Why would anyone buy a Pentax Spotmeter?

I'm about to buy a new meter. I've narrowed it down to the Sekonic

L-558 and the Pentax Spotmeter. The Pentax is an allegedly

discontinued product, but it is in fact available from Badger

Graphic and sporadically from Calumet.

 

The Sekonic is a brand new product (i.e. presumably state of the

art), it handles incident, reflective spot and flash and it can be

used wirelessly with motorized cameras.

 

The Pentax is an older design that does nothing more than spot (I

recognize that the spot function can be used to get an incident

reading off a grey card).

 

The price is about the same.

 

Is there a reason or reasons (other than its "legendary" status) why

someone would buy the Pentax instead? Or is it just an overpriced

anachronism?

I believe that the pentax offers slightly better low light sensitivity - and you can paste on a zone chart pretty easily - but otherwise, no.

 

The L-558 handles the 1 degree spot pretty darn well.

 

I happen to love my Pentax, but I think that is more because I've been using it for a decade, not due to some benefit over current models.

The digital version is still marketed on the Pentax site. Perhaps just the analog version is not longer made. Consider the Minolta 1 degree meter which also offers flash readings. There is still a need for a 1 degree spot meter if a person knows how to use it. If in doubt, just read all of the complaints of Canon owners when they learn the new 20D does not have a true spot option (although the version provided is adequate).

If you want a do most things well (including 1 degree spot) all round meter and don't mind spending an evening reading and learning how it works, the L-558 is a good choice. Pocket Wizard flash applications are definitely one of its strengths.

 

If you want a simpler to use 1 degree only spot meter, the Pentax Spotmeter V is a good choice.

 

They have equal EV 1 low light performance (L-558 in spot mode)!

<i>Is there a reason or reasons (other than its "legendary" status) why someone would buy the Pentax instead? Or is it just an overpriced anachronism?</i>

<p>

If you need flash or prefer dome-type incident, the choice is clear. If you use spot exclusively, then try them both before dismissing one. You may find one more usable than the other. I haven't used the Pentax, but I've used Gossen's Luna Pro and Luna Pro digital, Minolta's Autometer IV (something like that ...) and the Sekonic 508 (among others). I find the old Luna Pro intuitive and elegant, but I can't stand the Luna Pro digital. I like the 508 (almost as intuitive as the LP, and more capable), I find the Minolta clunky and awkward. I'm sure there are people who find the exact opposite to be true. No doubt they're all equally accurate (or inaccurate), on paper they all look good, and in use they're all completely different. Find one you like, use it, and stop worrying about it.

If you need to do spotmetering often, a dedicated spotmeter may be the best choice.

Its optical system and ergonomics may make for easier and faster use, and although

the advantages may be slight, they add up over the years and thousands of uses.

 

Having used the analog Pentax, the Minolta F, and the digital Pentax for many years,

my preference is the digital Pentax. It fits the hand well, is relatively compact and

tough, and the dial system is much better than the digital readouts of other meters,

at least for the way I determine exposures.

 

To be honest, I've only handled a multi-meter once. But my memory of it was that

the field of view visible through the finder was narrow, and the meter was awkward to

hold and aim. These may seem like minor considerations for occasional use, but

since 90% of my metering is spotmetering, they're important to me.

 

Of course, I have other meters for flash and average readings. If you are limited to

one meter for all of your work, you don't have much choice but to get the multi-

meter. But if you do a lot of spotmetering, consider a dedicated spotmeter.

If you need a flash meter, an incident meter, and a spot meter all rolled into one then the Sekonic is perfect. But having all those options and the other features of that meter just creates unnecessary complexity for no purpose if you don't need them. I use the zone system. I don't need a flash meter or an incident meter. All I need is a meter that gives me EV readings and that allows me to translate those readings into zones. The Pentax digital spot meter (which is still in production AFAIK, I believe it's the analog version that has been discontinued) does that easily, quickly, and accurately. I used to own a Minolta Spot Meter F, which like the Sekonic was more versatile than the Pentax but the versatility came at the price of added complexity that I didn't need. So I sold it about nine years ago and bought the Pentax, not because of its legendary status (which I wasn't aware of until now) but because it best fits my needs. It just depends on what you want in a meter.

<i>"Or is it just an overpriced anachronism?"</i><br><p>

I went through this a couple of months ago. I lost my Minolta F in Death Valley, so thought why not upgrade. Read and read about both the 558 and the discontinued 778 Sekonic. Ultimately I am troubled about the fact that Sekonic is geared to a 13% gray while I've taught myself to deal with 18%. I felt a lot of the little things I do from habit of knowing how my meter is thinking would have to be re-learned. So I just bought another Minolta F. I have half a dozen Pentax meters out at work. Last year I re-batteried all of them at the same time. Seems I can grab any 3 of those things and get 3 different readings up to a full stop and a half apart from each other. Overpriced anachronism? Yes.

It does one job and it does it very well. I wouldn't trade in for any other meter (have used

the 508 and Minolta F).

Wouldn't buy either but then I just do landscape work. If one is doing commercial, portrait, artificial lighting etc there are of course more needs. The Polaris Dual 5 is smaller, lighter, cheaper digital meter. Outside 5 degrees works just fine. Averaging functions are not needed because one is better off using experience of how to intelligently combine different natural scene components rather than relie on math averaging.

I am really wondering where the "fact that Sekonic is geared to a 13% gray while I've taught myself to deal with 18%" comes from. It occasionally pops up in discussion forums and seems to be treated as some sort of a 'fact'. Yet Sekonic sells 18% gray cards for use with its meters and advices using 18% gray in its instruction manuals and on its website, from which just two brief extracts:

 

"You can improve the accuracy of your reflected readings by placing an 18-percent neutral gray test card in front of the important subject areas"

 

"Spot metering of an 18% gray midtone area allow you to make an exposure that will record detail, tonality and color accurately."

 

All light meters are based on same 18% grey. Some meters may be out of whack and require compensation one way or another, but that is not because they are based on some other level of grey. If someone disagrees, please show me the extract from the user manual that specifially asks to measure something else than 18% grey.

Meters are set for average scene brightness, which works out to something like 12.5% gray.

 

regardless of what you might think of Bob Shell these days:

 

"the 18% thing is a photographic urban legend, nothing more. No light meter was ever factory calibrated to 18% reflectance. Meter makers use the ANSI Standard which works out to about 12.5%, or 1/2 stop less reflectance than 18%.

The Kodak Gray Card, 1999 revision, contains correct instructions for its use. I know because I wrote those instructions after being hired by Kodak, and did considerable research on the subject.

You can read more in the book I co-authored, The Hand Exposure Meter Book.""

 

and

 

"18%, Or 13% Gray?

One last bit about metering basics. You often hear and read about 18 percent gray being the standard to which meters are calibrated. I?m not sure just where this misconception came from, but the fact is that it is just plain wrong. Meters today are factory calibrated using an ANSI standard which is about 12.5 percent to 13 percent reflectance. They are not calibrated using an ISO standard because the ISO has adopted no standard for light meter calibration, apparently preferring to simply leave the old ANSI standard in place. This 12.5 percent to 13 percent is about 1/2 stop less reflectance than 18 percent, and for many films this is not much of a problem as their latitude covers up exposure errors this small. However, when working with narrow-latitude transparency films and some digital sensors, this can be a serious enough error to ruin images.

 

If 18 percent is not the standard, why then does Kodak make their Gray Card to have precisely 18 percent reflectance? No one seems to be 100 percent sure at Kodak today, but some of the few who were around in earlier days point their fingers at Ansel Adams, who lobbied hard for 18 percent. I?ll leave the details of this to the historians. If you read the instructions that come with Kodak?s Gray Card manufactured since 1999 you will find that the instructions tell you how to hold the card properly at an angle and to make the 1/2 stop correction. The Kodak Professional Data Guide tells you the same. Those who want to know more about all this can find the full story in The Hand Exposure Meter Book which I co-authored with Martin Silverman and Jim Zuckerman."

 

 

see also

 

http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

Please read the attached link. Some time ago Kodak had a tech bulletin which said that 18% grey should really be 13% . In other words the sunny 16 rule is closer to sunny f:13.5. I can not find the bulletin now. Anyway it is mostly academic as we all pretty well know what works. However did you ever wonder why so many sunny picture are underexposed ny 1/2 a stop. Regards Peter

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000eWN

The point that everybody seems to agree with is that all meters are calibrated the same way. Not so that Sekonic alone would be different. That is what I was trying to raise. Appreciate your replies. I would not trust the sunny 16 rule to within 1/2 stop. Certainly not enough to adjust my meter reading by it. In the end, all meters measure a bit differently. I did a simple test recently, using all ten or so meters I have (including built in ones). They all gave slightly different readings of the same subject. The range was 1 1/3 stops in all. One has to find a way to measure, stick to that way, and then make a compensation based on the combination of the specific meter and personal preference. Not to forget that marked shutter speeds and apertures may not be all exactly correct either.

I just bought the Sekonic L558, and haven't had a chance to use it in the field. I will say this, I have 3 meters and this one beats them all. The quality build is excellent, has all the right features, is convenient and easy to use. I also have heard it reads 12.5% instead of 18% grey, from Sekonic. I expected to be getting a zone 4 1/2 reading (underexposure), but after checking with my other 2 handheld meters found it gave 4/10 of a stop of overexposure. I compared it with another one at the store and they were identical. I prefer it reads 1/2 stop over then 1/2 under, and considering I bracket anyways, my main concern is looking at the zone range between shadow and highlight.

 

Here in Canada, in Toronto, there are tons of student photographers and working pros. So there are quite a few photo stores, and while a few years ago I could go into any photo store and find plenty of Gossen, Minolta, Sekonic in various models...they now all carry only one brand (sekonic). I had no choice but to get a L558, this is all they pushed.

 

The Pentax comes in two forms, regular and zone modified with filters in placed for UV and infrared which is great for zoners in b/w. In color I can't see it giving any advantage. It is older technology, and not water resistant like Sekonic L558. The Sekonic has all the information visible in the viewfinder and on its side display (which automatically illuminates in lower light...great feature). If you shoot b/w mainly, then go for the modified Pentax, otherwise stick with the Sekonic. It offers so much more, and I just can't see having to buy another meter for flash and incident metering. If you do studio work, the Pentax is definately not what you want, it's a meter best used by b/w landscape photographers. I've also read the Sekonic L558 is very realiable for heavy use.

I bought the PDS because I did not have to remove it from my eye to see the reading. The others in the store had readouts on the side. I had to keep pulling it down, not a problem if only one spot is being measured.

I have the L-558 for 2 or three months now, and the only thing I don't like about it is its overall "cheap" feeling, and the fact that to take a reading you press with your thumb, I'd much rather press with index finger, ala pistol style. But it's probably constructed as well as anything else in its price range these days. I am satisfied with its metering performance.

 

I have a luna pro F which I've used for 20 years, and will continue to use, its use is simpler, i got the 558 for the spot-metering capabilities, and I also have to have flash metering

tom in seattle

Have a look at the new Minolta FLashmeter VI - that's the 6. It's similar to the Sekonic in that it has both flash, ambient, and spot capabilities. I used to use both a Pentax Spotmeter V and a Minolta Flashmeter IV (4), and I've happily replaced them both with the Flashmeter VI. You can do an ambient measurement, and then switch it into a comparison mode and to both ambient and spot metering and compare the difference in stops between those readings and the initial reading. Very nice. All it needs is a zone dial...

I own onw Pentax digital spot and two Sekonic spots that I have inherited. If I was buying

today withoutthe experience I have, I would definitely go for the Sekonic. However, the

Pentax is my preference by a long way. It is so easy to use, it's robust, the markings don't

wear off and it's reliable. Sadly, the battery is a special, but it lasts two years. If you buy a

Pentax I highly recommend the Zone IV sticker, it transforms the meter.

 

The Sekonics are tough, but the markings on mine have gone and new cases would be

needed to fix that. I have to learn how to use the memory system every ime I use it, but

the Pentax doesn't have that problem. I expect that if you owned only one meter the

technique would stay firmly in your mind.

I own one Pentax digital spot and two Sekonic spots that I have inherited. If I was buying

today without the experience I have, I would definitely go for the Sekonic. However, the

Pentax is my preference by a long way. It is so easy to use, it's robust, the markings don't

wear off and it's reliable. Sadly, the battery is a special, but it lasts two years. If you buy a

Pentax I highly recommend the Zone IV sticker, it transforms the meter.

 

The Sekonics are tough, but the markings on mine have gone and new cases would be

needed to fix that. I have to learn how to use the memory system every ime I use it, but

the Pentax doesn't have that problem. I expect that if you owned only one meter the

technique would stay firmly in your mind.

I have been a very pleased owner of a Sekonic 508 spotmeter. I bought it new when it first came out, and have had it ever since. Unlike the newer 558, the 508 does have the metering button in the place for your index finger to trigger it, not the thumb. Having one meter that can do incident, reflected, spot and flash all in one package has been incredibly convenient, as I do both studio and landscape/travel photos. The waterproofing has also been a blessing as I have shot with it around lakes and rivers, and in rainstorms.

<P>

My only complaint is that it is a 5 degree, not 1 degree, spot. I use it regularly, and I have not had any problems with markings wearing off, or exposure readings being inaccurate. I just used it in Madrid for night shooting, and it gave me spot on readings for some very challenging exposure situations (illuminated marble buildings, moving traffic, etc...) For examples, take a look on my website - <A HREF="http://www.theflyingcamera.com">The Flying Camera</a>, in the gallery under Spain.

For the same reason Leicas are still popular in some nitch markets.

 

It performs very well and is brilliant in it's no-frills simplicity.

"I have been a very pleased owner of a Sekonic 508 spotmeter. .... My only complaint

is that it is a 5 degree, not 1 degree, spot."

 

Is the Sekoinic 508 different from the L508? My L508 allows several spot options,

incluidng one degree.

I still use one of three old Weston meters (2 Master V's and one Master VI) and am just happy as a clam with them!

I have not used the Pentax which I assume is good, however, the Minolta F is great once you get used to it. I selected it because it is accurate, modern, true 1 degree spot, can be used with flash, simple and you can get by with just one meter. The spot flash option is vary handy. Just keep it plugged into the camera and the flash (with y-connector). Fire a test flash at a wedding dress, face, etc. by pointing and pressing the trigger. Transfer the compensated reading. Take the shot. Much more accurate than most automatic sensors or internal TTL setups and you do not have to walk up to the subject.