An unexpected result when using exposure spot metering on my camera.

[William W]

. . . what I didn't know was the area covered by spot metering . . . This thread is just a modest contribution for helping other photographers that experience a similar situation, especially for Nikon photographers using D5200, D5300, D5500 and D5600 cameras . . .

This point might have been already mentioned, but I didn’t notice it:

Be aware that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” selection, often varies between Camera Models, even if the Cameras are made by the same manufacturer.

WW

[Panama Hat & Camera]

This point might have been already mentioned, but I didn’t notice it:

Be aware that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” selection, often varies between Camera Models, even if the Cameras are made by the same manufacturer.

WW

Bill,
I'm aware that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” selection, varies between camera models, even if the cameras are made by the same manufacturer.
When I wrote this thread, my intention was to warn that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” was not so small as I thought. It is a "spot meter" not a "dot meter" (does this expression make sense in English?). The reason why I mentioned the Nikon D5200, D5300, D5500 and D5600 cameras is because they have the same amount of focal points and they are distributed in the same way.
IMHO, camera manuals should have a drawing showing the size of areas covered by spot metering and center-weight metering (such as image #7 of this thread).
Thanks for commenting,
Cheers,
Antonio

[xpatUSA]

... my intention was to warn that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” was not so small as I thought. It is a "spot meter" not a "dot meter" (does this expression make sense in English?). <>

Makes sense to me, Antonio!

Also, "Spot" is often used to describe diffraction blur and also resolution as found in literature about focus, depth-of-field, etc., as I'm sure you know.

IMHO, camera manuals should have a drawing showing the size of areas covered by spot metering and center-weight metering (such as image #7 of this thread).

I agree. One of my manuals shows an actual illustration for the center-weighted circle ... but claims that the "spot" is represented by two square brackets [] in that same illustration! (presumably because that is how it looks in the viewfinder?).

Inspired by this thread, I aimed my Sigma DP2 Merrill at the horizon (in Aperture Priority and Spot Metering Mode) and slowly moved it up and down while observing the shutter time on the LCD. The camera has a fixed 30mm lens and an APS-C sensor.

It seemed to me that the spot diameter was perhaps a little bigger than implied by the manual but, in the middle of the afternoon at 98degF I didn't stay long enough to be more precise ...

[William W]

. . . When I wrote this thread, my intention was to warn that the area covered when using “Spot Meter” was not so small as I thought. It is a "spot meter" not a "dot meter" (does this expression make sense in English?).

The expression makes sense to me, too.

I think that some original confusion concerning the term "Spot Metering" when it is used in relation to TTL Metering (Through The Lens Metering), has come about because when referencing Hand Held Light Meters, the term "Spot Meter" has a specific and defined technical meaning.

Although there are various ‘definitions' of the term ‘Spot Meter’ on the www, I think it is a common expectation within the Cine and Stills ‘industry’, that the piece of equipment being an Hand Held Spot Meter has a FoV or is capable of a range of FoV, at the narrowest being 1°.

Certainly ‘professional use’ Spot Meters, (e.g. Gossen, Sekonic, Spectra Cine, et al) all provide a 1° Spot.

***

IMHO, camera manuals should have a drawing showing the size of areas covered by spot metering and center-weight metering (such as image #7 of this thread). . .

I agree.

I thought that the diagram showing the Spot Metering Coverage was from Nikon’s User Manual; but it seems it is your work. I assumed that the diagram was part of the Nikon User Manual, because I assumed Nikon would supply the User with that information.

I am reasonably confident that (all?) most of Canon’s Instruction Manuals supply information such as below –


REF: Canon Instruction Manual EOS 5D, Page 81, Canon, Canon Inc., 2005: reproduced without request for educational purposes

WW

[Stagecoach]

This thread got me thinking after using Spot metering for fill flash and achieving good results for all 400 images where the subject distances were also varying.

So out of curiosity, never having really considered the spot size I took one of my 'loosest' framings (yes there was a reason for being so slack) and have superimposed the D800's 4mm Spot over where the focus point would have been. Generally the target areas were much larger.



Just out of general interest.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

My preferred, traditional method of spot metering; a 1° attachment for my Sekonic l-358.

[Stagecoach]

My preferred, traditional method of spot metering; a 1° attachment for my Sekonic l-358.

But extremely impractical in many scenarios

[xpatUSA]

Being rather partial to numbers, I wonder how a "1-degree spot meter" by Sekonic, et al, relates to shooting an ILC with a choice of many different focal-length lens?

In other words, there could be quite a difference on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR between my 8mm and my 300mm lenses ... especially if I dig out the 2X converter ...

[Manfred M]

But extremely impractical in many scenarios

But the only practical solution when shooting in a studio or on location with studio flash, especially in a multi-light situation.

I generally use the incident light head when lighting the main subject, but will use the 1° head to fine tune the background lights and special lights (rim, hair, etc).

[Manfred M]

Being rather partial to numbers, I wonder how a "1-degree spot meter" by Sekonic, et al, relates to shooting an ILC with a choice of many different focal-length lens?

In other words, there could be quite a difference on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR between my 8mm and my 300mm lenses ... especially if I dig out the 2X converter ...

See my answer #29. I don't use it in ambient light photography and in the type of photography that I use it in, the focal length is more or less irrelevant as my exposure is set to get the main subject properly lit using the ambient light head. The other lights have special purposes and I use it to set those properly.

[Stagecoach]

But the only practical solution when shooting in a studio or on location with studio flash, especially in a multi-light situation.

Whilst it's simple to pick specific scenarios where a bit of kit may be useful, or a particular method we use, that deviates somewhat from the gist of the thread which was the size of the spot and its affect on results.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Makes sense to me, Antonio!

Also, "Spot" is often used to describe diffraction blur and also resolution as found in literature about focus, depth-of-field, etc., as I'm sure you know.

Ted,
Thanks for clearing up my question about the phrase "dot meter".

I agree. One of my manuals shows an actual illustration for the center-weighted circle ... but claims that the "spot" is represented by two square brackets [] in that same illustration! (presumably because that is how it looks in the viewfinder?).

I don't know the Canon DSLR camera manuals or Nikon DSLR Full Frame camera manuals, but the Nikon DX (APS-C) camera manuals I've seen don't have a diagram showing the size of the area covered by spot metering or center-weight metering .

Inspired by this thread, I aimed my Sigma DP2 Merrill at the horizon (in Aperture Priority and Spot Metering Mode) and slowly moved it up and down while observing the shutter time on the LCD. The camera has a fixed 30mm lens and an APS-C sensor.

It seemed to me that the spot diameter was perhaps a little bigger than implied by the manual but, in the middle of the afternoon at 98degF I didn't stay long enough to be more precise ...

I am very pleased to hear that this thread inspired you.
Thanks for commenting.
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

The expression makes sense to me, too.

Bill,
Thanks for clearing up my question about the phrase "dot meter".

I thought that the diagram showing the Spot Metering Coverage was from Nikon’s User Manual; but it seems it is your work. I assumed that the diagram was part of the Nikon User Manual, because I assumed Nikon would supply the User with that information.

The Nikon DX (APS-C) camera manuals I've seen don't have a diagram showing the size of the area covered by spot metering or center-weight metering, but in the D5300 manuals there is a small diagram showing the viewfinder with its functions and sensors positions (is the same for D5200/D5500 and D5600). I took some fotos of the view finder (with a smartphone), adapted the original diagram to the correct proportions and plotted the areas covered by spot and center-weighted meterings (using the informations about exposure metering written in specifications part of manual).

I am reasonably confident that (all?) most of Canon’s Instruction Manuals supply information such as below –


REF: Canon Instruction Manual EOS 5D, Page 81, Canon, Canon Inc., 2005: reproduced without request for educational purposes

WW

I don't know the Nikon DSLR Full Frame camera manuals, but I liked the diagrams of Canon Instruction Manual EOS 5D.

Thanks for commenting.
Antonio.

[William W]

For clarity, the Canon APS-C DSLRs User Instruction Manuals (xxD and xxxD) also have a Metering Mode Diagrams.

For those with a passion for numbers . . . (all?) Canon's the Instruction Manuals have details in the Specification Section numerating the approximate percentage of the Spot Meter Area, (relative to total Viewfinder).

***

When using my Canon DSLRs, I use Spot Metering Mode relatively often, I expect second most often to Evaluative Mode. For my purpose, numerating and knowing the angle of view in degrees is unnecessary, and what lens being used is irrelevant: picturing the little circle of Spot Meter 'coverage', in the viewfinder is the working necessity to attain the result I want.

Usually my purpose for using Spot Metering Mode is to make two or three, sometimes four assessments of sections in a scene to arrive at my Manual Exposure Parameters and/or my Bracketing Exposure Parameters .

WW

[xpatUSA]

I wonder how a "1-degree spot meter" by Sekonic, et al, relates to shooting an ILC with a choice of many different focal-length lens?

See my answer #29. I don't use [a spot meter] in ambient light photography and, in the type of photography that I use it in, the focal length is more or less irrelevant as my exposure is set to get the main subject properly lit using the ambient light head. The other lights have special purposes and I use it to set those properly.

See again my question #28. My question was in general, rather than specifically about artificially-lit studio work such as is described above. Meaning that focal length may well be relevant after all.

[William W]

Being rather partial to numbers, I wonder how a "1-degree spot meter" by Sekonic, et al, relates to shooting an ILC with a choice of many different focal-length lens?

In other words, there could be quite a difference on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR between my 8mm and my 300mm lenses ... especially if I dig out the 2X converter ...

I don't see the two as a having a specific 'relationship' as such. I see them as having a difference which gives me a choice and in some situations a leverage.

I see one of the practical benefits of using TTL 'Spot Metering' as opposed to using an Hand Held Spot Meter, is the fact that I can use a Zoom Lens to vary the Spot Metering area.

Whereas to achieve similar when using an Hand Held Spot Meter, I have to move.

WW

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio, how great the thread is... I mean large, long... you made a good job.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Being rather partial to numbers, I wonder how a "1-degree spot meter" by Sekonic, et al, relates to shooting an ILC with a choice of many different focal-length lens?

In other words, there could be quite a difference on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR between my 8mm and my 300mm lenses ... especially if I dig out the 2X converter ...

I don't see the two as a having a specific 'relationship' as such. I see them as having a difference which gives me a choice and in some situations a leverage.

I see one of the practical benefits of using TTL 'Spot Metering' as opposed to using an Hand Held Spot Meter, is the fact that I can use a Zoom Lens to vary the Spot Metering area.

Whereas to achieve similar when using an Hand Held Spot Meter, I have to move.

WW

Yes, it looks like angle is almost the wrong metric when considering this versus that. The makers of separate spot-meters favor angular measure - the smaller the better - a kind of inverse of MP wars. On the other hand, in-camera spot-metering is shown as an area in the viewfinder and that area in terms of the scene is variable according to the lens' focal length, just as variable as the lens' angle of view of course.

Sekonic says:

In-Camera Spot Meters vs. Handheld Meters

Although a number of advanced SLRs offer spot-metering capability, the metering angle is directly related to the focal length of the camera lens in use. Every time the lens is changed, the effective spot-meter angle changes. With a normal lens in use, the spot-metering angle may be 15 degrees or more. A handheld 1-degree spot meter, on the other hand, allows the most selective measurement of distant subjects and small areas in complex scenes.

https://www.sekonic.com/united-state...fincident.aspx

Thanks Bill.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Antonio,
This thread has given me some work (mainly to show the internal view of viewfinder). My wife and some friends say that I'm a bit of a workaholic. Am I? I don't know, but helping other photographers is a pleasure for me.
The most importante lesson I learned from the photo I took is: "Know your equipment (read the manuals)".
Thanks for commenting.
Antonio.

[Manfred M]

See again my question #28. My question was in general, rather than specifically about artificially-lit studio work such as is described above. Meaning that focal length may well be relevant after all.

Ted - I have pretty well standardized workflows in my photography and this includes metering my shots:

1. Landscapes, street photography and general photography - I use Evaluative metering pretty well 100% of the time. I will use the camera's metering system and use the output to take a test shot. I will evaluate the histograms and will tweak the exposure as required, either manually or with the camera's exposure compensation functionality, depending on both the scene and the histogram.

All of my shooting is to get sufficient data for me to be able to get the image I want in post, so I will try to get images without any blocked shadow details or blown out highlights and will bias the histogram towards the right. In tricky situations I will bracket the shots; usually 1 stop increments and generally 3 or 5 images.

In these types of lighting situations, I am not in control of what the light is doing, other than occasionally shuffling along and changing my FoV.

2. Set shots - portraits and still life work - here I am in charge of the lights as I usually do this type of work in the studio, although I also shoot on location with studio lights and reflectors. I generally only use an incident light meter when shooting with two light sources (key and fill), but once I get three or more lights in, I will also do spot metering to get a good read on what the lights are doing, especially if I have background lights, hair lights and rim lights going. If there are uncontrolled light sources, windows letting in daylight or an outdoor location shoot, for instance, I will spot meter those sources.

The camera's light meter is useless when using studio lights, so I rely on my ambient and incident head to adjust my camera and light settings.


Other metering modes: My camera has four modes; evaluative, spot, centre weighted and highlight weighted (mainly for theatre style lighting). I never use centre weighted as evaluative is far superior to it. I rarely use spot metering and my workflow is quite similar to what I use when doing evaluative mode. I have not tried the highlight weighed yet, so can't comment on it.

I use the spot metering head on my Sekonic L-358 far more than I use spot metering on my camera.

When it comes to metering, I really don't care what people use, as long as it gets them the image that they are trying to get.