Can I do this....?

shas3n · 4th November 2003

I have been using a comapct (but versatile) digicam from some time. Recently I got a film SLR also but still continue to hold my digicam most of the times.
Now that it does not cost anything to shoot with digicamand costs a bit to do that with film, I have got this idea.
Carry both the cams. When I want to shoot something (assuming I have enough time) I shoot with my digicam and see what exposure gives me the best results. Then set the same exposure values on your film camera and click.
Now what i want to know is, if ISO is taken care of, will I get the same exposure on my digicam and film? I know DOF will not be same but how about only exposure?
If I am wrong, is there any other general correlation?
Would like to know if anyone tried this before or atleast thinks it will/willnot work and why do you feel so.

Poon · 4th November 2003

Originally Posted by shas3n

I have been using a comapct (but versatile) digicam from some time. Recently I got a film SLR also but still continue to hold my digicam most of the times.
Now that it does not cost anything to shoot with digicamand costs a bit to do that with film, I have got this idea.
Carry both the cams. When I want to shoot something (assuming I have enough time) I shoot with my digicam and see what exposure gives me the best results. Then set the same exposure values on your film camera and click.
Now what i want to know is, if ISO is taken care of, will I get the same exposure on my digicam and film? I know DOF will not be same but how about only exposure?
If I am wrong, is there any other general correlation?
Would like to know if anyone tried this before or atleast thinks it will/willnot work and why do you feel so.

I tried that with 2 different brands of digi-cams and it works. So i don't see why not with digital and film combination.

shas3n · 4th November 2003

Originally Posted by Poon

I tried that with 2 different brands of digi-cams and it works. So i don't see why not with digital and film combination.

Oh that is some good info. Yes even i feel it is logical that it should work.
Now that i have 'invented' a cheaper alternative to DSLR, i am going to paten it....

where is the patent office?

mpenza · 4th November 2003

you just have a more expensive alternative to a light meter, not a cheaper alternative to a DSLR.

coke21 · 4th November 2003

If the idea is to learn photography, then just shoot with the SLR. Its already difficult enough to have to think abt composition and other things.

Why not just concentrate on one thing. I know its expensive. All the more, more thought will be put into it before u press the shutter.

Just my opinion.

shas3n · 4th November 2003

Quote:

All the more, more thought will be put into it before u press the shutter.

Agree competely.

Quote:

you just have a more expensive alternative to a light meter, not a cheaper alternative to a DSLR.

Guess you are not really serious. I dont think with a loght meter one can know if some part in his frame will be under/over exposed. I thought it just gave you an average metering which is inferior to the weighted and matrix metering of most of SLRs in the first place.
Me Ignorant.. pls enlighten if i am wrong.

ST1100 · 4th November 2003

The idea works, but has very limited application. Stationery non-changing light, or very patient models. For tricky light situations (where this would really shine), the method is just too slow.

Also, if you're using negative film on your SLR, the medium itself is quite forgiving in terms of exposure error. Meaning that if your digicam is (say) out by 1/2 stop, you wouldn't know from the prints from your negs.

The best method (IMO) is to learn to use an in-camera spot meter or an incident meter. With experience, this method produces fast and consistent results. Always aim for one-shot-one-kill with exposure.

shas3n · 4th November 2003

Originally Posted by ST1100

The idea works, but has very limited application. Stationery non-changing light, or very patient models. For tricky light situations (where this would really shine), the method is just too slow.

Also, if you're using negative film on your SLR, the medium itself is quite forgiving in terms of exposure error. Meaning that if your digicam is (say) out by 1/2 stop, you wouldn't know from the prints from your negs.

The best method (IMO) is to learn to use an in-camera spot meter or an incident meter. With experience, this method produces fast and consistent results. Always aim for one-shot-one-kill with exposure.

Thanks ST1100.
"Always aim for one-shot-one-kill with exposure." Guess I have to keep this in mind for rest of my life. Sounds like the ZEN of photography.

marcwang · 4th November 2003

Because the ISO sensitivity may differ between brands of cameras. Canon ISO50 is actually more sensitive than a similar ISO50 from another brand and the will have a different set of shutter/aperture for a similar scene. Using the digi to check for composition is a better proposition. But honestly, once I started using an SLR... the restricted DOF of a digicam is hard to adapt to.

offspring · 4th November 2003

Originally Posted by mpenza

you just have a more expensive alternative to a light meter, not a cheaper alternative to a DSLR.

agreed.

4th November 2003	#1
shas3n Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NUS Posts: 102	Can I do this....? I have been using a comapct (but versatile) digicam from some time. Recently I got a film SLR also but still continue to hold my digicam most of the times. Now that it does not cost anything to shoot with digicamand costs a bit to do that with film, I have got this idea. Carry both the cams. When I want to shoot something (assuming I have enough time) I shoot with my digicam and see what exposure gives me the best results. Then set the same exposure values on your film camera and click. Now what i want to know is, if ISO is taken care of, will I get the same exposure on my digicam and film? I know DOF will not be same but how about only exposure? If I am wrong, is there any other general correlation? Would like to know if anyone tried this before or atleast thinks it will/willnot work and why do you feel so.

4th November 2003	#9
marcwang Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Singapore Posts: 1,023	I doubt it will work...... Because the ISO sensitivity may differ between brands of cameras. Canon ISO50 is actually more sensitive than a similar ISO50 from another brand and the will have a different set of shutter/aperture for a similar scene. Using the digi to check for composition is a better proposition. But honestly, once I started using an SLR... the restricted DOF of a digicam is hard to adapt to. __________________ Marc Wang Photography

4th November 2003	#4
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	you just have a more expensive alternative to a light meter, not a cheaper alternative to a DSLR.

4th November 2003	#5
coke21 Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: East Posts: 728	If the idea is to learn photography, then just shoot with the SLR. Its already difficult enough to have to think abt composition and other things. Why not just concentrate on one thing. I know its expensive. All the more, more thought will be put into it before u press the shutter. Just my opinion.

4th November 2003	#7
ST1100 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Singapore, Bedok Posts: 1,801	The idea works, but has very limited application. Stationery non-changing light, or very patient models. For tricky light situations (where this would really shine), the method is just too slow. Also, if you're using negative film on your SLR, the medium itself is quite forgiving in terms of exposure error. Meaning that if your digicam is (say) out by 1/2 stop, you wouldn't know from the prints from your negs. The best method (IMO) is to learn to use an in-camera spot meter or an incident meter. With experience, this method produces fast and consistent results. Always aim for one-shot-one-kill with exposure.