>> |
Anonymous
I've had a Sekonic L-308 (the predecessor to the 308S, I think the only difference is the LCD backlight), and it's a very good meter. It does everything I could want an incident/reflected/flash meter to do, and it's very accurate.
Ultimately though, it doesn't really make much difference. I prefer one that has an LCD readout and both incident and reflected metering as well as automatic and PC-sync flash modes. Anything other than that is pretty superfluous in my opinion. The only other feature that would be great to have is a good spot meter, but that tends to come at a significantly higher price.
>>104364 I hate using an SLR as a meter for my LF camera for several reasons. First, it means I have to carry an SLR with a lens in addition to all the LF crap. Second, it limits me to only reflected light measurements. Third, it's easy to be shooting with the SLR and forget to set the ISO back to match the film that I'm using in the LF camera, and a wasted exposure on 4x5 is a pretty big deal. Fourth, with DSLRs the numbers don't always quite match up. Manufacturers tend to fudge their ISO numbers to make the camera look like it has better noise performance than it really does. They do this by underexposing a bit, then pushing the exposure in the in-camera processing. Obviously this leads to exposure discrepancies between the film and digital cameras, mostly with low light or high ISO situations. Fifth, the aperture range on the SLR will often not match up with the aperture range on large format lenses as they tend to go much higher than most 35mm-format lenses. While you can work around it, it's just another hassle that I'd rather not deal with. Digital cameras also usually don't offer low enough ISOs to give directly comparable settings to several popular large format films.
|