Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] metering in low light
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:28:33 -0800

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
>