
Why is it 600 dollars?
Lack of competition. It costs money to make precision instruments and this is definitely precision. And it's a specialist tool these days.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography
Thanks
Is the precision worth the investment for an intermediate / “prosumer”/ non profitable photographer?
@@joecalabresi4072 If you need a spot meter and don't want to buy a thrashed used one for $400, then yes... But you might want to try the Raveni Labs spot meter for under $200. It's kind of quirky but it works.That's what I would have bought if it had been available when I bought the Sekonic.
I've never really understood the attraction of the design of these Sekonic meters, packing an incident meter on top of a spot meter. There is a place for each meter type, but rarely will the twain meet. Frankly, just looking at YT, it seems clear that 90% of the younger incident meter users have no clue as to its proper use or limitations. This group has a large coincidence with the "shoot at half box speed" crowd, and IMO, there is a direct link between the two groups. Incident meters are unsurpassed in controlled lighting situations, like a studio. Outside the studio, you are either shooting studio shots "in the field" with the incident meter, using reflectors and flash to modify light levels, or you might as well be shooting "Sunny 16". Spot meters surpass elsewhere, although their "spot" function often is not necessary to get a good result from wide area reflection meters. So, if you are really into precise metering, IMO get a Minolta Spot M or F, which is a marginally superior meter to the Sekonic (better color accuracy), and any one of the excellent Minolta incident meters. Use each were appropriate, and use the money saved to buy a year's supply of film.
I just didn't want to buy a used meter... So the Sekonic was the only game in town. I really am quite pleased with the Sekonic now that they sorted out the menu and function buttons with the new firmware. And it is convenient to have a one stop shop for all kinds of metering. But I get your points... 🙂
Boy, you really poo-pooed the ZV-1 with its "postage-sized sensor". I've noted you large-sensor snobbery. 🙂 Wouldn't it be nice for people to just "buy" their way into higher-quality photos and videos? However, in the right hands, that camera could blow away you or anyone watching this channel in terms of content. The fact is that smaller sensors mean smaller lenses and that's a huge deal in the real world of having a camera with you at all times. I'm not a Sony user, but you mention GoPro's... the ZV-1 isn't even in the same league, with the ZV-1 having a 24-70 (FF equiv) with proper controls and the GOPro having a fixed focal length with no AF and no controls. If anything, the GoPro can easily be replaced by a phone (especially because they actually have an AF system!)... not the ZV-1 in terms of output, controls, and versatility. In terms of video quality, the ZV-1 has something that even your Fuji's don't- a moiré-free image (which is a deal-breaker for many of us who care about video). ...just some thoughts.
The stills images from the ZV-1 are pretty bad actually, compared to the A7IV or A7RIV. (Everything is relative.) To the point of I can't use them for what I want to do. But I never intended to use that camera for stills so it's not an issue for me. So, no, I don't think the "hands" that use it could improve the stills image quality in any significant way. As for video, it's a competent video camera and capable of producing current competitive video. I'd rather use it than the Xt4 to put that into perspective. My criticism is mainly about the poor tripod socket location and poor battery life which combine to make for a camera that is VERY inconvenient to use. I find myself bringing and using either my GoPro for lightweight stuff, (like today,) or my A7IV if I can stand the weight. And the ZV1 gets little use. It has nothing to do with video image quality. Sorry if that wasn't clear.