Gossen Multibeam Attachment For SBC -- Accuracy/Sensitivity ??

[Old-N-Feeble]

Has anyone used the 1/5/10 degree Multibeam attachment for the Gossen SBC? Regarding ONLY sensitivity and accuracy: How does this combination compare with a "dedicated" spot meter like a Sekonic L-778 or similar?

[Joseph Dickerson]

I had one many years ago and found that it was too sensitive to flare. If reading a dark object surrounded by a light background for instance, the reading would be inflated until the light area is no longer included in the view. I replaced the SBC with a Pentax digital spot meter.

I currently use two Sekonic spot meters L-608 and L-778, neither exhibits this problem. I did substantial testing of spot meters for an article some time ago and found the dedicated spot, or multifunction, meters are generally better at making discrete readings than those meters that use a separate accessory "spot" attachment. I tested meters from Gossen, Sekonic, and Pentax with comparable results. YMMV

JD

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, Joseph. I have a L-778 for spot metering and a SBC for low light and incident metering. I was hoping the spot attachment for the SBC would work well. Have you tested the Gossen 7.5/15 degree attachment?

[Joseph Dickerson]

I used one on a Luna Pro and it seemed to work OK, but I didn't test it as extensively as I did the SBC et al. The L-778 is my all time dedicated spot meter. Have you set it up for zone system? It has the best zone system adaptation of any meter I've used, including the Pentax digital with the Zone VI zone scale.

Another meter I like is the Gossen Luna Star F-2 with its 5 degree spot attachment. Seems very accurate, and while only 5 degrees the "scan" function is really cool.

I really liked the SBC I had for studio work, even used it as an enlarging meter with the old Luna Pro enlarging attachment, but I was disappointed with the spot attachment. Eventually sold the spot attachment and bought the Sekonic L-778. Truth be told I now use a Sekonic L-608 most of the time as I prefer spot readings for B&W and incident for color.

You may have figured out by now that I'm a meter freak. Some of my fondest childhood memories are when my dad let me play with his old GE light meter. It had dials and scales and little needles that popped out when you changed scales, it was sooooo cool!

I know, really weird huh?

JD

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't set up meters for ZS. It's been decades but back then I just did the math in my head and made notes. At that time there were no meters dedicated to ZS use. Frankly, I found the former methodology easier anyway... set the meter... adjust exposure/development accordingly... adjust for filtration as it affects cold (shadow/sky) values and warm values (tree highlights/warm-colored clouds) separately... take notes... pray...

I did cheat a bit. I over-exposed, under-processed, and selenium toned to adjust contrast. I eventually became proficient enough to print on either grade 2 or 3 Ilford Gallery with minimal dodging/burning. Grade 3 was my prefernece and I hit that 80-90 percent of the time.

It seems that I've made an ass of myself too often here on this forum by calling out liars... so whatever knowledge I had isn't appreciated. At this point in my life I just don't care anymore.

[Joseph Dickerson]

We all seem to "adapt" the zone system to be more personal and accommodate our own desired degree of involvement in the esoteric. Or at least we probably should.

I too have simplified my approach to reflect (no pun intended) the fact that I now print digitally rather than traditionally.

I can't remember any of your posts or replies that were off putting so maybe you can change your screen name to "Old-N-Growing Wiser.

JD

[Old-N-Feeble]

I could change my moniker to "Old-N-Growing-Wiser" but that would be a lie. My mind is weakening... not strengthening. The truth is think I don't connect very well with the world today. I'm a 50's-60's old fart and am only growing older. Is wisdom the understanding of today's way of thinking... or the stead-fast hardening of the way things were when we once gave a damn for each other... and the TRUTH?!? I don't know anymore. And, at times, I don't think I care anymore.

[jan staller]

I used this attachment years ago, and found that it worked accurately. I later purchased a Minolta Spotmeter M. It was probably more accurate and could be pointed at the desired reading area with much greater ease. I was doing very long night exposures, and for that the Minolta was not useful, as its sensitivity was much lower than the Gossen. If you stay with the Gossen you must remember
to adjust the dial for the accessory's loss of light.

[andrewr]

Joseph, can you give me a pointer to the article you wrote about spot meters that you refer to in this thread ? I would love to read it and can't find it online.

Many thanks,
Andrew

(A visitor from APUG - first post here as I shoot MF)

[Sevo]

I have one, but can only compare it to the original Minolta 1° meter and a Sekonic L-438 View Spot - as far as accuracy goes, it is good enough for all practical needs. Its main shortcomings are the eyepoint and field of vision, it is no good for operation with glasses and I moreover find it difficult to use in low light.

Overall I tend to prefer the brutish Minolta (not that much bigger than the Profispot/SBC combination, but four times the weight) or (for wider, but variable spots) the slim, but limited to 3°, Sekonic. Arguably the Minolta 1° is a bit unfair as a benchmark - it is a considerably overdesigned early attempt that looks more like a bastard child of Arriflex and Nikon F. Compared to the whole slew of more modern digital readout meters, the Gossen finder quality is not quite that disappointing - but then these are less than a quarter the size of both the Gossen and Minolta, while having far more functions.