Digital meter question...

[Capocheny]

So, two meters can be had from the same manufacturer:

1. Pentax digital spotmeter rated excellent... asking $350

2. Pentax digital spotmeter rated excellent - Zone VI modified... asking $500


My question is... what EXACTLY is the modification involved and is it really worth the extra $150?

Thanks for your comments. :)

Cheers

[Sheldon N]

Have you seen this article?

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zone%20VI%20worth%20it.htm

[Capocheny]

Have you seen this article?

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zone%20VI%20worth%20it.htm

Hi Sheldon,

Brilliant! Thanks for the link... just what I was looking for! :)

Cheers

[Ralph W. Lambrecht]

Is it really worth the extra $150?

Before reading Paul Butzi's article, I would have said save your money. Now, my answer is the same.

What did you conclude from his article?

[Brian Ellis]

I bought the modified meter about nine years ago, partly on the basis of a series of articles, I believe in Photo Techniques magazine, that tested various meters including one with the Zone VI modifications. It's been many years since I read the articles but in general IIRC the author's conclusion was that most of the claims by Zone VI Studios for the modified meters didn't hold up but one did. I forget which one that was but it seemed important enough for me at the time to spend the extra money for the modified meter. I also recall that after the articles appeared Paul Horowitz, the inventor type who worked with Fred Picker, wrote a lengthy letter to the editor disputing some of the findings of the author in areas where the author found no benefit to the modifications.

Unfortunately I gave away all my back issues of Photo Technique recently so I can't retrieve the articles (actually I think the articles may have appeared before Photo Technique changed its name from Camera and Darkroom Technique or whatever it used to be). Someone who has back issues might be able to find them and amplify or correct anything I've said here, I think they appeared circa 1996-1997.

On balance, I could have saved maybe $150 and bought the unmodified meter. Then again, where would that $150 be today? Probably blown on a night out or on some clothes or something else that I've since given away to Goodwill or that's gathering dust in my garage. However, having spent the $150 I do still have the modified meter, it's always worked extremely well, and every time I make an exposure mistake I don't wonder if the exposure would have been correct with the modified meter. In other words, the $150 that otherwise would have been blown on something else bought a little peace of mind. That's my rationalization and I'm sticking with it.

[robc]

Ask yourself this:

Are all the minolta, gossen, sekonic etc etc etc meters useless and are the only people in the world who know how to calibrate a meter, zone VI. They don't even make meters. The calibrated/modified meter was adjusted to suit one particular film, I forget which. Is that film still available and has its formula been altered. Is it the film you will be using all the time?

Buy the non calibrated meter. And if you think your results are sub standard because you don't have a pentax modified meter, then you have personal problems.

[Bob Gentile]

"... if you think your results are sub standard because you don't have a pentax modified meter, then you have personal problems..."LOL!

[Doremus Scudder]

The Zone VI modified meter is (theoretically, at least) designed to match the spectral response of the meter to the spectral response of most panchromatic black-and-white films. I imagine Picker and Horowitz used Kodak Tri-X pro (the older version) as a standard, since that is what Picker shot. Naturally, this meter is intended for use with B&W film only, and then only with those whose spectral sensitivities match that of the meter. Newer films, e.g. T-Max, etc. often have different spectral responses.

The largest part of the problem, I believe, was in the blue and in the red/infrared areas of the spectrum, where "normal" meters and film differed quite a lot in spectral response, resulting in errors between metered and exposed value of up to one stop or so.

The advantages to having a meter thusly calibrated are:

1. What you read is "really" what you get. No placing a value in one Zone and having it end up in another.

2. You can read directly through filters, eliminating the "guesswork" and calculations involved with filter factors.

The above assumes an accurate match between your meter's spectral response and that of the film you are using.

I have both versions of the Pentax spot meter (i.e. modified and unmodified), and have tested them side by side on a number of subjects. Yes, there is a difference, but, in my case anyway, all the discrepancies are less than a full stop, and, usually much less.

I have also found that the modified meter is not as accurate as advertised, and that I need to use a "fudge factor" when metering through red filters. However, I use the modified meter when possible and am glad I have it. The other meter is my back up.

To summarize, If you only shoot conventional B&W films (like Tri-X), the modified meter may be worth getting. If you shoot color or newer B&W films, the modifications made to the meter won't give you any appreciable advantage. And, the unmodified meter will get you really, really close to the results of the modified one when shooting conventional B&W films. There may have "errors" of up to one Zone between the two meters, however, if you only have one meter, and learn how to compensate for its characteristics and quirks, your results will likely be just as good.

Hope this helps a bit in your decision.

Best,

[Capocheny]

Thank you all for your input... since I shoot both color transparencies and B&W I think Doremus makes some very compelling arguments. The majority of films I use is also of the newer varieties and not Tri-X as used in the calibrations.

So, Ralph, after reading Paul's article and considering the balance of the postings, I will not be going the route of the modified meter version. The extra monies can be used for purchasing more films.

Thanks again for your insights! :)

Cheers

[Paul Coppin]

Nor are you limited to Pentax . My Minolta spotmeter doesn't miss. Errors are mine, not the meter's.

[David Karp]

Consider having the meter calibrated after you receive it.

I recently obtained a used Pentax digital spotmeter. When I compared it to my old Pentax Spotmeter V, the two did not match. Since the V had been calibrated a few years ago by Quality Lightmetric in Hollywood, I brought the digital to them for calibration. It turned out that it was indeed off, and non-linear in its response to light to boot. After calibration, it matches my old V almost perfectly. Pretty good for two different meters calibrated at different times. I was pretty surprised.

If you are thinking of having the meter calibrated, I highly recommend Quality Lightmetric.

[naturephoto1]

I've been using a Zone VI Modified Soligor Digispot II for about 18 or so years. I have been very happy with it. They can be gotten on eBay. Both the modified and unmodified Soligor Digispot II can be purchased new of used. They can be searched on the internet. Adorama at least used to sell the meter with their label.

The Soligor is larger than the Pentax Digital, but about the size of the Pentax Analog. They are relatively inexpensive, quite reliable, and reasonably rugged. Not recommended to drop them or any other meter on concrete or asphalt.

Rich

[Michael Daily]

I have both a Pentax analog and a Soligor digital (as well as a Soligor analog that got dropped and is a little fragile). The problem I have with the Sologor digital is that it is hard to read in bright light. The Pentax is hard to use in low light--the needle is hard to see and the metering spot is hard to find. So, I use the digital for night work and the analog for bright light. They don't quite match/overlap, but then neither do the light characteristics. Through use I have learned what to do with the readings each gives. The key is consistancy, not necessarily accuracy. One can compensate for inaccuracy but nor for inconsistancy.
Michael