Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Andrew Moore wrote: > > > What I can't figure out is whether to get the Luna Pro Digital F or the > Luna > > Pro F. The latter costs over $100 more than the former--how come? > > Anything the non-digital does that the digital doesn't? > > Yes -- the non-digital one gives you a great analog scale which (I find) > gives the user a more intuitive idea of how far off the exposure is from a > given point. A digital reading doesn't do that. I find the same advantage > with an analog clock dial compared to a digital clock. It also does > exactly what I tell it to do, just like the M itself, with minimal > electronics to get in the way of a grea user interface. > > > Anyone care to make a recommendation? Primary purpose: street > photography > > with my Leica M6 TTL. > > If you can get away with it, just use the M6 internal meter, but I'm > guessing that you want to meter inconspicuously, without raising the camera > to your eye. The Luna Pros are a bit bulky and that's my only complaint. > > --Andrew > NO ARCHIVE Not as small as the Pilot II but just as light if not lighter! This is my favorite meter! I've had the previous non F for years and put it though hell and a month or so back I got the newer F model. Both use one AA battery; my favorite!! efficient! you never need to replace it! It doesn't make a dent in a top shirt pocket! weighs 3.35 oz! I got sick of making spot readings in the studio. This will work cord or no cord and do incident as normally done in the studio or reflective with it's 25 degree acceptance angle! I sure used the incident dome though borrowing Bob's Superwide last month! Also I found the Minolta spot meter I wanted to standardize on is like most spot meters not great in low light. This Luna Pro Digital F Goes to LW -2.5 to =18 at ISO 100. I might bet my older model serviced as it now reads a third stop under. Mark Rabiner