I've used the Pentax Digital/Zone VI spotmeter for ten years now. It's quite accurate enough for any work I've ever done. Experience shows that it's the meter to believe, if there's a question. Someone mentioned in a previous reply about the red-filter compensation- that's true. As I use a #25 once a year maybe this has'nt been a problem. It's a wonderful tool.
Thank you Stefan. I hope the sort of pernickety and meticulous users will finally force the manufacturers to pay more attention to the quality of their production, instead of resting on the laurels. Great topic.
"the meter to believe" says someone, and therein lies the rub: I find your questions frankly unrealistic, and do not understand your quest for such an improbably high degree of metering veracity. The Gossen has a solid reputation, I used Minolta Spot-Fs for years, and currently I'm using the Sekonic 608, and they're all excellent meters. Like any meter though, their readings have to be interpreted, rather than taken literally. They are machines, so they are stupid. Sorry to be so brutal but I think in seeking a meter that will give you totally reliable readings under such highly specialised (arcane, even) lighting conditions, you're on a wild goose chase.
I've used the same UNmodified Pentax digital spot since 1983. It's a great mete r, and if I had to buy a new one for some reason, that would be my choice. I once thought about about having it modified by Zone VI, but decided against it because, at the time, it seemed like kind of a fad (sorry, Fr ed, wherever you are). It might have made the meter more accurate, I don't know.
Consistency would seem to be the key factor. Every single meter out there, even within the same type, is different. If you pick one and calibrate your particular film-lens-EI-developme nt-agitation-developer-etc system to it, then it probably doesn't matter which one you get (except for the reliabi lity and build quality thing).
FWIW,
Bill
Anthony, Bill, I beg to differ.
I agree there are a lot of situations where most meters will do. Moreover, there are situations where an experienced photographer can guess the proper exposure without any meter at all with precision of +/- 0.5 stop. But there are numerous real life situations where the correct behavior of the meter is critical.
"..calibrate your particular film-lens-EI-development-agitation- developer-etc system to it, then it probably doesn't matter which one you get" -- it is true for absolute value of the measurement (zero adjustment). But the adjustment found during the calibration is absolutely useless if the meter is not linear or if it is flare prone or if its spectral sensitivity is drastically different from film spectral sensitivity (including notorious IR-sensitivity) or all this together.
Machines are stupid, but they should work as specified. If one spends several hundreds for a meter, it is mildly speaking somewhat exasperating if he discovers that in certain (not uncommon) situations he has to guess and the machine instead of helping fools him.
(See for example my funny experience with Gossen Starlite: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007drq Does it mean the Starlite is unusable? No, it is pretty usable in a lot of situations!)
Solid reputation of a company ? it is good. Experience of thousands photographers in the world -- it is great. But I insist that a machine must work according its technical specifications.
Andrey
I fully agree with Andrey - the spotmeter manufacturers either have to make thei r products comply with published specs, or change the specs to describe their pr oducts accurately. This would mean that the Ultraspot's sensivity has to be listed as EV3-21, and t he Spotmeter F has to be described as 3 degree meter (and the viewfinder indicat or circle enlarged appropriately!). For both meters, a detachable IR blocking f ilter (w/ description how to adapt the meter readout when the filter is applied! ) should be packaged together with the meter. The way these products are delivered now make them IMHO amateur equipment... you can get some approximation of your subject's contrast range for many subjects, but you can't rely on the meter as a professional tool. Considered the $$$ that you have to pay for a spotmeter (mind you, for the offic ial resale price of an Ultraspot you can buy a comlete 35mm or digital camera w/ lens!), this is annoying, to put it mildly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks