[Leica] light meters

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

A couple of years ago I went through the process of buying a new digital
incident meter. After considerable research, I chose the Gossen Luna Star
F2 ( http://www.bogenphoto.com/gossen_meters.htm ) or (
http://www.gossen-photo.de/  in German). It did more of everything than any
other meter available. It will even automatically figure out a filter
factor for you. Also, it is "instant on". Turn it on, it's ready to work.
No "boot" time. Just go. I also have (had it for at least 30 years) a
Sekonic Studio Deluxe which is my batteryless backup.

A meter is a very personal thing. What ever you get, make sure it
thoroughly check it out, and that you really really like it.

Jim


At 01:28 PM 12/3/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Check out www.sekonic.com and you'll find you did not miss anything.  The
>328 is more light sensitive than the 308B.  I believe Roger may be thinking
>of the Analog L398.  The advantage of the L328 is it is as small as the
>Gossen Luna Star F2, but about $100 less.  The L328 has a rotating incident
>lumisphere and is flat and compact.  The disadvantage to it is that
>reflective metering requires you to remove and replace the lumisphere and
>with a reflective or spot attachment.  The L408 or 508 solves that with
>built in refelective reading but spot reading only.  
>
>The L408 is smaller than the L508 and has a built in 5 degree spot, but the
>508 has slightly greater light sensitivity (L508: -2 to 19.99EV vs. the L408
>and L328 which have offer -1 to 19.9EV) for ambient.  You also get a 1-4
>degree zoom spot meter capability and more features than you may ever need.
>I have owned Gossen, Minolta, and Sekonic.  I now (kept) use the Sekonic
>L328 and the L508.  Easiest way to think about it is the L328 is a Car and
>the L508 a Jeep.  Which do you really need and when?
>
>Peter K
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: phong (Doan huu Phong) [mailto:phong@doan-ltd.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:52 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] metering in low light
>
>
>Hi Roger,
>
>     I have been thinking about getting the 308B as a pocket meter.
>     Is the 308B really more sensitive than the L328 in low light ?
>     The B&H web site indicates EV1 to 19.99 for the 308B and
>     EV-1 to 19.99 for the L-328 at ISO 100.  Did I misunderstand
>     the sensitivity or are there different versions of the 308B or
>     328 ?   I know the current version of the 308B is the 308B II,
>     but thought they are really the same meter.  Thanks,
>
>- Phong
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger L. Bunting <rlbunting@ameritech.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 1:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] metering in low light
>
>
>>I recently purchased a Sekonic 308B. What a great combination with my
>>M3, especially when traveling light. The meter is shirtpocket size. The
>>incident dome slides easily into place however there is no spot metering
>>capability. I consider it a "street" meter. The controls allow very
>>convenient one hand control.  I have no reason to question the accuracy.
>>The sensitivity is way beyond the capabilities of my L328 which could no
>>longer support my increased indoor available light work (which is why I
>>went electronic/ditigal). I gave up the spot capabilities of it's bigger
>>kin because I wanted a compact meter to use when traveling.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not consider a Sekonic L-328?  I offer digital readout and an anlaog
>>> scale.
>>> Digital meters are faster and more accurate than analog meters simply
>>> because the D'Arsonval movement in the analog meter cannot be quite as
>>> precise as an LCD readou with accuracy to 1/10th of a stop.
>>>
>>> Peter k
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Stephenson [mailto:joeleica@email.msn.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 6:36 PM
>>> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] metering in low light
>>>
>>>    I prefer an analog meter to a digital. I've been looking at
>>> the Luna-Pro F, because it would be easy to use with the zone
>>> system and has a 7- & 15-degree attachment available. Any
>>> thoughts about this or alternatives? I'd like, for example, to be
>>> able to meter the U.S. Capitol dome after dark and get an
>>> accurate exposure without having to bracket like mad.
>>>    Thanks.
>>>
>>> =======
>>> Dear Howard,
>>> I can't speak specifially about use in low light, but my Luna Pro meter
>has
>>> done everything I've asked of it for years, and I got it used. It seems
>to
>>> be quite accurate, easy to use, and flexible. Recommended.
>>> Joe Stephenson
>>
>