Shopping for a Spot Meter

[wiltw]

I have a related question. How important is a spot meter? Maybe this is naive, but what about using an averaging meter and then estimating (guessing) the what the reading would be for the shadows and highlights? With a bit of experience, and if you are using negative film, wouldn't that get you close enough for practical purposes?

For most folks, a spotmeter is unnecessary. But here are a few uses for a spotmeter...

• Someone exposiing for the Zone System can identify a tonality which they wish to place exactly at Zone VI, for example, so that the overally exposure is made with that intended goal in mind
• Someone who cares that they know which areas will overexpose with no detail (or underexpose with no detail) can choose a suitable placement of the overall exposure
• Someone shooting a photo intended for the offset press, such as in a catalog, can illuminate the scene appropriately to fit within the narrower range of brightness (the printed page will not hold as wide a range as film can!)

 

[MattKing]

A spot meter is only important if your procedure is one that requires a spot meter.
If I was working in the movie industry, and had control of lighting, I would need to place highlights very carefully, and would want to light shadows just as carefully, and a spot meter would be critical.

 

[ic-racer]

Any hand-held reflection meter without a viewfinder is a haphazard affair.

 

[GLS]

Sekonic L-758D(R). Spot, incident and flash meter in one. I don't find the spot metering functions at all difficult or complicated to use.

The newer 858 will measure to a lower EV, but replaces nearly all the physical buttons and dials with a touchscreen, which for me is a no go.

 

[Danner]

I have a related question. How important is a spot meter? Maybe this is naive, but what about using an averaging meter and then estimating (guessing) the what the reading would be for the shadows and highlights? With a bit of experience, and if you are using negative film, wouldn't that get you close enough for practical purposes?

The spot meter allows you to select the area in the scene where you need minimum acceptable shadow density, by spot metering that and then setting exposure accordingly. Then meter the highlight values, determine how many stops away from the shadows that is, and then decide about the development required (e.g. N+2. N-1, etc.) so you get a negative that has usable density in all the images areas needed to produce a fine quality print pre your visualization.

 

[alanrockwood]

The spot meter allows you to select the area in the scene where you need minimum acceptable shadow density, by spot metering that and then setting exposure accordingly. Then meter the highlight values, determine how many stops away from the shadows that is, and then decide about the development required (e.g. N+2. N-1, etc.) so you get a negative that has usable density in all the images areas needed to produce a fine quality print pre your visualization.

Thanks Danner. I get that, but could an experienced person use an averaging meter combined with their experience to fairly accurately estimate the shadows and highlights without using a spot meter?

 

[btaylor]

Yes, particularly if you are using an incident meter. Place the meter in the area you are exposing for and point it towards the camera. That’s how cinematographers would find their lighting ratios using a flat disc. If you can’t get to that area (distant landscape for example) find a similar area you can get to and use that.
I have a Sekonic that features a spot meter as well as incident and reflected modes, I use the spot function more to double check my incident readings than anything else. But I am not a Zone System guy.

 

[wiltw]

Thanks Danner. I get that, but could an experienced person use an averaging meter combined with their experience to fairly accurately estimate the shadows and highlights without using a spot meter?

I think the answer once again is 'It depends'. Sometimes you can get a somewhat reasonable facsimile reading. but sometimes NOT!
btaylor described finding lighting ratios, but that often canNOT estimate the brightness of a deep shadows vs. a highlight vs. the estimated exposure, like you can by pointing a one-degree spotmeter from the camera angle.
If you stood very close to the subject and aimed the meter at deep shadow or hightlight, it might be very close to what you get via spotmeter, but not if you cannot be close to the subject you cannot get a true reading of only the highlight area vs. only the deep shadow area. what's more, highlight areas are so often reflections of the source of illumination, and the angle to the source might not be the same up close as at camera position.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Does anyone have experience with a Minolta Spotmeter M? Would you reccommend it as a reliable meter for an amateur? Drawbacks? Thanks

I used a Minolta Spot M for many years, until it was stolen. I replace it with another M, then found a great deal on a Spot F. Virtues: good ergonomics and a large display in the form of digital calculator. Can spot and lock highlight and shadow values, then average them if needed, all of which display at the same time. Diopter adjustment on the eyepiece. Con: most M meters take the more expensive LR44 silver oxide batteries, although I use a same form factor lithium battery in mine just fine. When the F model first came out, the M was continued as a less costly model, but Minolta changed the M battery to one AA, as used in the F. If you go hunting for an M, look for one of the AA battery units. Another virtue of the M and F is that of all spot meters, they are the best color corrected, as compared to the Pentax Spot, which is one of the worst. In this context, color correction means that it reads various colors at their true density values, not reading out some colors lighter or darker than they really are.

 

[tom williams]

I used a Minolta Spot M for many years, until it was stolen. I replace it with another M, then found a great deal on a Spot F. Virtues: good ergonomics and a large display in the form of digital calculator. Can spot and lock highlight and shadow values, then average them if needed, all of which display at the same time. Diopter adjustment on the eyepiece. Con: most M meters take the more expensive LR44 silver oxide batteries, although I use a same form factor lithium battery in mine just fine. When the F model first came out, the M was continued as a less costly model, but Minolta changed the M battery to one AA, as used in the F. If you go hunting for an M, look for one of the AA battery units. Another virtue of the M and F is that of all spot meters, they are the best color corrected, as compared to the Pentax Spot, which is one of the worst. In this context, color correction means that it reads various colors at their true density values, not reading out some colors lighter or darker than they really are.

Randy, thanks for your input. How would you rate the F against the M? They don't seem much different, function wise.

 

[wiltw]

Randy, thanks for your input. How would you rate the F against the M? They don't seem much different, function wise.

Minolta Spot M is for anything BUT flash, Minolta Spot F does both ambient and flash spot metering

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Looking to add a spot meter for 6x7 Zone System shooting purposes. Looking for advice on which units (Pentax, Minolta, Soligor, etc.) to purchase. Flash is not important. This will most likely be an ebay deal.

Thank you for your thoughts.

- Dan

look for a Pentax digital spotmeter;they are hands-down the best for the Zone System

 

[Luis-F-S]

look for a Pentax digital spotmeter;they are hands-down the best for the Zone System

+1!!

 

[wiltw]

look for a Pentax digital spotmeter;they are hands-down the best for the Zone System

Fred Picker used to modify these, and also add a Zone scale for the dial to make it easier to use for ZS...does anyone offer an equivalent scale now, for those wishing to use this meter for ZS?

 

[GLS]

look for a Pentax digital spotmeter;they are hands-down the best for the Zone System

I see this stated all the time, but it isn't clear to me why. I've read the manual for the Pentax and can't see any feature which makes it uniquely better suited to the Zone system than any other spot meter. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely wondering if I'm missing something.

Using a Sekonic L-X58 meter (for example) for the Zone system is simplicity itself.

 

[wiltw]

I see this stated all the time, but it isn't clear to me why. I've read the manual for the Pentax and can't see any feature which makes it uniquely better suited to the Zone system than any other spot meter. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely wondering if I'm missing something.

Using a Sekonic L-X58 meter (for example) for the Zone system is simplicity itself.

There is a perception based in history but not necessarily based in fact. The Pentax has considerable variance in color sensitivity (especially compared to Minolta Spot). Fred Picker used to alter the color spectral response for B&W film (some speculate specifically to the rsponse of Tri-X) via filters and maybe other techniques, so address the color sensitivity imbalance. He also added a scale for easier ZS use, around the standard ring. I think Picker modifications became the basis for claims "Pentx is best for Zone"...only AFTER the modifications were done on Pcker modified meters!. Not ALL Pentaxes had this modification, but the reputation of the Pentax stuck nonetheless in recent times...old timers know better. and there is a crowd that seriously questions the real value of the Picker internal mods.

 

[GLS]

There is a perception based in history but not necessarily based in fact

This is my perception too. It seems to me that it enjoys a certain cache simply by virtue of its association with Ansel.

 

[BrianShaw]

Using a Sekonic L-X58 meter (for example) for the Zone system is simplicity itself.

Works for me! I especially like being able to record-and-average or take an incident reading if desired without a second meter.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've read the manual for the Pentax and can't see any feature which makes it uniquely better suited to the Zone system than any other spot meter.

It isn't. But it has an engraved IRE exposure scale (usually smothered by a pointless zone sticker) and a visually easy to read indexing system. Once you realise that indexing detailed shadows (or if using transparency etc, detailed highlights) on the IRE scale does a better job faster than any zone fiddling & consequent EI muddling, that's where any IRE indexable meter proves its worth. If you want to muck around with the bastardised sensitometry that is the zone system, Gossen made a spotmeter with built in zone modes (and I think others did as well).

 

[wiltw]

Photo of the Picker type of scale, as posted on the web (not my photo). I believe that this one was later offered independent of the sensitrometry modifications by Picker.

Found a source for the illustrated sticker (above)!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/152893121509

Found a photo of the actual ZoneVI mod scale connected with Picker

You can easily see how the modded Pentax acquired a reputation for the meter as 'good for Zone'

 

[GLS]

But it has an engraved IRE exposure scale (usually smothered by a pointless zone sticker) and a visually easy to read indexing system. Once you realise that indexing detailed shadows (or if using transparency etc, detailed highlights) on the IRE scale does a better job faster than any zone fiddling & consequent EI muddling, that's where any IRE indexable meter proves its worth

Maybe. I have never tried to use the IRE scale for photographic metering. Either way, the topic was the meter's suitability for the zone system.

You can easily see how the modded Pentax acquired a reputation for the meter as 'good for Zone'

Well, yes and no. I can see how the relative simplicity and ruggedness of the meter appeals. An aftermarket sticker doesn't impress me very much though; the most basic of mental arithmetic achieves the same result.

By comparison: with the Sekonic you take a single spot reading of a tone you want to be zone V, log it into memory and press the "average" button (yes, this can be done for a single reading). After that, you can just hold the metering button down and move the spot all around the scene, getting an interactive +/- EV reading (accurate to one tenth of a stop) relative to the zone V you just set. If you are a more visually oriented person you can store extra readings for the different parts of the scene, which are then all displayed on a relative EV scale on the meter's LCD. I honestly can't see how the process gets any simpler or more practical to use than this.

 

[wiltw]

Maybe. I have never tried to use the IRE scale for photographic metering. Either way, the topic was the meter's suitability for the zone system.

Well, yes and no. I can see how the relative simplicity and ruggedness of the meter appeals. An aftermarket sticker doesn't impress me very much though; the most basic of mental arithmetic achieves the same result.

By comparison: with the Sekonic you take a single spot reading of a tone you want to be zone V, log it into memory and press the "average" button (yes, this can be done for a single reading). After that, you can just hold the metering button down and move the spot all around the scene, getting an interactive +/- EV reading (accurate to one tenth of a stop) relative to the zone V you just set. If you are a more visually oriented person you can store extra readings for the different parts of the scene, which are then all displayed on a relative EV scale on the meter's LCD. I honestly can't see how the process gets any simpler or more practical to use than this.

NOT debating 'which meter is best for ZS', merely point out how initial impression by a not too knowledgable person can be swayed by appearance alone about its suitability for ZS use. And, in the case of the Pentax, the perception is in spite of NO MODIFICATIOn by Picker on most available Pentax Digital Spotmeters.
A number of meters have Shadow and Hightlight readings and averaging...I have them in OM-4, and in two different handheld meters, and I have owned others...not hard to find. OTOH the modified Pentax had the Zone scale and tonal patches, unlike all other meters. There are many hobbyists who have to ask 'what can I do with a spotmeter, isn't my camera good enough?', after all.

 

[wiltw]

DSLR and your hand-held meter may read the same, but they may not. That is the point. If you have calibrated you DSLR to film then that is not the same as claiming all DSLRs are calibrated for film.

If you simply take three brands of cameras and meters, you may well find that they do not all agree with each other!
My suggestion was simply to verify meter is 'in the ballpark' for close agreement, not precisely exact agreement.
The ISO standard shows that the vendor cah choose which K value, which is what accounts for lack of agreement out of the factory! Being lazy and settling for the write-up in Wikipeia:

"In practice, the variation of the calibration constants among manufacturers is considerably less than this statement might imply, and values have changed little since the early 1970s.

ISO 2720:1974 recommends a range for {\displaystyle K} of 10.6 to 13.4 with luminance in cd/m². Two values for K are in common use: 12.5 (Canon, Nikon, and Sekonic[1]) and 14 (Minolta, Kenko, and Pentax); the difference between the two values is approximately 1/6 EV."
​

Admittedly, 1/6EV is a small difference, and we introduce greater error simply with the uniformity of the surfaces we point the reflected meter at.

 

[SrMi]

I see this stated all the time, but it isn't clear to me why. I've read the manual for the Pentax and can't see any feature which makes it uniquely better suited to the Zone system than any other spot meter. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely wondering if I'm missing something.

Using a Sekonic L-X58 meter (for example) for the Zone system is simplicity itself.

I have a Sekonic 858 and a Pentax. To me, Pentax is much simpler to use with the Zone system.
Could you elaborate on how you use your Sekonic with the Zone system?

 

[GLS]

Could you elaborate on how you use your Sekonic with the Zone system?

Please see the last paragraph of my post #71 above. I have the L-758D. The 858 may differ slightly in operation; I haven't used it so couldn't say, but imagine it must be similar.