butzi article on pentax spotmeter

[peter lagus]

i have tried to find the above referenced article, but i guess paul has gone to his final reward. google lists his references, but when you click on them the site can't be found.

i had a copy years ago, but it has disappered. soooo, does anyone have a paper copy or e copy that they would be willing to share?

if there is interest, i'd be happy to make it into a pdf and post here on the forum.

thanks
pete

[SW Rick]

Paul's site says:

"At one point I had a lot of written stuff on this website. In the late 2009 remodel of this website, I've abandoned nearly all of it. Most of it was either obsolete in the sense that technology has moved on, or in the sense that it no longer reflected my current thinking. What remains here is stuff that I felt was significant enough to keep."

Loading sheet film holders is the only tech-related article left. While I have a few of his articles saved as pdfs, that is not one of them.

Rick

[RPNugent]

http://www.butzi.net/

Has an email to contact him and shows as updated in teh last week or so.

[peter lagus]

i am pleased that he is still with us. i'll try to contact him re the pentax spotmeter paper.

thanks
pete

[Ed Richards]

For $10 to charity, he will repost the page. He is cleaning up his site, and getting rid of the LF stuff, since he does not do that any more. He is also willing to give other folks pages to post on their sites, as long as they do not put his name on them - he got tired of people emailing for more info about lenses and the like.

If I remember that review, the conclusion was that the Zone conversion really did not make any difference.

[Michael Gordon]

Paul's site says:
"At one point I had a lot of written stuff on this website. In the late 2009 remodel of this website, I've abandoned nearly all of it. Most of it was either obsolete in the sense that technology has moved on, or in the sense that it no longer reflected my current thinking. What remains here is stuff that I felt was significant enough to keep."

Well, that's too bad, because I recall that there were some very good resources in there.

[timparkin]

Well, that's too bad, because I recall that there were some very good resources in there.

I've talked to Paul and he has sent me the Rodenstock literature which I'll post on my site asap..

I've also asked if he could list the articles so that people could request them (and pay the fee). I'm happy to host any articles that people want to 'rescue'

Tim

[tmu]

Have you tried searching the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.butzi.net)?

[Ken Lee]

According to http://www.butzi.net/portfolios.htm, "...In late 2005, I bought a Canon EOS 5d. "

[Brian Ellis]

. . . If I remember that review, the conclusion was that the Zone conversion really did not make any difference.

You're right, that was his conclusion.

[D. Bryant]

You're right, that was his conclusion.

Light meters are passe now. All you need is a P&S camera.:)

Don Bryant

[peter lagus]

ed and tim, i'd gladly donate $10 to paul's favorite charity for the pentax spotmeter article. FWIW yes, paul basically said that the fancy calibration (zone VI?) didn't make any difference to the spotmeter performance.
michael, yes there was an excellent trove of references.

regards
pete

[Peter De Smidt]

The Zone VI meter has much less IR response than an unmodified meter. I compared both meters readings taking of a MacBeth color checker through a Hoya R72 filter. If I remember correctly, there was a 6-stop difference.

[Ed Richards]

If I remember, Paul checked the modified meter and an unmodified meter with real (modern) film. In that comparison, the results were the same. IR response and different color response do not necessarily translate into different results on film in the camera. It also might be that mods made a difference on some old, now gone, emulsions that had different sensitivities. I know the Tmax films were engineered to have a different sensitivities than the older films, and there is a special Tmax filter factor chart showing a reduced blue sensitivity, i.e., skies look better without as much filtration.

Personally, I would buy the digital Pentax meter rather than a premium for a Xone modified meter.

[ki6mf]

As I recall Paul's test showed less than half a stop difference between a Zone V and a non Zone V meter. I think he concluded the conversion did little to create a better image. This is from the cobwebs of my mind! I use a un modified analog Pentax V!

[Brian Ellis]

I don't remember the testing methodology he used, just his conclusion. But when I decided to buy the Pentax digital spot meter I bought the modified version from Zone VI. I hadn't read Paul's article at the time but my reasoning was that the modifications were unlikely to hurt anything and who knows, they might do some good in some situations. There wasn't a huge cost difference between modified and unmodified, about $100 IIRC.

[timparkin]

Have you tried searching the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.butzi.net)?

Unfortunantely he'd denied any cacheing of his old web pages (presumably using a robots file) so no historic information.

[Kirk Gittings]

Do a search on this forum. There was considerable discussion about this subject with him here.

[David Luttmann]

According to http://www.butzi.net/portfolios.htm, "...In late 2005, I bought a Canon EOS 5d. "

That's about it. I believe he's now using a 5D2. My understanding was with that, he was no longer using 4x5. He's a most helpful fellow. When I was planning a trip to the Oregon coast, he offered up a mountain of information that was a great help.

[peter lagus]

paul has re-posted these articles on his website. they can be found by clicking on the "writing" tab.

pete