Hmmm.....I use a Minolta IV-F meter and had never even heard of Polaris, so
I looked it up. I agree the two meters, by themselves, are most comparable.
The Polaris is a tad cheaper ($5.00 new @ B&H), the Minolta has a slightly
wider sensitivity range, among the other features you named. I agree 100%
the Minolta should never be used as reflected meter sans the special 40
degree attachment. >>Very<< odd readings result. So the cost comparison
becomes more favorable to the Polaris by an additional $18. What I do not
see available for the Polaris are any accessories, from simple stuff like ND
attachments to more sophisticated things like spot attachments to highly
specialized items such as the Booster spot probe for taking measurements
directly off the ground glass of view cameras. Should your metering needs
expand into new territories, then the expandability of the Minolta system
becomes very, very beneficial and quite cost effective compared to multiple
specialized meters.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far".
Ken Norton <image66@xxxxxxx> graced our inboxes with ramblings of several
things, including:
>
> "Minolta IV-F vs. Polaris Flash Meter"
> In the wedding equipment I use, there is a IV-F that I spent some time
> doing serious comparisons with my Polaris. I did some controlled testing
> with each along with my old Luna-Pro and the OM-2S. The Polaris is as
much
> (but no more) than 1/3 stop low when the sole light source (bare bulb) is
> greater than 110 degrees off axis of the dome. Otherwise, it is always
> within 1/10 of the Minolta, but strangly enough closer to the Luna-Pro in
> every ambient light measurement. The Minolta has the analog scale
> reprentation which is very nice, and averaging along with a slew of other
> features, but for the price, the Polaris is a fine Digital Flash Meter and
> every bit as accurate as the Minolta. Nice thing about the Polaris is
that
> the dome slides over and it becomes a reflected light meter (highly
> accurate in my tests), whereas the Minolta requires another attachment to
> be a reflected light meter. (DO NOT USE the Minolta as a reflected light
> meter without the attachments as the reading is WAY off).
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|