Color Meters: Minolta CMII Vs. Current Models

[michaelnotar]

What exactly am I to gain if I upgrade from my Minolta Color Meter II (circa 1980 i think) to a modern meter? Considering the Sekonic 500 Color Meter for $1200. They seem to use the same interface, it spits out a number that you check against a chart for a CC filter or lighting gel. Modern models give out lens filters on screen without needing to check a chart, but while I find that useful, its not what I would be using. I check one light source against another, usually continuous lights, but strobe would be an added bonus too. I am a photographer mainly, but also have been doing a good amount of video work as a DP/Gaffer. Would a modern meter allow me to work faster or anything. Thanks

[Ellis Vener]

The problem wit the CMII is that it is a two color meter while a CMIII or the new (ish) Sekonic are three color meters and are more precise. Also the new ones do a better job of reading flash than the CMII. I have owned bot the CMII and the CMIII and had both long enough hot do some a/B testing.

[michaelnotar]

politely that is not correct, the CMII reads 3 colors. the newest sekonic CM claims 4 (RRGB), one ea red for digital or film color balance. it wouldnt suprise me if modern meter were better than the old one in any case of how the work.

[01af]

I have a Minolta Color Meter II, and while it seems just fine for a photgrapher's requirements (for mine, at least), I recently discovered a ... um, an issue. Now I'm wondering if it's specific to my particular sample only or is it a general problem with this model.

When metering the colour temperature of light with a continuous spectrum (daylight, tungsten light) then the result will be accurate. However when metering light with a non-continuous spectrum (fluorescent tubes, energy-saving lamps) then the indicated K value will be too high. I found out by comparing my results to an industrial chroma meter's. Is there something I am missing or is my Color Meter II defective?

[Ellis Vener]

It is a known condition which is why either the new Sekonic or a Minolta Color Meter IIIF is a better tool.  Also as you are probably already aware with many f of the Fluorescent  and the discontinuous spectra lights that usea ballast  if your shutter speed is short enough (anything over 1/30th in my experience yo can get a different color from frame to frame as the ballast cycles. high end fluorescents like the Kinoflos use a higher grade components and  ballast and do not have this problem.

[michaelnotar]

ya discontinuous lights are a problem i hear with color meters in general. i believe my meter is accurate for tungsten lights but a bit lower than daylight when under full sun. just got it calibrated, it was out of whack according to the guy. hopefully it will be a great meter now.

i will be curious to see how it compare against use. the new sekonic CM with a dedicated red for each digital and film readings is interesting.

[K.C.]

I'm curious why you worry about the accuracy unless you're still shooting film ?

I have the Minolta II with the flash head and I use it to check the color of flash heads. My Profotos range from 5400K to 5800K and every time I've checked the meter against what an AWB exposure read they were the same.

I've been using the meter since the early 80's and it's never needed calibration. I can't imagine why it would.

[michaelnotar]

i just had it calibrated for like $130 its factory new and prob just as good as a current model. i use it on film sets (video), just shooting with video cameras now, but working with one guy who says we should meter it more and not chimp for more professional productions to come (much larger budgets).