63strat Posted December 20, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted December 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought 2 new Sekonic meters to use with my M-A. An L-398A and an L-208. Â With both in incident light mode, they don't agree. If the 398 says 125/1.4 the 208 will read 60/1.4. For pretty much all readings they are 1 to 2 stops off, with the 208 always reporting wider apertures/slower shutter speeds. Any hints? I'm pointing both meters from the subject and pointing directly to the lens of the camera. ISO on both is 400. And I'm definitely reading the correct scale on the 398. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 Hi 63strat, Take a look here Light meter question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
madNbad Posted December 20, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted December 20, 2014 Are you using the High slide for the 398? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted December 20, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted December 20, 2014 The only way to really know is by exposing two rolls of film, using a constant light source and reading off of a gray card. One roll for the 398 the other for the 208 then you can compare them side by side. I have owned several different Studio Deluxe models and a 208. The 208 is nice and compact and in most cases a close enough meter. With the latitude of most negative films the 208 will give you good exposures and you can make some adjustments to where the needle reads. The 398 will give you more accurate results and if you add a slide kit, instant readings with different film speeds. Unless you know someone with a calibrated meter to compare the two meters with, you're left to testing to determine which will fit your needs better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
63strat Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share #4 Â Posted December 20, 2014 Are you using the High slide for the 398? Â I tried both. High slide off for a well-lit indoor situation, and on for outdoors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted December 20, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted December 20, 2014 I'm sure meter testing wasn't how you invisioned using your new M-A but it'll pay off in the long run. Both are good meters and will provide you with many years of service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
63strat Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share #6 Â Posted December 21, 2014 I'm sure meter testing wasn't how you invisioned using your new M-A but it'll pay off in the long run. Both are good meters and will provide you with many years of service. Â I totally agree. I was thinking this from the beginning when I first thought about getting the M-A. I was interested in the M-A to force myself to rely on learning to judge settings and working with a handheld meter. I think that incident light metering is going to make a big difference in certain situations because there are many times reflective is just going to get it wrong. I think that could be a reason why some of my exposures with my old MP were off -- I was always relying on the internal meter only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 21, 2014 Share #7 Â Posted December 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is nothing wrong with the internal meter of an MP, but it still needs pointing at the right thing to take reading from, not just the overall scene which can contain extremes of exposure values that the meter (and photographer) can be fooled by. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 21, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted December 21, 2014 For pretty much all readings they are 1 to 2 stops off, with the 208 always reporting wider apertures/slower shutter speeds. Â I'd be more surprised if they were in very close agreement but 2 stops apart seems a little far the other way. Have you tried them outside under sunny 16 conditions? That, of course, is not an absolute and will vary depending upon the intensity of the sun, etc. but it should still provide a good pointer as to which meter is the more accurately calibrated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
63strat Posted December 22, 2014 Author Share #9 Â Posted December 22, 2014 I'd be more surprised if they were in very close agreement but 2 stops apart seems a little far the other way. Have you tried them outside under sunny 16 conditions? That, of course, is not an absolute and will vary depending upon the intensity of the sun, etc. but it should still provide a good pointer as to which meter is the more accurately calibrated. Â 90% of the time it's just 1 stop off, while a few readings were heading towards 2 stops. I'll try referencing them to sunny 16 tomorrow, thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
63strat Posted December 22, 2014 Author Share #10 Â Posted December 22, 2014 I tried sunny-16 just now and both meters are reading the same in bright sunlight: 500/f16. However, just moving into the shade will produce a discrepancy. The L-398A, which, with the high slide in place, is reading 60/f11 and the L-208 is reading 60/f5.6. Now the 398 is reading off the H scale markings with the slide in place, and the foot candle scale is compressed in the lower part of the scale, so maybe the 398 just isn't as accurate near the lower part of the scale. I'm just guessing here... Â Certainly the 398 is more of a hassle to use because you have to futz around with the slide and change the dome if you want a reflective reading, but nonetheless, I'd like to keep whichever meter is more accurate. I think I'll just have to shoot a roll and see, or get a digital camera check the settings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 22, 2014 Share #11 Â Posted December 22, 2014 ... I'd like to keep whichever meter is more accurate. ... Â They might both be equally accurate but react differently to colors or their fields of view might be different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted December 22, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted December 22, 2014 It's like banging your head against a wall. It feels good when you stop. The Twinmate is compact, easy to use and carry around. A meter in your pocket beats one left behind every time. Use it exclusively for at least one full roll and see if you're happy with the results. Trying to get similar readings from different meters is like herding cats. Been down that path a few times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 22, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted December 22, 2014 One of the most frustrating things in photography has always been comparing two light meters. 50 years ago a friend and I both bought Weston Master IV meters at the same time. They read nearly a stop different, but we used them successfully side by side for years with different cameras, once we got used to interpreting them from the way we used them. Â Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 23, 2014 Share #14 Â Posted December 23, 2014 All meters can be adjusted by the user. Â If one of the Sekonics is always reading higher than the other then I would suggest you get them checked to see if they are calibrated properly. Do it yourself. Get a piece of 18% grey (in a perfect world - if not then, really, any sort of mid-grey will work just as well for your purposes) and check out exposure values under a constant light-source with as many cameras/meters as you can assemble from friends & family and decide which exposure is 'correct' for you. There should be some sort of middle-ground. Compare with the readings obtained by the two Sekonics and 'zero' the one which is out. It may also be that one is under by 1/2 stop and the other over by the same margin. Â Philip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.