prefered spot meter type???

[BrianShaw]

I've got a Sekonic L758. It's brilliant and amazingly well featured but has more features than I'll ever use or know how to use. But for spot metering and incident metering, it does everything I'd want it to do. I've had it for about 5 years now.

ditto, except mine is the slightly older L-558 and I've had it a little longer. I find it just as intuitive as the Pentax once you understand the various options and display.

[Harley Goldman]

I use a Pentax digital spot. Easy to use, rugged and reliable.

[Louis Pacilla]

I have a Sekonic L-778, it works great. If you use flash, you can make spot meter readings with it using the PC sync, or the hot shoe.

If only shooting b/w, I'd just use a Pentax Digital. Brilliantly simple device, and these days can be had for a very small sum, for a great condition unit.

Dan

Any of those will work fine. If you're the type to count on your fingers, the pentax would suit you since you can label it to correspond to the zones for zone system exposure. Other than that, they are all essentially equivalent. I have a sekonic L-558 that I am very happy with.

I have two of the Sekonic L-558 meters. They're marvelous, with every capability you could ever want.
I wouldn't trade it for anything.

The L-7xx series is grossly over-priced, loaded with supposed "features" that you'll never use.

I have also owned some of the predecessor Sekonic models, plus the Minolta Spotmeter F.

- Leigh

ditto, except mine is the slightly older L-558 and I've had it a little longer. I find it just as intuitive as the Pentax once you understand the various options and display.

I'm going to throw the "Super Zoom Master L-608" into or on the list of Multiple Function Sekonic Light Meters.

I enjoy using mine. Fantastic meter.

[Ken Lee]

Another vote for the Pentax, especially if you use the Zone System. Even for BTZS its simplicity makes it very convenient in the field.

I tried a Sekonic L-7xx series and loved its precision and wide range, but found it confusing (some of us are easily confused): too many features. Having both an incident and spot meter in one device was attractive in theory, but less helpful in practice.

For my incident meter I sold the Sekonic and bought a simple, affordable and comparatively small Gossen Digisix.

[sanking]

I have owned a Sekonic L-558 for a very long time and never found a fault in it except for the size. My metering is done primarily with incident, but having the spot meter also is great because there are reasons one would need both methods. If I lost it tomorrow the first thing I would do would be to buy another one.

On the other hand, the little Gossen Digisix that Ken mentioned is a wonderful little meter for incident readings, and could handle about 90% of my metering requirements.

Sandy

[camerafilmnegative]

i would like to extend my thanks to you for the thought provoking and informative replies

my original thoughts have been amended.....

having further researched each suggestion made, I am more or less set on a Pentax digital whether it be original or Zone VI.

and yes I have read the Paul Butzi tests and reprised writings. the following being a quote from the latter

Another possibility is that Picker managed to improve the analog Pentax meter, and perhaps the Soligor digital meter, but that he could not improve the Pentax digital meter. Still, his customers clamored for an 'improved' Pentax Digital Meter, and so he delivered.

so unless some of you think me barmy and can prove it, a Pentax it will be...

once again thank you all

[John Berry]

I'm still using the 2nd L508 to ever leave glazers. Variable spot with incident CAN'T be beat. I don't know if newer ones are better, mine ain't broke, and I don't baby it. I didn't think much of the soligar spot meter, so I sold it and got a pentax. I have had both early and late. Both worked fine. At this point I use more incident than spot, but having both is nice. I can't imagine spending the amount of money your going to have to, for an average 30-40 year old unit, throwing the dice on how much longer till it drops, and it is still only a spot meter. NO METER is any more accurate than your PERSONAL calibration test. My late vote and nudge would be for a sekonic model that meets your needs.

[Vaughn]

I use a Pentax digital spot. Easy to use, rugged and reliable.

Agree...and I like the relative simplicity of the device. But one tends to be biased towards what one has used for a few decades.

[Leonard Evens]

Agree...and I like the relative simplicity of the device. But one tends to be biased towards what one has used for a few decades.

I also agree. I used the original Pentax spotmeter for many years, but I had to switch to the Pentax digital spotmeter because of a problem getting batteries for the older meter. Th digital model works fine, and I recently found a solution for batteries for the older meter. So I can, and will, use both.

At one point I tried another manufacturer's meter, but I found it difficult to use, so I returned it.

Just get a Pentax Digital spotmeter, and you will have what you need!

[jose angel]

I like the Pentax, but since I owned a L-508 by far I prefer to have spot and incident in the same device. Many times while working with incident readings I end using the spot if the situation is not clear at all... sometimes I prefer to strictly use incident or spot readings depending on the task and format.
I upgraded the L-508 with a L-608 when it was released (just to have in-screen readout when using the spot). Never feel the need of upgrading again.

Besides the L-608 I also have a tiny L-208 for casual incident use with Leicas and other RF cameras. But when I need accuracy and range, the big Sekonic is irreplaceable. I also have some other devices, but in comparison they are worthless to me.