Pentax Digital Spotmeter: Standard vs. Zone VI

[TheTrailTog]

Does anyone have experience using both versions of this meter? Looking to get back to more planned, tripod-based work I started looking for a spotmeter a few weeks ago. I ended up buying a standard Pentax Digital Spotmeter last week, only to end up getting a Zone VI version this week as a birthday present. Now I'm trying to decide which to keep. I've played around with both a little bit and haven't really noticed any difference in readings, maybe 1/3rd stop here or there. I'll be shooting almost exclusively FP4+. Only real testing I could find posted was from Paul Butzi and his testing showed no difference, so I'm tempted to sell the Zone VI as it tends to fetch a bit more, but then again it was a gift.

 

[Bill Burk]

Keep both and do more thorough comparison tests to share with us...

I always felt there was something amiss with Paul Butzi's write-up.

I always thought that living objects with varying spectral reflection characteristics would have been better test subjects (red apples and green grasses), instead of the testing he did using a printed pigment-based Macbeth color checker.

 

[frank]

You'll drive yourself nuts with 2 meters. Either use one, or have three or more.

 

[dpurdy]

I had both, I got a near new one off craigs list with zone six calibration and it was pretty much always a third stop off my older one. I took it into a repair place who put it on some sort of instrument and told me my older one was more accurate so I had them take the zone 6 stuff out then they matched. I believe that the calibration was specific to TX or TXP and in any case not worth worrying about one way or the other...

 

[TheTrailTog]

Bill, while I'm sure you're not the only one that would like to see someone else do a full comparison, not sure I have the time or desire to do it myself. Besides, I'd rather have the extra $$$ for film and paper.

dpurdy, my Zone VI is consistently reading a full stop slower than the standard one, with the very occasional -2/3, but that could have just been the windblown shade at the time. Not sure if worth getting either calibrated or just speed testing my film to the meter.

 

[Richard T Ritter]

One of the meters filters was a cut off filter this cut off point is common to all films. The photo cell will read light that film will not record. . The other filter installed was a color correction filter. This filter was very handy for color work and enabled one to meter through filter and get a better exposure.

Most photographers will never see a difference. Some will depends on the time of day you photograph.

Modified meters are a big thing with the movie industry some grips have more them one meter.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Thank you very much for your input Richard! Are you still working on these meters? Is it worth getting serviced before I try dialing everything in?

 

[Richard T Ritter]

Yes a lot of meters I see are out of linear one end of the meter most time the mid to high range is ok but the low end is out. Since the Zone test use both high range and the low range of the meter to do the test your test could end up a bit off.

 

[Peter Schrager]

You'll have to pry my zone vi meter out my hand when I die...Sent it to richard. .
Best peter

 

[TheTrailTog]

Already emailed Richard. Mine will be going out for calibration this week

 

[Bill Burk]

Sounds great! Glad to hear Richard Ritter is involved still.

So you know... It isn't "supposed" to agree with your other light meters... It's supposed to be right when the others are wrong.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Does anyone have experience using both versions of this meter? Looking to get back to more planned, tripod-based work I started looking for a spotmeter a few weeks ago. I ended up buying a standard Pentax Digital Spotmeter last week, only to end up getting a Zone VI version this week as a birthday present. Now I'm trying to decide which to keep. I've played around with both a little bit and haven't really noticed any difference in readings, maybe 1/3rd stop here or there. I'll be shooting almost exclusively FP4+. Only real testing I could find posted was from Paul Butzi and his testing showed no difference, so I'm tempted to sell the Zone VI as it tends to fetch a bit more, but then again it was a gift.

The man with 1 meter knows exactly what the exposure is man with 2 meters can never be sure! Do yourself a favor and keep the standard meter. It's by far the better one.

 

[baachitraka]

Replace both with a nice incident meter.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have two of the Zone VI versions. I keep one in my 2 1/4 bag and one with my 4x5. I haven't really checked one against the other and seem to get good readings with both. It's just convenient. Actually the meter app I have on my phone is pretty good too. I also have an old Luna Pro and Ultra Pro (all bases are covered). Both of my spot meters have the zone sticker. If you are getting similar readings with both and only want one I would keep the one that has that sticker. It comes in handy.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Leigh B]

Replace both with a nice incident meter.

Replace both with a Sekonic L-558.

It meters accurately in all modes, including a narrow spot meter with a good optical viewfinder.

- Leigh

 

[DREW WILEY]

I work with many different cameras and many different kinds of film, including not only black and white, but various color neg and color transparency
films. I also want decade to decade consistency. So my choice has been to work exclusively with unmodified Pentax digital spotmeters. The sole exception was when I added a Minolta Spotmeter F, which is calibrated to exactly the same standards. I've always kept on Pentax completely new in
the lab, to serve as my reference to all the others. If at any point, any working meter deviates, even a third of a stop over the entire range, I get
it recalibrated. This only transpires about once a decade, except for a couple of meters I've accidentally (stupidly) dropped into icy streams in the
mountains and needed repair. The problem with modified meters that they were engineered for what Fred Picker considered as representative panchromatic film, presumably Tri-X, and films actually differ in terms of specific spectral sensitivity, so you're really back to square one regardless.
Then there's the service issue. With the Zone VI meter only R. Ritter can fix em, with the unmodified version, there are better odds of service continuity, though all along I have used Quality Light Metric in the LA area, which gets a lot of Hollywood meter business. A few months ago I was
lucky to find another almost totally unused unmodified Pentax for a bargain, which checked against my reference meter. It did have one of those
idiotic Zone scales taped to it, which I promptly removed. If you a Zone System addict, the ordinary factory scale is all you need, and easier to read
to begin with.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Thanks again everyone for your input. I do have a Gossen Luna Pro that I use for incident metering and it has been very reliable. The Zone VI Pentax is en route to Richard for calibration as it was in the best condition of the 2 and I may end up holding on to the standard Pentax as a back up, but haven't decided its fate as of yet.

 

[Bill Burk]

Replace both with a Sekonic L-558.

It meters accurately in all modes, including a narrow spot meter with a good optical viewfinder.

- Leigh

How does the Sekonic L-558 do with providing an accurate exposure recommendation for the combination of incandescent light and panchromatic film?

Would you say it is accurate to within a stop? Or is that combination completely unpredictable?

Not meant to be a trick question... Leigh and some others are trying to help someone with an underexposure problem elsewhere and that user has a Sekonic. The point of discussion came up... Can you trust a meter in that circumstance? (Tungsten light). And if not... how far off will the meter be (Unless you test)?

 

[baachitraka]

Will incident metering help in those situations? Would it not?

 

[Leigh B]

Hi Bill,

That question has so many variables...

Given a photographic-quality (rated color temperature and lumens) light source, the 558 should give an accurate and repeatable reading.
Note that such light sources can have a very short service life, measured in tens of hours in some cases.
Use of any light source beyond its rated life will change its output level and ore importantly its color spectrum.

As with any film and processing regimen, calibration of the overall system, including adjusting film speed, is recommended.

- Leigh

 

[Leigh B]

Will incident metering help in those situations? Would it not?

I (almost) always use incident readings to set the basic exposure.
If circumstances dictate, I adjust that setting up or down.

I normally use the spot metering function to evaluate shadow and highlight details initially.
With experience you can do this close 'nuf by eye without relying on the meter in most cases.

While I'm not a Zone System disciple, I do acknowledge the validity of the method and the underlying science.

- Leigh

 

[Richard T Ritter]

Most people assume that the meter was designed around TriX film this is not a true fact. When the meter was being researched all films including color were looked at. I got tried of looking at film curves. I can tell you one thing color and black and white when averaged out all have a cut off point in a narrow range. There were a few odd films that fell out side of the range. These films are no longer made so who cares.

The one thing we found common among all meters tested is that the photo cell used were pretty must the same and had the same spectral response and they all had the same problem, a color balance problem. We never told Fred of this problem because the meter was to made to work for only Tri x film. The color correction filter was added to the filter pack and Fred was told it was to help with metering through filters. Not that is was to make the meter better for use with color film.

 

[baachitraka]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well I care, Richard, because an "odd" film that is still in production and happens to be one my favorites in ACROS, which is not standard Panchromatic at all, but Orthopan, and there's simply no way anyone can bend the logic to say metering is the same. Sure, once someone if familiar
with just about any kind of meter, they learn how to skew readings for all kinds of situations. And there are still some cameramen in Hollywood who prefer the Zone VI modification for color film, while others swear by the original unmodified meters. And if you're like me and began with a CDS cell
meter back in the Pleistocene, it's ridiculous to call them all the same. The Pentax has peak response in green just like the human eye. For the record, I did buy any number of gadgets from Fred and use them to this day, as well as lots of his graded Brilliant paper. But I never did appreciate
some of his snake-oil sales mentality. It wasn't necessary. Then you've got ortho films, blue sensitive films. blue-green sensitive, infrared, near-infrared, extended red-sensitivity, and the direct opposite - attenuated red sensitivity (ACROS and the recently discontinued Efke 25). There are still people using all these types of film, some in volume, so I'd wouldn't imply that "typical" Pan is the only thing out there, not to mention nitpicky
color applications which at times need to be far more specific. One thing I learned long ago is to NEVER meter through filters. That might be OK under
limited parameters, but it also a good way to mess up if you happen to work with a lot of different films under a wide range of conditions.

 

[Alan Klein]

Do you sleep with the person who gave you the meter as a gift?