froyd
Veteran
What am I giving up if I trade my 398 for a twinmate?
I guess I would lose battery-free operation, swivel head, and the flexibility of using aperture slides and other small acceszories.
Anything else I'm overlooking? I'm thinking of giving up the old workhorse for something a little smaller and with greater low light sensitivity. I'm not adverse to batteries and have no usefor the 398's accessories, but I have the feeling i'm overlookingsome major twinmate flaw.
I guess I would lose battery-free operation, swivel head, and the flexibility of using aperture slides and other small acceszories.
Anything else I'm overlooking? I'm thinking of giving up the old workhorse for something a little smaller and with greater low light sensitivity. I'm not adverse to batteries and have no usefor the 398's accessories, but I have the feeling i'm overlookingsome major twinmate flaw.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I found the twin-mate good for reflected metering and down to EV 4 ~ 5 (dimmest light to be used hand-held for ISO400 film for me) but would not recommend using it for incident metering or real low-light work.
froyd
Veteran
Not real low ligh, just a stop or two beyond the 398. Although I should have specified that i would mainly use it as an incident meter.
PMCC
Late adopter.
Who needs a meter for real low light work?
maddoc
... likes film again.
froyd
Veteran
Gabor, why do you advise against incident use on the twinmate? I thought it was an incident meter first and a reflected meter as a secondary function (like the 398)
bean_counter
Well-known
I bought the twinmate to get better exposures while I was out and about with my Barnacks. I never had much luck using it for the tasks you want - incident metering and/or low light.
Moved on to the L-308, works just dandy.
Moved on to the L-308, works just dandy.
froyd
Veteran
Thanks for the very valuable insight. I had hoped the 208 would be a smaller, battery dependent (and thus more sensitive) little brother to the 398. Too bad.
I think a digisix might be in my future then, but I don't relish the interface.
taylan
Street Dog
I have been using 208 approximately 2 years. It is small, light and great at daylight time. The only thing that bother me is low light performance. I wish I had a digisix or digiflash.