avery

Thanks for the comments. I will calibrate the Sekonic to match the D300 and hopefully remember that I have done

so if I ever use the Sekonic with another camera. The different readings between my three meters suggest that

manufacturing such devices is perhaps as much an art as it is a science. By the way, I purchased the Sekonic and

its spot meter attachment primarily for landscape work--so I could frame shots and meter separately, although

with the D300's multiple metering points, I don't need this flexibility as much as I did with the D70. Happy

shooting.

My Nikon D300 and my Sekonic L-358 light meter don't agree on what constitutes correct exposure. They are, in

fact, 2/3 of a stop (and sometimes 1 stop) out of sync. I am wondering whether such a difference is unusual; I

would have thought that two such reputable manufacturers would have produced meters whose readings closely aligned.

For instance, I spot metered a grey card using my D300 and came up with 1/25 @ f11 as the normal exposure. The

Sekonic (using it as a spot meter--I have the spot meter attachment), however, told me that the normal exposure

would be generated with 1/40 @ f11--a 2/3 stop difference from the Nikon reading. In other words, had I shot the

scene using the Sekonic's recommended settings, I would have underexposed my photo by 2/3 of a stop. I

replicated this minimum 2/3 EV difference using a variety of f stops.

The folks at my local photography store and a rep from Sekonic both tell me that such discrepancies are to be

expected, but I am wondering whether anyone else has run into similar differences with their metering systems.

Fortunately, one can re-calibrate the Sekonic by +/- one stop, so I will be able to match the D300's meter.

By the way, my Nikon D70 tends to sit between the two: 1/3 stop slower than the Sekonic and 1/3 stop faster than

the D300.

Thanks for the tips; I much appreciate your responses.

Cheers,

Graham

I want to get some Singh-Ray neutral density filters for my Mamiya RB67 lenses,

but I don't know whether I should get the P series versions (roughly 3.25" x

4.5") or the larger Z-Pro versions (4" x 6"). I have three lenses: a 50mm,

127mm, and 180mm. The filter thread on the lenses is 77mm.

I am thinking of abandoning filter holders in favour of taping the filters to

the lenses.

Either way, I'd like to know if I would be better off with the P-series or the

Z-Pro filters. Any advice would be most appreciated.

Graham