----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:08 AM Subject: Re: Minolta IV F v. EOS Light meter
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Zendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Tim, > > Please, let us know your findings. > > CraigZ > > I got back the trannies that I used to compare the Minolta light meter with > the EOS 1v. While this wasn't the most scientific test I have done it was > carefully shot on a tripod ensuring consistent lighting conditions. I > actually shot five separate outdoor situations which ranged from full > shade - full sun - backlit, including a gray card, and an indoor portrait > shoot to test flash metering. Some of the results were a little surprising. > > The gray card was shot outdoors in diffuse lighting and was the only similar > reading I got from the two meters. The difference was only 1/3 stop and > needless to say the results were fine. > > A shot of a white vehicle in full shade showed a variation of 2/3 and the 1v > was a little underexposed while the handheld meter did a better job. I > expected this however and would have normally added some exposure for the > white vehicle. > > A shot of a multicoloured brick wall which was half in full sun and half in > shade gave a variation of two full stops. I re-metered both pieces of > equipment several times but continually got the same two stop difference. In > this case the 1v gave the lighter reading and opened up considerably for the > shadows. The result might be considered slightly overexposed but is > certainly the more useable shot of the two. The handheld meter result is too > dark with little detail in the shaded half but a more authentic colour in > the bricks which had full sun. I also shot this at the middle of the two > metered settings and this is the best exposure. > This pattern occurred in other test shots which included full sun and shaded > areas. > > I shot two scenes of a tree with varied mid to light coloured leaves which > were back (slightly side) lit by the sun. Blue sky in frame but not the sun > itself. The difference between the meters was 2 1/3 and 2 2/3 with the 1v > meter giving the lower exposure values. In both cases the handheld meter rea > ding gave well overexposed results while the 1v results were spot on with > nice blue sky and correct colours in the foliage. This sort of surprised me > as I thought the ambient reading would be more reliable in this situation. > There was one sequence where I did include the sun in frame and again the 1v > got it right while the Minolta meter over exposed. > > For the flash test I set x synch speed on the 1v and manual full flash on > the EX550. I shot at the indicated aperture from the handheld meter, then > with shutter and aperture the same in M mode, I put the flash into E-TTL > mode and shot again. I did the same with 1/2 power flash and a new set of > readings. In both sets the handheld meter results are slightly over exposed > with obvious flash and fairly unflattering. In contrast the E-TTL shots are > nicely exposed with no blown out highlights. For good measure I also shot > one in full auto camera & flash which is also fine. > > So, you asked and I told you. Make of it what you will but I will probably > not be purchasing the handheld meter for the type of work I do. As I look at > the slides I feel that on several occasions the best result would be to > meter both ways then start at the middle and bracket, but overall the 1v > does such a good and consistent job that it is an unnecessary extra step. > I've spent a lot of years getting used to what my camera meter tells me and > it rarely lets me down. Geez I love my EOS gear.... > > Regards, Tim So how many tinnies does AUS$350 buy? CraigZ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
