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

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.

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...

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

And what about Sekonic L-758DR? is it better than Minolta one?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

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!

Chuck, read the article on meters. How about calculating ratios when using multiple flashes? What would cause you to use a meter?