Sekonik L398 or Gossen Luna Pro

froyd

froyd

Mentor
Local time
5:01 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
2,313
I just bought an L398 for a song (under $30) but I'm rethinking my purchase because I've found a Luna Pro for not much more. I would not mind having more accurate readings indoor, where I do quite a bit of photography, but I like the ergonomics of the Sekonic and its independence from batteries.

Other than the greater sensitivity to low light, are there other advantages of the Gossen? Since I have not played much with the L398, what are the practical limits for indoor photography? Is a nightime interior lit exclusively by domestic lights 9say a 60w ceiling light and a 60 w table lamp too much to handle accurately?

Thanks for the advice!
 
Interior home lighting is typically 1/30sec @ f2 with 400 speed film.
The significant advantage of the Gossen is low light ability, that and incident/reflected light reading capability. (Yes the Sekonic can do reflected light reading, but with a different disc over the sensor.)
 
I've owned both and sold the L398. The Luna Pro does use mercury batteries but can easily be modified to use silver batteries. Or use an adapter!
 
If the Luna Pro model uses mercury batteries, you can't get them anymore. An adapter costs a small fortune. Look for a Gossen Luna-Pro sbc. It runs on a 9 volt battery-get them anywhere. The Luna-Pro sbc will read the light from a single LED reflected off a wall 5 feet away. In otherwords, almost darkness. In fact, I had to use a flashlight to read the meter. I paid $50 for mine in mint condition with the leather case. I retired my Luna-Pro to backup duty.
 
Yeah, make sure you get a Luna Pro SBC or Luna Pro F that takes 9V batteries. Another advantage over the L398 is that you can get a variable-angle adapter for the Luna Pro, giving you 15 or 7.5 deg cone readings.
 
The L398 can just about deal with low light good enough to shoot hand-held on film. That may not be enough if you use a tripod, a fast digital camera or massively pushed film. However the classic Luna Pro is not really a better low light meter - it is a CdS meter and as such it does not reach down that much further, is sluggish in contrasty low light conditions and most of the series need mercury cells. The Luna Pro SBC and F both are much better low-light meters.
 
Thanks for the advice... I'll hang on to the Sekonic for a little while to see if it serves my needs and keep an eye out for a Luna Pro sbc or F. The Luna Pro I had in mind used the mercury cells and I agree that the convenience of 9v makes it worth looking for the more contemporary version.
 
I never loved my luna-pro though I've come love using my 398 and other meters designed like it for years. A lot depends on your style of metering. I think Incident is more accurate as you are metering for 18% gray. Reflective has surface and color things to think about. I've developed an approach if I can not get the dome into the light I want to turn it so that it's in the same shadow/light mix as I want middle gray to be.

Stick with the 398 and get good. You will be able to use some other way cool flash meters with ease if you choose later on.

B2 (;->
 
I find it hard to love my SBC because it's such a brick, but it functions so well that it's my go-to.

.
 
Overall, I think the Luna Pro is the better meter (greater range, better sensitivity, does not contain powerful magnets). Luna-pro is probably a shade lighter, Sekonic is definitely smaller. I have a soft spot for the "brick" because a Luna-Pro SBC (9V version) was my first meter and it really delivered over a ten year period. Now I have a Sekonic and a Minolta flash meter -- personally, I like the option of going non-electronic. The truth is that it probably does not matter which you choose, as long as you learn well the characteristics of the one you do choose.

Ben
 
BillBingham2 said:
I never loved my luna-pro though I've come love using my 398 and other meters designed like it for years. A lot depends on your style of metering. I think Incident is more accurate as you are metering for 18% gray. Reflective has surface and color things to think about. I've developed an approach if I can not get the dome into the light I want to turn it so that it's in the same shadow/light mix as I want middle gray to be.

Stick with the 398 and get good. You will be able to use some other way cool flash meters with ease if you choose later on.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

I don't want to seem to disagree, but I always thought that reflective/averaging meters are also reading 18% gray. I seem to have read somewhere (Ansel Adams?) that light meters are designed to read 18% gray; what ever the meter is pointed to; it thinks it is reading 18% gray. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mike
 
The idea is that the meter reads whatever you point it at as being 18% gray. Thus if you point it at deep shadows (that you want to render as deep shadow) you then underexpose by a few stops from the given reading.
 
film nut said:
I don't want to seem to disagree, but I always thought that reflective/averaging meters are also reading 18% gray. I seem to have read somewhere (Ansel Adams?) that light meters are designed to read 18% gray; what ever the meter is pointed to; it thinks it is reading 18% gray. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mike
Click to expand...

Film nut, these are gross generalizations, but to keep it simple, you are correct that the reflecive reading suggests an exposure that would render a scene close to 18% overall. That's perfect if you are photgraphing a subject that would be best depicted as an 18% average. However, if you are photographing a bight subject (the traditional example is snow) you will most likely want that to be depicted brighter than a mid-tone grey, and will therefore have to decrease your exposure by a stop or more, depending on your intent. If your reflective reading suggested 1/500 at f4, you would want to try 1/1000 at f4 or 1/500 at f5.6. Then inverse is true for a dark subjec.

Compare this with an incident meter: the incident meter reads the light falling on the subject, whihc remains unchanged whether the subject is highly reflective or not. The 18% grey here applies in the fact that the incident meter will suggest an exposure that, given the light, will yield a scene of average 18% grey tonality.

Think of this example: a black door surrounded by a white wall. If you were to take reflective readings focused on the door first and then on the wall, you will have have two different readings. Assuming the illumination is even on the door and the wall, your incident reading will stay the same, whether you hold the meter (facing the camera) in front of the door or the white wall.
 
Bruin said:
Yeah, make sure you get a Luna Pro SBC or Luna Pro F that takes 9V batteries. Another advantage over the L398 is that you can get a variable-angle adapter for the Luna Pro, giving you 15 or 7.5 deg cone readings.
Click to expand...

There is even an extremely rare 1 degree attachment. I still keep my Weston Master V for incident use & back up. Batteries not required! :D
 
sevo said:
Sort of. See http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_kfactor.php for the ugly details.
Click to expand...

Well as complicated as it was, this made for some good reading. I guess after all that I'll use my meter and expose for the shadows or what I think I want to bring out in the photo and see what the results are; then adjust to that.
Sorry I sort of dragged people away from the main subject of the thread, but the information was appreciated.

Mike
 
Another meter thread! I always look at these. I'd love to have a good reason to have another meter. I only have two, a new Gossen DigiPro F, fast silicon blue cell, and my old Gossen Sixtar (Super Pilot in the US) -CdS cell, so slow. I can't imagine using it again. It has a battery, but I'm not sure I should leave it in. I certainly never take the meter out - there's no space in my bag for a spare meter. I'm wondering whether many of the posters on threads like this have one fast meter as I would think that for most of us it would be impossible to go back. It could be that like me you just like meters.
 
froyd said:
However, if you are photographing a bight subject (the traditional example is snow) you will most likely want that to be depicted brighter than a mid-tone grey, and will therefore have to decrease your exposure by a stop or more, depending on your intent. If your reflective reading suggested 1/500 at f4, you would want to try 1/1000 at f4 or 1/500 at f5.6. Then inverse is true for a dark subjec.
Click to expand...

I know this is an ancient thread but I can't help myself. The person giving this advice has it backwards. If you want snow to render how you see it with your eye you need to INCREASE exposure NOT decrease exposure. If you were to do what froyd suggests in the quoted comment your snow would just end up in zone 4 (event closer to black on the tone scale/darker than 18% gray ). Using the quoted advice as a reference point with a reflective reading of 1/500th @ f/4 If you wanted your snow to be a stop closer to white you'd expose 1/250th @ F/4 or 1/500th @ F/2.8 which would place your snow in Zone 6. The mistaken advice given in the original comment is a prime example of why people need to dig deeper than just one comment on the internet to find correct information.
 
My luna Pro is often to big to bring along and I now mostly use a leningrad 4 or a goossen sixtus which are much smaller. When storing I have to leave the battery out of the pro as it leaks also. I am looking into getting a sekonic 398 or weston 4 for incident metering.
 
I loved my Luna Pro F for its use with paper negatives (the ISO went below 1 and F-stops went to 128) but what I didn’t like was every few years I had to send it in to get repaired. Now Quality Light Metric of Hollywood, CA is out of business and so is the Gossen, just sitting in my cupboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top