Interesting but probably not going to really help
@dcy figure out if his meter is wonky or not… or if his phone app is accurate or not.
Ha ha. Yeah, that whole discussion about C & K just made me think of Calvin Klein underwear. I've mentally filed that into a part of my brain labeled "things to think about later."
New Light Meter Test:
Today I did a new test using my Olympus OMD mirrorless camera as the reference light meter. This time I was also careful to point at subjects that look gray-ish, as opposed to the very white sidewalk that might have introduced an additional source of error. With these changes, the Luna Pro F light meter seems to line up with the Olympus one quite well --- better than I expected.
Today the conditions were not quite ideal. It was a bright sunny day, but the uneven cloud cover caused the lighting to vary visibly. I made an effort to take the meter reading and the digital camera shot at the same time, but looking back, I could've done a better job at that.
I am not able to get the images from the digital camera because I'm a dummy and forgot to bring my SD card adapter. I went back and took photos with my phone so at least you can see more or less what the scenes looked like, but it won't be exact.
The Olympus OMD's meter was set to "center-weighted".
The Luna Pro F's meter was set to "reflected light".
Test 1: Pavement.
Olympus ---> 1/125" F16 ISO 200
Luna Pro ---> 1/125" F16 ISO 200 (same!)
Test 2: Sun-Lit Beige Wall.
The light was changing rapidly. I ended up taking two measurements with each device.
Olympus ---> 1/400" or 1/500" F16 ISO 200
Luna Pro ---> 1/300" or 1/400" F16 ISO 200
Test 3: Shaded Wall.
At this point my finger must've slipped and changed the OMD's aperture to F14. I will report the value in the EXIF data and the equivalent at F16.
Olympus ---> 1/60" F14 = 1/46" F16 ISO 200
Luna Pro ---> 1/38" F16 ISO 200
Test 4: Normal Scene.
OMD still set to F14...
Olympus ---> 1/80" F14 = 1/61" F16 ISO 200
Luna Pro ---> 1/86" F16 ISO 200