Jorge,

Actually, I don't think it is a 'better' densitometer than the 361, but it is at least 'the same' when it comes to UV performance.

From my understanding, the only real difference between the two is that the 369 does not have the Ortho channel that the 361 has. That should not be an issue for any alt printers, but it may be worth considering.

The 369 uses the exact same lamp as the 361 and the 310 (310-60), so I suspect that the 369 has the exact same responce curves as the 361 and for visible, possibly the same as the 310.

I saw one go for $18 about 4 months ago. I paid $72 including shipping for mine, and that included three spare lamps and the calibration tablet. So I figure I did pretty well.

However, now that you have posted this in a public forum, the chance of getting a 369 for under $100 is pretty unlikely!

One warning, the UV channel takes at least 30 minutes to warm up, and it appears to not really stabilize for a few hours. If you calibrate the UV channel when it is still warming up, it will drift a bit over time. The visible channel will stabilize within a few minutes from startup, however.

You can still get the lamps and calibration swatches from X-Rite, and their products are built as good as they come, so unless the unit was mistreated, a used 366 should offer years of occasional service for a photographer. They were designed for continuous operation, and the lamp is recommended to be replaced every 1200 hours, or about 1/2 year. When you buy one on Ebay, it might make sense to replace the lamp and calibration swatch, and then you'll be set for years, assuming that the unit is ont used continuously.

---Michael