I saw that and thought that might have something to do with it. But look at the left side of the subject where the lower shot has a much larger bright area on the left than the upper shot. I guess the intelligent, multi-segment meter decided that bright area was of no importance <LOL>
BTW, had I adjusted the camera to use the way I'd usually use an in camera meter, I may have used spot metering, or just used the thing in complete manual mode and determined my own exposures. However, the point was to learn how the camera reacts to different variables. That said, the results of this "learning experience" prove, or certainly lends credence to, what I've always said about built-in meters, and that is that often small changes in the frame will have a large effect upon the way a scene is rendered, and that for the most a built-in meter cannot be trusted to provide consistent and accurate results. Further, I was always of the idea the multi-segment or matrix metering relied upon highly complex algorithms that consider all the details in the way a frame is light and apply that information in such a way as to give consistently more accurate results. Feh! I guess I bought into another marketing maven's fairy tale. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jostein > I think the one stop difference is due to the way the multi-segment metering > works. Notice the person in the highlight area on the the right-hand side of > the lady. In the upper shot, the camera tries to compensate for the higher > contrast, and thus selects a shorter exposure time. > > This is a typical situation where using spot metering would give you much more > consistent results. > > Jostein > > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/2up.jpg > > > > Just nine seconds separate these two pics. They are almost identical > > shots. Both were made with the istDs, both at a rating of 3200 ISO, both @ > > 70mm, both at an aperture of 5.6, both using multi-segment metering, both > > using auto focus (more on that later!), both on one of the automatic modes, > > yet they are a stop apart, with the top pic made @ 1/30 sec and the bottom > > @ 1/15. > > > > What crummy results these are. The pics, imo, should have an identical > > exposure. They would were a funky old manual camera body being used. Is > > this the kind of erratic results one can expect from high-tech cameras, or > > is there some sort of failure to communicate or understand on my part? Why > > would these pics be so far apart in their results? > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
