Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

I have an offer for a used Sekonic Dual Spot F L-778 in mint condition
for about the same amount as a brand new Sekonic Dual Master L-558.
Given that I am looking for a 1 degree spot meter (I don't need
incident metering, nor a pocket wizard interface) - which should
I go for?
(I know L-778 is a discontiued model, but I've tried it and like the
ergonomics of it and the fact that it uses standard AA-batteries.
Are there any "must-have" features on the L-558?)
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gisle Hannemyr

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

That and the mechanical quality. Yes. (I really didn't like the feel of the
Sekonic models I tried.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


David J. Littleboy

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
However - the Pentax - if one can get hold of one (it seems to be
a hard to find item these days) - seems to be $470 to $600. I've
been offered one the Sekonics for $340.
The Sekonics also gives you an EV reading at the push of a button (if
you put them in EV mode). You can keep in that mode and forget about
all the other buttons, and it will work just like the Pentax except
that there is no built-in dial to convert an EV number to f-stop and
shutter speed - but you can build one yourself (e.g. like the one on
side of the older Pentax Spotmeter V) quite easy - and even add an
extra dial for zones (like that on the Zone VI modified Pentaxes).
Agreed - and I too can appreciate that. But is the absence of the
extra buttons + the built-in converter dial of the Pentax, really
worth $130?
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gisle Hannemyr

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

Aahh, well, I tend to disagree somewhat with the 'technique' of choosing
a tone in the scene and deciding how you want to render it, and using
the spotmeter to calculate the exposure. Basically, if the exposure
used is more than a stop or so away from the 'correct' exposure, you're
going to sacrifice either the highlights or the shadows in the image,
and once they're gone, they're gone. Specially with digital.
I prefer to shoot at the indicated exposure, and then I can render the
shot how I want it in Photoshop. Curves etc can make it look anything
you want. I don't see how an abnormal exposure can make it any
different, except to ruin your chance of a different interpretation of
the scene being explored. With film in pre-photoshop days, shifting the
exposure away from 'normal' was the only way to compress highlights or
shadows to render the tonality you wanted, but that's no longer
necessary with the response-curve-bending capabilities of PS.
I agree about using spotmeters for light-in-the-picture subjects like
sunsets, but of course that - to get back to the OP's original question
- doesn't negate the argument for the 558 versus the 778.
As for using the histogram, how do you tell from that if your
varied-from-normal exposure has hit the mark? Maybe the image will give
you some idea, but histograms from any but the top-line cameras are
usually mono, i.e. no color channel info displayed.
Interesting stuff, though.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


ColinD

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

Hehe. A man who appreciates his bells and whistles.
You are right, spot meters make lousy incident meters.
And your use of "subjective" here is spot on! A spot meter is the ultimate
tool for looking at a scene, deciding a subjective visualization of that
scene on the print, and determining an appropriate exposure to achieve that
visualization.
But that's not how spot meters are used. Here's the basic idea.
The photographer finds a tone in the subject and decides what zone s/he
wants to place it on.
The photographer then determines the exposure that would place that tone at
zone V.
The photographer then adjusts the exposure so that the identified tone is
"placed" at the desired zone.
The photographer can then measure the different tones in the scene and find
out exactly how they will be rendered, and decide if a different exposure
might be more appropriate.
This is neat, because it works for scenes where the light isn't reflected,
like sunsets.
Note that the only part that's subjective is deciding how you want the image
rendered. Once you've used your eyes and artistic sensibility, the meter
tells you how to get what you saw and felt onto the film.
For digital use, shooting an image and looking at the histogram kicks the
respective butts of both spot and incident metering.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


David J. Littleboy

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

Prudence would suggest that, since both are 1 deg. meters, but the 558
has reflected, incident, and flash as well, that you should go for the
most versatile unit. You might not think you need the other features
now, but I think if you have them you will use them. Not all occasions
call for a spot meter; and spot meters are slow to use if you have to
measure multiple brightnesses and find the exposure range. A single
reading from a spot meter requires identifying an 18% gray area, and
that is very subjective when looking at a scene, unless you carry a gray
card.
For digital use, an incident meter is quicker and more accurate than
choosing an arbitrary gray; and you don't have to squint though the
meter to take a reading.
I would take the 558, no choice. (plus, the 558, being new, will carry a
full warranty.)
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


ColinD

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

FWIW, and it's not worth much, my answer is "none of the above".
I went to the biggest camera store in Tokyo and played with all the spot
meters.
The Petax digital was the only one I could get a reading from without
reading the manual.
IMHO, the others were insanely overdesigned.
I've been very happy with the Pentax. It does exactly what I need, no
more/no less.
It's a 1 degree spot meter; push the button, get a reading. 1/3 stop
increments only. No "remember 17 readings and average them" functions. Just
a number. And a mechanical dial scale to convert that to f stop/shutter
speed based on the ISO.
It's a truly KISS design. Ultimately beautiful simplicity.
If you need flash metering, though, the Pentax doesn't do that.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


David J. Littleboy

Re: Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558

I don't know the 778, but here's what's good about the 558 (and not
unique to it...)
Must have? Separate spot meter (eg: not a doo-dad to add to the
incident meter).
The dome retraction of the incident is essential for studio lighting.
The 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop modes of operation.
Aperture or speed priority.
Flash triggered metering. (no need to 'arm' it). 1/4" screw socket
(nice in the studio). Upgrade path to use PocketWizard module built in.
Memory (I don't use often, but sometimes useful to remember where the
highlights are placed) and averaging functions.
Bad (558): Big. Really big. Clumsy big. No zoom for the spot meter.
CR123A battery. Switching from 1/3 to 1/2 stop modes requires you
remember a code and set it during start up. Poorly designed carrying case.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.


Alan Browne

Content - Sekonic L-778 vs. L-558
Found 7 post(s). Page 1 of 1
| 1 |










 
Faccine - Property In Costa Do Estoril - Property For Sale In Poinciana - Homemade Dog Food
Photoshop questions