</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Dec 6 2002, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont know what is it about the L508, I have heard this underexposre complaint but mine does great. I think they had QC problems with this meter, as the work/does not work ratio seems to be 50/50......
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
That&#39;s good to hear Jorge and may be why it has not bothered me. I had just assumed mine had the same problems so often talked about and I had personally compensated somehow. Now I am intriqued enough to test it to find out. Suggestions on a good home testing procedure would be welcomed. Something that will eliminate the variables such as meters beings set to 12% at factory instead of the 18% cards I have, and the angle of the card to the light source etc.

Meters to me have always been a bit of a mystery as the Sekonics/Gossen/Minoltas I have owned have all reacted differently in different light. Shade-direct sun-indoor and like you said with filters. Sometimes a half stop difference from meter to meter. I have just assumed it was differences in cells and angle of view or flare and of course my technique. Maybe I should get more scientific about this so I won&#39;t be such a loose Zoner. Then I can get a densitometer and really get scientific.........not.

SteveGangi, no it&#39;s not that hard but if you are an "old guy" like me you fondly yearn for the old days of analog meters that were so natural or intuitive to use. Another 20yrs of digital readings and I&#39;ll get it down.