Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules FM Forums | Lighting & Studio Techniques | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2008 · better light meter

Randman Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · better light meter Which is the better light meter: Sekonic L-358 or Minolta auto meter 5 with the 5 degree spot. I'm very used to the Minolta, but the sekonic is newer. I'm selling one of them. Thanks, Randy Dec 15, 2008 at 04:52 PM

shatterkiss Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #2 · better light meter I love my Sekonic. I learned on Minoltas and find them to be reliable, sturdy, solid meters...but the Sekonics are just that little bit slicker (and frequently smaller). If you use PocketWizards it's a no-brainer. Dec 15, 2008 at 05:07 PM

alanwarp Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #3 · better light meter shatterkiss wrote: If you use PocketWizards it's a no-brainer. Indeed, not sure if it's always been this cheap but the PW module for the L358 is only $30 more at Adorama if you buy it with the meter... Dec 15, 2008 at 07:49 PM

cgardner Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #4 · better light meter Depends on what you use them for. I still have my 1-degree spot meter from back the days when I did Zone System on film, but don't see much practical use for one with digital. I also have an L-358, and have written a tutorial on its use and compensation cameras (click the WWW button to find it) and think its an outstanding value for studio use and outdoor fill using manual flash. I also use the PW module and its very convenient. Since Minolta is out of the meter business I suspect you'd get closer to what you paid for the L-358 for it because they are in demand, but its the better choice to keep. Chuck Dec 15, 2008 at 08:53 PM

Tareq Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · better light meter And what about Sekonic L-758DR? is it better than Minolta one? Dec 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM

cgardner Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #6 · better light meter Tareq wrote: And what about Sekonic L-758DR? is it better than Minolta one? Minolta sold its photographic business to Konica, and Konica sold it to Sony so Minolta meters are orphans, twice removed. The L-758DR is a clever technical solution for a problem that really no longer exists. With the B&W zone system it was necessary to precisely know the range of the scene to plan the negative development. With digital the range of the sensor is the limiting factor. Even if you know the range of the scene precisely via spot reading, there's nothing which can be done to make the camera match it. Digital must be exposed for the highlight detail. HDR is an option for using multiple exposures to extend the range, but you don't need a spot meter for that either. Simply expose the highlights correctly below clipping per the over-exposure warning in the camera then bracket a second exposure by +3-4 stops to capture the shadow detail falling below the range of the sensor in the first highlight exposure. So the more important question you should ask before considering the purchase of any spot meter is whether or not its necessary for digital photography. This might provide you with some insight on that: LINK Chuck Dec 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Daan B Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #7 · better light meter I just got a Sekonix L-358... works everytime... spot on metering. It doesn't have spot metering (although you could buy a very expensive adapter for that) and it can't be calibrated... two features I don't really care for Dec 17, 2008 at 02:02 PM

RDKirk Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · better light meter Since Minolta is out of the meter business I suspect you'd get closer to what you paid for the L-358 for it because they are in demand, but its the better choice to keep. The Minolta meter line wound up in the hands of Kenko, which has reissued them with the Kenko name but otherwise unchanged. Dec 17, 2008 at 02:15 PM

RDKirk Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · better light meter The L-758DR is a clever technical solution for a problem that really no longer exists. With the B&W zone system it was necessary to precisely know the range of the scene to plan the negative development. With digital the range of the sensor is the limiting factor. Even if you know the range of the scene precisely via spot reading, there's nothing which can be done to make the camera match it. Digital must be exposed for the highlight detail. I use my L-558 spot meter to measure textured white (or more accurately, the brightest tone in the scene that I want to retain detail). The camera is set at ISO 100 and the meter set at ISO 12 in this usage. I'll do this whenever I have to take a meter reading on the fly. Dec 17, 2008 at 02:22 PM

Tareq Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #10 · better light meter cgardner wrote: Tareq wrote: And what about Sekonic L-758DR? is it better than Minolta one? Minolta sold its photographic business to Konica, and Konica sold it to Sony so Minolta meters are orphans, twice removed. The L-758DR is a clever technical solution for a problem that really no longer exists. With the B&W zone system it was necessary to precisely know the range of the scene to plan the negative development. With digital the range of the sensor is the limiting factor. Even if you know the range of the scene precisely via spot reading, there's nothing which can be done to make the camera match it. Digital must be exposed for the highlight detail. HDR is an option for using multiple exposures to extend the range, but you don't need a spot meter for that either. Simply expose the highlights correctly below clipping per the over-exposure warning in the camera then bracket a second exposure by +3-4 stops to capture the shadow detail falling below the range of the sensor in the first highlight exposure. So the more important question you should ask before considering the purchase of any spot meter is whether or not its necessary for digital photography. This might provide you with some insight on that: LINK Chuck In fact i have Sekonic L-758DR already, just want to be sure what are the comparisons between the two. Dec 17, 2008 at 03:05 PM

sboerup Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #11 · better light meter Randy, I love my L358, works great. I also had the 758DR but I never really used the spot meter and preferred the more compact size of the L358 which I love. Ya, if you're using PWs, it's a no brainer. Although I've never used any Minoltas either . . . If you want to borrow it let me know, but I'll be gone after Sat. Dec 17, 2008 at 03:31 PM

cgardner Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #12 · better light meter Daan B wrote: I just got a Sekonix L-358... works everytime... spot on metering. It doesn't have spot metering (although you could buy a very expensive adapter for that) and it can't be calibrated... two features I don't really care for It can be "compenstated" to the camera and in fact its usually necessary to do that to ensure accurate readings with the recommended metering technique for exposure: pointing the dome back at the camera. Use a textured white object like a terry towel as a target under consistent lighting, after setting custom WB in the camera off a gray card to ensure all channels will clip at the same time' Take a meter reading, as specified in the L-358 user guide, dome at carmera. Lets assume the reading was f/8. Now make a series of bracketed exposures in 1/3 increments from f/5.6 to f/11 resulting in 7 files. Open the seven files in your normal RAW workflow (i.e. DPP, ACR) and look at the detail in the towel to find the point just below where overexposure starts to erode the subtle variation in tone in the terry cloth - why a towel not a card is used. Odds are that the file which looks the best is not the one shot at f/8. If you shoot with Canon more likely the shot at f/9 will be more optimally exposed: Canon cameras have true ISOs closer to 120-125 per ANSI standard. Once you find the delta between what your meter predicts and what the camera actually produces, turn on the meter, press both ISO buttons at the same time and enter the delta as the exposure compensation factor (e.g. Adj 0.3). While setting the meter to read in 1/10 stops is more accurate, changing the meter readout via the DIP switch to read in 1/3 stops like the camera is more practical. So in this example of you metered f/8 but found f/9 yielded better exposure and entered an EC of .3 on the meter the meter reading in the same light will now read f/9 matching meter to the camera. A black rectangle with a -/+ will appear on the display to remind you that EC is dialed in, but the amount is not shown. Once compensated the factor will be applied to all ISO speeds. But since each camera body may differ you'd need to repeat the test for each. Take care to make the compensation only after the meter is turned on. The procedure for changing the factory CALIBRATION uses the same controls, but with the ISO buttons pushed before the meter is turned on. If you change the calibration the only way to get it back to ANSI standards would be to send it into Sekonic for service. Of course you can learn all that yourself by reading the user guide Chuck Dec 17, 2008 at 03:36 PM

Daan B Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #13 · better light meter cgardner wrote: Daan B wrote: I just got a Sekonix L-358... works everytime... spot on metering. It doesn't have spot metering (although you could buy a very expensive adapter for that) and it can't be calibrated... two features I don't really care for It can be "compenstated" to the camera and in fact its usually necessary to do that to ensure accurate readings with the recommended metering technique for exposure: pointing the dome back at the camera. Use a textured white object like a terry towel as a target under consistent lighting, after setting custom WB in the camera off a gray card to ensure all channels will clip at the same time' Take a meter reading, as specified in the L-358 user guide, dome at carmera. Lets assume the reading was f/8. Now make a series of bracketed exposures in 1/3 increments from f/5.6 to f/11 resulting in 7 files. Open the seven files in your normal RAW workflow (i.e. DPP, ACR) and look at the detail in the towel to find the point just below where overexposure starts to erode the subtle variation in tone in the terry cloth - why a towel not a card is used. Odds are that the file which looks the best is not the one shot at f/8. If you shoot with Canon more likely the shot at f/9 will be more optimally exposed: Canon cameras have true ISOs closer to 120-125 per ANSI standard. Once you find the delta between what your meter predicts and what the camera actually produces, turn on the meter, press both ISO buttons at the same time and enter the delta as the exposure compensation factor (e.g. Adj 0.3). While setting the meter to read in 1/10 stops is more accurate, changing the meter readout via the DIP switch to read in 1/3 stops like the camera is more practical. So in this example of you metered f/8 but found f/9 yielded better exposure and entered an EC of .3 on the meter the meter reading in the same light will now read f/9 matching meter to the camera. A black rectangle with a -/+ will appear on the display to remind you that EC is dialed in, but the amount is not shown. Once compensated the factor will be applied to all ISO speeds. But since each camera body may differ you'd need to repeat the test for each. Take care to make the compensation only after the meter is turned on. The procedure for changing the factory CALIBRATION uses the same controls, but with the ISO buttons pushed before the meter is turned on. If you change the calibration the only way to get it back to ANSI standards would be to send it into Sekonic for service. Of course you can learn all that yourself by reading the user guide Chuck No need for that much trouble when the meter is doing already a very good job with my 1Ds3 Dec 17, 2008 at 04:39 PM

cgardner Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #14 · better light meter Daan B wrote: No need for that much trouble when the meter is doing already a very good job with my 1Ds3 Based on what objective measurement? First you complain there's no calibration on the meter, I take my time to explain it and now you say you can't find 5 min. to learn how to use it Dec 17, 2008 at 05:43 PM

Daan B Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #15 · better light meter cgardner wrote: Daan B wrote: No need for that much trouble when the meter is doing already a very good job with my 1Ds3 Based on what objective measurement? First you complain there's no calibration on the meter, I take my time to explain it and now you say you can't find 5 min. to learn how to use it Wow, take it easy... 1) I didn't complain about that there is no calibration on the meter... I was explaining to the OP that it isn't possible to calibrate the meter like you can with the 758. 2) I can't recall asking anyone to explain to me how to compensate for any errors in the metering... especially since I already stated I was more than happy with the performance of the 358. 3) If it ain't broken, why fix it? My 358 does all that I want perfectly fine... as it is... YMMV Dec 17, 2008 at 06:17 PM

c.d.embrey Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #16 · better light meter So the more important question you should ask before considering the purchase of any spot meter is whether or not its necessary for digital photography. You assume (and you know what they say about assume) that everyone always uses digital. Sometimes I use a Canon digital, sometimes I use a Canon film camera. And I also have a 4x5 Toyo, a prime candidate for the zone system One size does not fit all! Dec 17, 2008 at 07:13 PM

cgardner Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #17 · better light meter C.D.: I assume you can read, but just don't take time to do it carefully before shooting from the lip. Read my first message where I say I used one a spot meter the zone system. I bought it in 1970 the same time I bought Adams Books. It was made by Honeywell back when it owned Pentax. Also I qualified what I said later specially to digital. What I actually said was, which you quoted was .... "...whether or not its necessary for digital photography." Did you miss the word "digital" in the sentence? I also explained why I think that is the case: there are easier, less expensive means to the same end with digital. So before you start to editorialize about my advice, please at least take the time to actually read it and get your facts and assumptions correct. Chuck Dec 17, 2008 at 09:26 PM

c.d.embrey Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #18 · better light meter So before you start to editorialize about my advice, please at least take the time to actually read it and get your facts and assumptions correct. Chuck Please re-read what I said. You assume (and you know what they say about assume) that everyone always uses digital. Sometimes I use a Canon digital, sometimes I use a Canon film camera. And I also have a 4x5 Toyo, a prime candidate for the zone system One size does not fit all! Dec 17, 2008 at 09:46 PM

Michael White Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #19 · better light meter Chuck, read the article on meters. How about calculating ratios when using multiple flashes? What would cause you to use a meter? Dec 20, 2008 at 03:44 AM

	end FM Forums | Lighting & Studio Techniques | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?