Newly purchased Pentax Digital Spotmeter not accurate?

[RalphLambrecht]

I just purchased a used Pentax Digital Spot meter and it doesn’t match my Canon R5 or Sekonic l478dr with spot meter attachment. It came with a 6.2v silver oxide battery but the manual says 6v so I wonder if this is why it’s not accurate. If not can these be serviced or should I try and return it?


View attachment 342623

try to return it. Zone VI modified meters are terrible. The plain Pentax Digital is much better in my opinion. my modified meter was thrown off by warm colors too.

 

[GregY]

Ralph, I don't see any confirmation that this is a modified meter. I bought the sticker from F Picker for $1....they were widely available for various meters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The modified meters, I believe, were clearly post-labeled as such. Lacking that, and the presence of the Zone scale only, it's safe to assume it's unmodified.

 

[GregY]

The modified meters, I believe, were clearly post-labeled as such. Lacking that, and the presence of the Zone scale only, it's safe to assume it's unmodified.

agreed

 

[sruddy]

I had no idea there were modified and unmodified meters. Drew mentioned a post lable and I see no labels or markings. I thought the zone sticker was for connivence. My understanding is if I take a reading of a dark area I want in a particular zone I just line the EV number of the reading to the zone I want it to end up in, right?

 

[GregY]

I had no idea there were modified and unmodified meters. Drew mentioned a post lable and I see no labels or markings. I thought the zone sticker was for connivence. My understanding is if I take a reading of a dark area I want in a particular zone I just line the EV number of the reading to the zone I want it to end up in, right?

Exactly...... but Zone VI sold labels for various light meters to make metering for the Zone system easier.... & they also sold meters with internal modifications

 

[GregY]

from the history books....

 

[250swb]

FWIW I have a Pentax V Spot Meter with the Zone VI scale on it. And it's a genuine Zone VI scale as far as I can see, it's far better printed than the knock off's, and doesn't fit as well as the knock off's (which is a sign the fakers are trying too hard). But the Pentax V meter when modified had another label on it by Zone VI on the opposite side of the camera saying 'modified by Zone VI' (and mine hasn't). So if the precedent is set the additional label should be the decider for a modified meter. Alas mine isn't modified but is still extremely accurate.

 

[GregY]

FWIW I have a Pentax V Spot Meter with the Zone VI scale on it. And it's a genuine Zone VI scale as far as I can see, it's far better printed than the knock off's, and doesn't fit as well as the knock off's (which is a sign the fakers are trying too hard). But the Pentax V meter when modified had another label on it by Zone VI on the opposite side of the camera saying 'modified by Zone VI' (and mine hasn't). So if the precedent is set the additional label should be the decider for a modified meter. Alas mine isn't modified but is still extremely accurate.

250. I have an unmodified Pentax Digital spotmeter. I bought the Zone VI sticker from Fred Picker....tells you how long I've had the meter. It has travelled many thousands of miles with me & still works like a charm. I've thought about sending it to Richard Ritter for re-calibration.... but my negatives are always good. The Pentax Digital is a fine meter in my book!

 

[Bill Burk]

@GregY thanks for the old blast from the past.

Sometimes you need to calibrate a light meter.

Left: Master II. Repaired by swapping parts. Not yet calibrated. Has the most active selenium cell in my collection but feels like it overdrives the ammeter.

Right: I didn’t even know there was a Master 6.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Exactly...... but Zone VI sold labels for various light meters to make metering for the Zone system easier.... & they also sold meters with internal modifications View attachment 342750

see? A modified meter!(how unfortunate!)

 

[chuckroast]

see? A modified meter!(how unfortunate!)

I don't understand the antipathy for this meter. I've used mine for upwards of 30 years without any issue. I bought it from Calumet after they took over Zone VI distribution. It has served me in a half dozen countries, 2 continents, and has never been anything but utterly reliable.

I suppose if people are trying to use something like BZTS to get to .0000002 stops of accuracy, the meter isn't for them. But I prefer to make pictures rather than sensiometric exercises. For the former, the Zone VI Pentax has been absolutely great.

Oh, and I don't just shoot Tri-X nor do I use HC-110 (except rarely), so the claim that this is all the meter is good for is vastly overstated.

To be sure, Picker was a master marketer. But having spoken with him personally on at least one occasion at length, I can tell you he was a really nice man, passionate about photography, and loved discussing it and exploring it in depth - much like many of us here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't understand the antipathy for this meter. I've used mine for upwards of 30 years without any issue. I bought it from Calumet after they took over Zone VI distribution. It has served me in a half dozen countries, 2 continents, and has never been anything but utterly reliable.

I suppose if people are trying to use something like BZTS to get to .0000002 stops of accuracy, the meter isn't for them. But I prefer to make pictures rather than sensiometric exercises. For the former, the Zone VI Pentax has been absolutely great.

Oh, and I don't just shoot Tri-X nor do I use HC-110 (except rarely), so the claim that this is all the meter is good for is vastly overstated.

To be sure, Picker was a master marketer. But having spoken with him personally on at least one occasion at length, I can tell you he was a really nice man, passionate about photography, and loved discussing it and exploring it in depth - much like many of us here.

May calibrations laboratories will not touch Zone VI modified light meters. That many laboratories cannot be wrong; they obviously know something that non-experts do not know.

 

[chuckroast]

May calibrations laboratories will not touch Zone VI modified light meters. That many laboratories cannot be wrong; they obviously know something that non-experts do not know.

A good many of them won't touch Luna Pros either, but I've managed to recalibrate three or four of them myself quite successfully.

Commercial offering necessarily have to to serve the mainstream products and customers. That's where the business and the repair parts are found. The Z VI modified meter was a niche product in its own time so it's not shocking the repair folks don't want to touch them.

But this doesn't speak one way or the other to the quality and durability of these meters. I have found mine, at least, to be excellent in both respects.

 

[faberryman]

+1.

Some people are so enamored of their camera equipment that they feel compelled to denigrate all other brands. As if denigrating other camera brands will make them better photographers.

 

[chuckroast]

+1.

Some people are so enamored of their camera equipment that they feel compelled to denigrate all other brands. As if denigrating other camera brands will make them better photographers.

The vast majority of the cameras and lenses I use are between 50-100 years old. Some of the lenses are uncoated. The cameras all require my ongoing maintenance and care. Having the latest and best brands never much mattered to me. I aspire to be a world class violinist playing on a Walmart instrument rather than a hack playing a Stradivarius ... only time will tell if I managed that.

 

[BrianShaw]

A good many of them won't touch ...

But this doesn't speak one way or the other to the quality and durability of these meters.

(not attempting to educate you, chuckroast); just using your comment as a springboard. Likewise, I use a lot of vintage gear quite successfully. Funy story... the only time I was enamoured with the latest and greatest was 1980 or 1981 when I bought a new state-of-the-art Nikon F3, the same one that I still use today. After that it was mostly vintage camera purchase and most of them are still in use)

In all, I feel confident to say, endeavors using engineered/manufactured products... it's very common for service adn repair to be curtailed after a period of time. It rarely has anything to do with product quality and has a lot to do with parts and talent availability (lack of, not surplus of), the warranty risks associated with repairs on old equipment, the price of repair/service that just won't generate significant income. We should thank the Almighty for the few who can and do service/repair our old gear rather than whining about it or making accusations/assumptions of poor product quality just because that gear has become obsoleted by time.

 

[chuckroast]

(not attempting to educate you, chuckroast); just using your comment as a springboard. Likewise, I use a lot of vintage gear quite successfully. Funy story... the only time I was enamoured with the latest and greatest was 1980 or 1981 when I bought a new state-of-the-art Nikon F3, the same one that I still use today. After that it was mostly vintage camera purchase and most of them are still in use)

In all, I feel confident to say, endeavors using engineered/manufactured products... it's very common for service adn repair to be curtailed after a period of time. It rarely has anything to do with product quality and has a lot to do with parts and talent availability (lack of, not surplus of), the warranty risks associated with repairs on old equipment, the price of repair/service that just won't generate significant income. We should thank the Almighty for the few who can and do service/repair our old gear rather than whining about it or making accusations/assumptions of poor product quality just because that gear has become obsoleted by time.

Actually, I would be pleased to be educated

Everything you wrote is spot on. When any technology is sufficiently elderly and/or niche', the cost of maintenance skyrockets. You can still get maintenance on older IBM mainframes, not just the new one (yes, they still make them, only now they fit on a rack not a whole room), or DEC minicomputers, but you are gonna pay through the nose for it.

So, I fully understand - as you do - why people might not want to work on an elderly specialty lightmeter. I just don't understand why people dislike this meter on groups of performance or reliability.

Knowing that someday the Pentax will die, I have calibrated every meter in my stable to - as best as possible - match the Pentax. That covers everything from a passel of Luna Pros I resurrected from the dead to my latest fun meters from Revini to the metering app on my phone. I am not interested in perfect accuracy. I am interested in repeatability so as to not mess with my established workflow.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's nothing highly precise about BTZS methodology, nor need there be. Most film densitometer themselves don't read tighter than plus/minus .02. I have a very specialized desitometer which reads much more precisely; but it's overkill relative to basic black and white technique. My gosh, even the lingo of the Zone System is phrased in such a manner than each respective Zone is a full EV of exposure apart. Yet ironically, many think of it as the gold standard of precise black and white methodology. I sure don't.

Fred Picker can keep his silly gray Zone meter labels; let them both rest in the grave. Besides, just how difficult is it to count two marks below the mid value red triangle already on the meter to identify "Zone III" placement, for example. Even I can do that in a split second. Even a person missing two fingers can factor up to eight zones, which is how AA divided up light into visible texture in the universe. Maybe he had only eight fingers too.

As long as Richard Ritter is still active, he can still probably repair the modified meters. As far as the unmodified Pentax digital spot meters go, once in awhile an entirely new one turns up, and more frequently, barely used ones. I don't need any more myself; and I keep an unused one in reserve. They last a long time. So just like pro film cameras and lenses, there's not any financial incentive to start up manufacture of them again, since full digital workflow has taken over so many applications.

 

[MSStudio]

Agree with many of the posts above. Every measuring device has it's own bias. If you can synchronize the meters, great. Ohterwise, tweak the exposure index to get the readings to match, simplifying the testing process. Last thing I want to do is be distracted with worry about the exposure. Bracket.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bracketing with roll film when testing anything unfamiliar is wise. But unless one is rich, they do not bracket sheet film, especially color. In 8x10, it's approaching $40 per shot with processing. That will cure you of being careless with metering!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bracketing with roll film when testing anything unfamiliar is wise. But unless one is rich, they do not bracket sheet film, especially color. In 8x10, it's approaching $40 per shot with processing. That will cure you of being careless with metering!

Bracketing as a practice is for learning. Learn to use the equipment and adjust as necessary of the few situations.

 

[Richard T Ritter]

Way back in the early 1980's Paul found that most meters had petty much the same problem. One was the photo cells from the different meter manufacturers differ in response to light. Some were better then others. The other was they all did not see light correctly they needed to be color corrected. The filter in the meter is the same filter that is used today in digital cameras along with the color correction filter. Yes they do wear out and can be replaced with a better made filter. Think about it some of the meter that have been modified are now 40 years old. Things wear out over time.