I think I just use normal 1.5V batteries, and it gives a perfect exposure [tested against nikon meter]
You are right, Bennett did not mention the type of meter, but this is a minor detail. I happen to have the digital one and wanted to point out one advantage ore two.
Sorry, Bennett, for the wrong information...
Philippe
__________________
"...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
(freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)
Thanks to all of you (including the barf analogy). It's great to be able to benefit from serious views such as yours and hope that one day I might be able to reciprocate.
I find an analog meter more intuitive. Less thinking, less addition and subtraction, just over and under information in stops directly beamed into my brain as I scan around the scene.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
I use a Lunasix analogue and a Minolta F digital spotmeter. I am lucky with regards to the Lunasix since I found a battery store in small town that had several 1.35V mercury cells sitting in an old fridge that someone had forgotten to throw out; I purchased all their stock and they are now in my freezer. The Lunasix was handed down from my mother who got it from her uncle, but it is still very accurate for being 50+ years old, once you self-calibrate (very simple). The spotmeter was picked up on eBay for $300 about a year ago, pretty pricey given the company doesn't make them anymore but has been a great investment and goes everywhere my camera does.
If your question is should you stay analogue or go digital with regards to light meters, well, there is pros and cons to both. I love my analogue for wide open scenes, interior portraits and areas of similar lighting. I love my digital for exact placements of values, being able to visualize the final image's luminosity and since it is the F model, it calculates the exposure for flash. I tend to use the two meters in combination, taking an overview reading with the Lunasix, using the spot to visualize values in the print and then the Lunasix for calculations like a "slide ruler" for adjustments (i.e. place shadow in III, add 2 stops, plus 1/2 stop for filter, minus 1 stop for reflection, etc.). For obvious reasons, the digital meter doesn't let me do those types of calculations easily. I would go with a spot meter again just because of the control it gives me with regards to placing values; the analogue meter makes me a more conscious photographer since I need to think my way through a picture, rather than letting the machine tell me what to do.
Just, as a personal and final opinion on the Pentax digi spot, the EV values reading is the main reason why I have chosen this one.
The Hasselblad happens to be my most frequently used camera system.
The EV reading of the meter, always for 100 ASA, can be set directly on the camera/lens scale.
The only draw back is that for other speed readings, I have to add or deduct one ore more EV values. But, on the other hand, this forces me to fully concentrate on the reading and interpretation of the light conditions. I hardly use the scale engraved on the meter's lens barrel.
It sometimes happens that I expose a 400 ASA as a 100 ASA (200 ASA) ore vice versa, it only depends how I see (and feel) the light. The spot meter is just there for putting me on the right track and to help me out in complex light situations.
I take a Sekonic L-398 when I have doubts about my interpretation and judgement (all tough I know I can trust the Pentax...).
Good luck, Bennett,
Philippe
P.S. : What is a "...barf analogy..." (I know of a grey one...).
__________________
"...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
(freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)
I have the digital one, which I bought new at Calumet (which, but the way, is pretty much the only place I could find one; they are probably not long for this world, so if you want a new one, I would get it now). I really wanted a model V instead, as I prefer the needle, but I just didn't want to buy a used meter at the time. I didn't want to have to test, calibrate, have service performed, not knowing what it had been through, etc. I just wanted something that was brand new that would last me for life, and to which I could calibrate everything. The digital works great, and is nice and small, although I prefer the visible scale of the V. I have done all my film testing using this meter, and I have my cameras and my Sekonic studio incident meter calibrated to it. It works more than well enough for the classic film tests and zone methods, although the scale does make the figurin' not necessarily "easier", but more "visual".
You have to consider price, though. It is a ton of money to spend for a meter that only does one thing, so it was hard to convince myself to buy a new one. If you use flash at all, it won't help you in that arena; you will need to buy another meter, so you have to consider that as well. (I don't feel so bad about dropping so much money on my Digital, since I got my Sekonic for free; actually a "Brockway", but it is made by Sekonic.) In short, if this wasn't going to be my primary meter at least 75% of the time, and I wasn't going to use it for calibrating everything to, I would have bought a used Spotmeter V to save money.
I really like the ones that have a split scale, like the 1/21. However, the battery issue makes them harder to use.
As odd as it sounds, I think the Digital actually seems more durable than the V. I usually think the older models of things are generally tougher, but not in this case.
Thanks. Flash is not an issue for me even in low light conditions. Price differences betwenn digital and analogue are quite wide and, all things considerd, might be a deciding factor, although ease of long-term battery availibility could be a constraint.
).
Linear Mode
