On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Hello paul, > > Thanks for the input. This is sort of what I expected. Matrix > metering has always been a somewhat subjective, black art, as it > were. So more consistency there is nice. I have mostly stayed away > from matrix metering as I have not been able to rely upon it or > predict any specific pattern. > > Yep. I would guess that the accuracy of matrix depends more on software efficiency than meter calibration. Making a simple meter that's accurate would seem to be a no brainer, and the Pentax spot meters, which i would assume don't depend on programming, have always seemed accurate. Paul > -- > Bruce > > > Monday, March 1, 2010, 12:14:11 PM, you wrote: > > >>> > ps> I've observed a substantial difference in terms of matrix > ps> metering in all modes. Spot metering is the only other variation I > ps> employ regularly, and it seemed fine on previous Pentax cameras. > ps> But matrix used to vary greatly in accuracy and deviation from > ps> correct exposure on both the k10 and 20. The K7 is a world apart. > > ps> Paul >>> -- >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
