Spot meter ?

[Lynn Ross]

I have a chance to purchase a pentax modifed zone V meter and it seems like its the 316 L or something like that ... Question is I think that this is a B/W meter will it work for color landscape work also or should I get a different one that works for both ... I've done some searching on this and it's confussing to say the least
I will be doing much B/W work but want to know the answer if there is one! From this side of the fence... 🙂
Lynn

 

[jlw]

If I correctly remember the hype, er, excuse me, information put out by Zone V about this meter, when they say it's "b&w" they mean only that they changed the filter over the meter cell so it's supposedly better matched to the sensitivity of b&w film.

You should still be able to use it for color exposures, though. Bear in mind that readings from any spot meter require interpretation -- you have to think about the tone of the area you've metered, decide how you want it rendered in the photo, and compensate the exposure reading accordingly (otherwise it will be rendered as a middle tone.) Since you're having to interpret the readings anyway based on experience, the b&w filtration shouldn't be an issue.

I would have to say, though, that I hope you'd be getting this meter at a really good price -- otherwise there'd be no reason not to just wait until you can buy a standard spot meter, since the b&w modification wouldn't have any real advantage for you.

 

[BrianShaw]

If I correctly remember the hype, er, excuse me, ...

I don't know what "hype" you are talking about, jlw. Fred Picker tailored the meter for the needs of LF B&W photographers, who spent lots of time/effort examining the most minor of density differences in exposures in a quest for absolute predictability in density rendering. If you were being a tad cynical about 'those types of photographers', then I quite agree with you!

As you mention, filters were added to better match the sensor to the spectral characteristics of B&W film. Most people probably won't notice a difference in this respect betwen a Zone VI meter and an off-the-shelf meter.

The most significant improvement, however, you didn't mention - improved baffling for flare resistance.

The meter the OP mentions is optimized for B&W but will work fine for color. I've never noticed a major price difference between the Zone VI modified and unmodified meters. They are both expensive.

That being said... if you are going to be spending $500 anyway, why not consider looking at newer spot meters, like the L-558 from Sekonic. It is a BIG PACKAGE, but is spot, incident, flash all in one meter.

 

[Trius]

I echo what Brian says, except for the part about the Sekonic. Not that I disagree, but I just don't know that meter. "All-in-one" tools are seldom well-suited to doing all things well, but again, I don't know the Sekonic, so it may be the bee's knees.

But if you want to know more about the Zone VI meters, you can correspond with Richard Ritter, who was Picker's designer and was essentially the brains behind the Zone VI meter modifications and some of the other equipment developed and marketed by Zone VI. Ritter's website.

For some strange reason, Fred Picker and Zone VI seemed to have had (still do, apparently) a polarizing effect on people, at least on some. I never bought a Zone VI product I didn't like a lot. Picker was opinionated and a bit of a name-dropper, but he was a passionate photographer who genuinely tried to give to the craft while earning a living.

 

[Lynn Ross]

Thanks jlw and Brian, I have purchased a Sekonic 558 for a mear $50.00 more than the Zone V and think that it will last for years for me... I just need some thought and jlw gave me a nudge to search out a answer for myself
Lynn

 

[raid]

I have been using a digital Pentax spotmeter for many years, and I cannot see myself ever changing it for another meter unless I break it first. A spotmeter makes you think more about the exposure and the image you are expecting to get on film. I learned exposure with a spotmeter. Then I made sure to get SLR cameras that had built-in spotmeters. It is an education by itself.

Raid

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I use the digital Pentax modified Zone VI spot meter - they offered modification on both the analoge and the digial models if i remember correctly. I find espeically useful in SE Asia where there is a great contrast range between shadows and highlights. Because of the installed baffles it is very flare resistant and fast to use.
It doen't have a fash mode like the Sekonic models. I also used the earlier L-508 (or was it 408?) which had a zoom lens -1 degree to 4 degree spot evaluation with a memory mode and fash modes. I sold it however as i found the Pentax meter to be much faster and more intuitive to use when measuring tricky lighting conditions. Back in the late 80's these modified Pentax meters cost a lot more than the off the shelf Pentax version but i thought it was well worth the extra cash. I've never had a problem with it and the battery usage is very good.

 

[egpj]

I have the L-558 and it is the "bee's knees". However, I think it is too big to carry around. Since I usually use incident I decided to get the L-358. It is much smaller and can do the reflected light readings with an attachement. Enjoy the L-558 though.

 

[jlw]

I don't know what "hype" you are talking about, jlw. Fred Picker tailored the meter for the needs of LF B&W photographers, who spent lots of time/effort examining the most minor of density differences in exposures in a quest for absolute predictability in density rendering.

Yes, that's exactly the sort of "hype" to which I was referring.

If you were being a tad cynical about 'those types of photographers', then I quite agree with you!

Then we're agreed. In fact, I'm quite cynical about the whole Fred Picker ethos, which I found epitomized in a quote in one of his catalogs: "Never trust 'Rapid' or 'Indicator' anything."

This sort of blanket condemnation is just ludicrous. It points to a mindset that glories in self-imposed complexity and difficulty, with no regard to whether or not the complexities and difficulties actually produce better results (you know, photos and stuff...)

I suspect that there's a certain segment of photographers who feel self-conscious about working in what, compared to painting or sculpture or music composition or dance, could be termed a "push-button" artform, and seek to assauge their guilt by cloaking their process in as much techno-mysticism as they can muster.

The notion of re-filtering and re-baffling a one-degree spot meter -- which is going to be used hand-held, and which consequently will produce different measurements anyway if the photographer aims it a fraction of a degree right or left on two successive readings -- is to me an example of this sort of techno-mysticism. It's just complexity without utility. (Then, having made his nonsensically calibrated reading to 1/10 of a stop, the Pickerographer then sets his measured exposure on a lens which stops down with only 1/3 stop repeatability anyway... but that's another whole minefield of absurdity...)

 

[BrianShaw]

... the Pickerographer ...

ROTFLOL 🙂