Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Pål wrote: PJ Thats seem pretty starnge to me. I have no experience with the PJ MZ-5n but my experience with multi pattern metering is that it can PJ be considered right close to 90% of the time. A 50% failure rate PJ seem to be about right for centerweighted metering. A typical situation where MZ-5N multisegment fails is a common horizontal mountain landscape with the lower half of the image occupied by the dark-gray ridge, while the above is a blue sky with white clouds. Light is flat (with side or back light things get worse). On slide film (Sensia, RSX, CTPrecisa, Elitechrome, you name it) sky gets burnt out with clouds barely distinguishable while mountain is rendered almost correct. But close the aperture one stop and voila, sky is acceptable and there still are enough details on the mountain. On negative film, the original multisegment exposure gives enough details both on sky and mountain for the processor to render correctly everything. PJ This may be true for the MZ-5n but not for the 645n and the MZ-S PJ based on preliminary results. I strongly suspect that cameras above MZ-5N are all capable to read the DX-coded film latitude and use it to adjust exposure specifically for the film loaded (obviously, this is not the case with 645n which may be simply biased for slide film). Servus, Alin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Isn't it terrible, you still have to know what you are doing to get the best out of even the latest style automation? Metering systems are not magic, even the fanciest multi-segment system still biases for best overall exposure. If you want to move the exposure up or down the curve you have to do it yourself. --Tom Alin Flaider wrote: Pål wrote: PJ Thats seem pretty starnge to me. I have no experience with the PJ MZ-5n but my experience with multi pattern metering is that it can PJ be considered right close to 90% of the time. A 50% failure rate PJ seem to be about right for centerweighted metering. A typical situation where MZ-5N multisegment fails is a common horizontal mountain landscape with the lower half of the image occupied by the dark-gray ridge, while the above is a blue sky with white clouds. Light is flat (with side or back light things get worse). On slide film (Sensia, RSX, CTPrecisa, Elitechrome, you name it) sky gets burnt out with clouds barely distinguishable while mountain is rendered almost correct. But close the aperture one stop and voila, sky is acceptable and there still are enough details on the mountain. On negative film, the original multisegment exposure gives enough details both on sky and mountain for the processor to render correctly everything. PJ This may be true for the MZ-5n but not for the 645n and the MZ-S PJ based on preliminary results. I strongly suspect that cameras above MZ-5N are all capable to read the DX-coded film latitude and use it to adjust exposure specifically for the film loaded (obviously, this is not the case with 645n which may be simply biased for slide film). Servus, Alin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- Tom Graywolf Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
In my opinion, the ZX-5n also tends to overexpose with negative film while in matrix mode, but I find it easier to increase the ISO rating than to attempt to compensate for every shot Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I use the MZ-5 with slide film, I use centre weighted or spot metering, because I have observed, as Alin Flaider, that the multizone metering in this camera tends to overexpose slides very often. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Vs: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
I tried this, too - but it did not work. It depends on your type of photography but ZX-5n does not overexpose every shot, just some. I did get a film underexposed but the amount of compensation (1/3 stop in this case, not very much) but the odd 1-2 overexposures were there as before. Now I use center-weighted AE and have no problems. Sometimes I bracket if I think the shot important or problematic enough. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 31. heinäkuuta 2001 20:53 Aihe: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation In my opinion, the ZX-5n also tends to overexpose with negative film while in matrix mode, but I find it easier to increase the ISO rating than to attempt to compensate for every shot Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I use the MZ-5 with slide film, I use centre weighted or spot metering, because I have observed, as Alin Flaider, that the multizone metering in this camera tends to overexpose slides very often. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Metering in the Pz/Pz1p/MZ-3/5 are among the best available. For me, a flat lite (beach scene/snow etc) will always be underexposed without compensation. With slide material, your final choice of exposure should be based on how you want the slide presented. In other words, think of it as your chance to have final input. Then bracket if your experience at this point is lacking. For those of you that shoot slides occasionally, by all means buy a roll or two and trial you and your camera with different types of exposures. Evaluate the results and make any changes in your method based on the results. In my old Spotamtic days, my success rate approached 100% because I knew the material. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation Alin wrote: Definitely contrary to my experience. More than half of my slides exposed with multisegment were totally compromised by overexposure. Thats seem pretty starnge to me. I have no experience with the MZ-5n but my experience with multi pattern metering is that it can be considered right close to 90% of the time. A 50% failure rate seem to be about right for centerweighted metering. The only problem is that multisegment compensates mainly towards overexposure and rarely does it towards underexposure. If the contrast range is high - more than 4 stops as measured by different segments of the meter, the more likely is that the algorithm will choose to expose for the dark areas. This may be true for the MZ-5n but not for the 645n and the MZ-S based on preliminary results. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
The comment below is very interesting. Some time ago there was a discussion of whether Pentax's multi-segment metering overexposes. I traded my K1000 for a ZX 50, and found that the two-segment meter on that body definitely overexposed. So I switched to a 1p and use center-weighted. The exposure is rarely off. Joe I use exposure compensation with my MZ-7 pretty often. I must say I don't like matrix metering at all, but have no choice except for mounting my SMC M 50/f2 on, which turns my matrix into center-weighted metering. But since it's true that one never knows, what the matrix is exactly going to do, I always bracket (manually) my compensated photos. Do I trust the matrix? Not really, but perhaps it's irrational. I agree that it's possible to know how the matrix reacts, but disagree (from my experience), that it gets fooled in the same way as c-w or spot metering. I've found out that my MZ-7 meters very precisely (and I mean shooting slides) except for sunny days, when it tends to overexpose scenes that include bright elements (!) by 1/2 to 1 EV. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
My girlfriend has an MZ50 and it more often than not over exposes her shots. - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation The comment below is very interesting. Some time ago there was a discussion of whether Pentax's multi-segment metering overexposes. I traded my K1000 for a ZX 50, and found that the two-segment meter on that body definitely overexposed. So I switched to a 1p and use center-weighted. The exposure is rarely off. Joe I use exposure compensation with my MZ-7 pretty often. I must say I don't like matrix metering at all, but have no choice except for mounting my SMC M 50/f2 on, which turns my matrix into center-weighted metering. But since it's true that one never knows, what the matrix is exactly going to do, I always bracket (manually) my compensated photos. Do I trust the matrix? Not really, but perhaps it's irrational. I agree that it's possible to know how the matrix reacts, but disagree (from my experience), that it gets fooled in the same way as c-w or spot metering. I've found out that my MZ-7 meters very precisely (and I mean shooting slides) except for sunny days, when it tends to overexpose scenes that include bright elements (!) by 1/2 to 1 EV. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Hernan Mouro wrote: I just read this at Boris's site (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html): Well, my name is Bojidar, but IÄll answer anyway... :-) Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation together with multi-segment metering. So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering? Well, OK, now that I read this, I agree that it sounds misleading. What I wanted to say was that I would not _COMPENSATE_ matrix metering because I don't know in which direction to compensate. What I will do is _BRACKET_ matrix metering. Then I am quite certain to get a properly exposed slide. On a similar note, I have learned to trust matrix metering, and when I do bracket, in 95% of the cases I end up with the first frame properly exposed and the one over- and one under-exposed. I will rewrite the passage above to reflect this. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/ = __ __ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Nicholas Wright wrote: The thing that I always wonder is If manual camera users can through experimentation learn what their cameras are doing (meter wise) why cannot auto camera users do the same thing? Well we can and we do... Except in this case the experimentation would have to be much more thorough. I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. True, the multi-segment metering will adjust exposure according to the way the computer percieves the scene, but if you know your camera you will also know how the computer will percieve that scene so you can make the adjustments that you see fit. I just question how easy it is to figure out what the camera is thinking. As I understand it, the camera makers basically program possible scenes into the chip, and, supposedly, there are thousands of them. Also, these are going to vary by camera. Taking the example of the bear. If you take the white one, and shift it off center, will the camera think it's the sky in a vertical shot? What if it's just taking up 2 segments? 4? 2 segments plus 1/2 of 2 more? Sure, you could test that, but it seems to me you'd have to test for a lot a EI's in the various metering segments. I think his test is simplistic. I don't often shoot a single colored subject against a simple evenly-lit background. His test is not simply a single colored subject with an evenly lit background. His test involves two stuffed bears (one white, one dark) against several different background lighting conditions. But each situation in itself is fairly simple...all lit by one light source, with varying degrees of shade. Again, I am ~not~ saying that MM is the perfect solution. I didn't mean to imply you were. In fact, I will be the first to admit that my best photos (no exceptions) were taken using the zone system with spot meter. And when the time presents itself, or when lighting conditions dictate (as in the above mentioned light source in photos) I will always switch to spot. But for journalistic stuff where one or so stop exposure error means less than the content of the photo it's matrix all the way. I agree, mostly. I'm in matrix mode often...I just don't always know what the camera is thinking, and I still don't after printing at least 500 negs made in matrix mode. Lately, if I think the lighting isn't going to change much, I'll take a couple of spot readings and just work with those manually. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
-- From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2001, 10:55 AM In fact, I will be the first to admit that my best photos (no exceptions) were taken using the zone system with spot meter. And when the time presents itself, or when lighting conditions dictate (as in the above mentioned light source in photos) I will always switch to spot. But for journalistic stuff where one or so stop exposure error means less than the content of the photo it's matrix all the way. I agree, mostly. I'm in matrix mode often...I just don't always know what the camera is thinking, and I still don't after printing at least 500 negs made in matrix mode. Lately, if I think the lighting isn't going to change much, I'll take a couple of spot readings and just work with those manually. tv You know, I rarely print my own photos anymore; but if I did I would prolly be saying the exact same thing. :) In fact, as I transition away from getting prints from a lab and towards again doing all my own digital correcting I suspect that I will pay more attention to exposure. -- Nick - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re:: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Alin wrote: Multisegment metering works great as long as you recognize it's a scene for it. Exactly. And thats the point with any kind of meter. Its also no big deal finding out which way you need to compensate. It works like any other meter trying to render everything mid toned. Of course, nothing of the above stands true for slide film. Except maybe for Velvia that tolerates well one stop of overexposure, and perhaps for RSX II 100, multisegment generally burns out the slides. One extra stop - which is the common bias of multisegment if there's any contrast at all in the scene - is incredibly harmful for slide film. Saturation goes down, highlights burn out and the whole picture looses all the fun. The older multi pattern meters from Pentax seems to be slightly biased towards over exposure - you could say biased for print film. However, the 645n and the MZ-S is more tuned for slide film. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Hernan wrote: I just read this at Boris's site (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html): Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation together with multi-segment metering. So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering? With all due respect, I wouldn't pay much attention to this. I use exposure compensation with multipattern metering all the time and in contradiction to urban myth the metering doesn't really do weird unpredictable things. Its quite easy, although it takes experience, to know how the multipattern metering reacts to various situations. When this is said, the multipattern metering of the newer Pentax slr's are top notch; they are quite possibly the best around. The sucess rate is very high and you can basically rely on it. However, multipattern meters get get fooled in the same way that any other meter; they just cope better than eg. center weighted meters but the same logic and precausions apply. I always, when time permits, check the multipattern readout with the spot meter. In the majority of cases I and the multipattern meter agree. Exposure is, particularly in tricky lighting situations, often a matter of taste; the photographer and the multi pattern metering might not agree even when the cameras choosen exposure cannot be considered wrong. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Hi, I use exposure compensation with my MZ-7 pretty often. I must say I don't like matrix metering at all, but have no choice except for mounting my SMC M 50/f2 on, which turns my matrix into center-weighted metering. But since it's true that one never knows, what the matrix is exactly going to do, I always bracket (manually) my compensated photos. Do I trust the matrix? Not really, but perhaps it's irrational. I agree that it's possible to know how the matrix reacts, but disagree (from my experience), that it gets fooled in the same way as c-w or spot metering. I've found out that my MZ-7 meters very precisely (and I mean shooting slides) except for sunny days, when it tends to overexpose scenes that include bright elements (!) by 1/2 to 1 EV. Well, spot metering is the best stuff if one knows the rules of 18% grey and compensation:)) Matrix metering is IMHO good only for those walking the pointshoot or Program path. I mostly use Av, sometimes Tv and M modes but never any of the P's. BTW, I wonder if the LX metering gets fooled in the same way as others... Greetz Artur - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation | With all due respect, I wouldn't pay much attention to this. I use exposure compensation with multipattern metering all the time and in contradiction to urban myth the metering doesn't really do weird unpredictable things. Its quite easy, although it takes experience, to know how the multipattern metering reacts to various situations. When this is said, the multipattern metering of the newer Pentax slr's are top notch; they are quite possibly the best around. The sucess rate is very high and you can basically rely on it. However, multipattern meters get get fooled in the same way that any other meter; they just cope better than eg. center weighted meters but the same logic and precausions apply. I always, when time permits, check the multipattern readout with the spot meter. In the majority of cases I and the multipattern meter agree. Exposure is, particularly in tricky lighting situations, often a matter of taste; the photographer and the multi pattern metering might not agre! | e even when the cameras choosen exposure cannot be considered wrong. | | | Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
I strongly agree with Pal on this one... this also harkens back to the same arguments that have been passing through this lists. The biggest complaint that manual camera users have against auotmated cameras is that it does everything for you and ppl do not know what the camera is doing. The thing that I always wonder is If manual camera users can through experimentation learn what their cameras are doing (meter wise) why cannot auto camera users do the same thing? Well we can and we do... Anyway the point of this post is to share with you this URL from Moose Peterson's web site which contains the procedure for a simple test that you can use to determine what your cameras matrix metering will be doing under certain circumstances. It requires slide film a notebook and some time... Hope this helps! :) http://www.moose395.net/howto/teddybear.html -- Blessings, Nick -- From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001, 1:21 PM Hernan wrote: I just read this at Boris's site (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html): Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation together with multi-segment metering. So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering? With all due respect, I wouldn't pay much attention to this. I use exposure compensation with multipattern metering all the time and in contradiction to urban myth the metering doesn't really do weird unpredictable things. Its quite easy, although it takes experience, to know how the multipattern metering reacts to various situations. When this is said, the multipattern metering of the newer Pentax slr's are top notch; they are quite possibly the best around. The sucess rate is very high and you can basically rely on it. However, multipattern meters get get fooled in the same way that any other meter; they just cope better than eg. center weighted meters but the same logic and precausions apply. I always, when time permits, check the multipattern readout with the spot meter. In the majority of cases I and the multipattern meter agree. Exposure is, particularly in tricky lighting situations, often a matter of taste; the photographer and the multi pattern metering might not agre! e even when the cameras choosen exposure cannot be considered wrong. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
You know, I'd heard so many horror stories about matrix metering that I'd never used it until last weekend. Then I found myself needing to get a lot of photos in a short time in difficult lighting conditions: many subjects in shaded areas with lots of bright backgrounds and all kinds of variations. I thought Hmm, this is just the sort of thing matrix metering is supposed to be made for so I set the PZ-1p into matrix mode and fired away. The result was great exposures. (All on slide film, BTW) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Last winter I went shooting lighthouses in the ice with a guy who was packing a Nikon F-5. We're talking black steel catwalk, red lighthouse, gray sky, white snow and ice. I shot the Pz-1p in centerweighted mode with +0.7 stops of exposure compensation, based on a couple of spot meter reading a guess about how much of the frame was what. My companion trusted the meter in the F-5. My slides were exposed pretty well. His had blown out highlights. Matrixed metering reads the highs and lows of a scene an applies some simple rules to determine the correct exposure. Good matrixed metering systems may have thousands of scenarios in their databases that are drawn upon in determining the exposure. I'm a relative newcomer to photography, having bought my first SLR in the summer of 1997. I figure I have averaged about 150 shots a week in that time (considering the times where I _really_ shoot.) I bracket a lot and look at my results. My database is in my brain. I figure it holds over 30,000 scenarios, is capable of predictive and deductive reasoning, and has virtually unlimited capacity to store additional information. Simply put, my brain, as with any standard issue brain, is superior to the sliver of silicon in the F-5. Last month I shot waterfalls using an LX. White water on black rocks. I had never done this before, and figured that I would want to over expose slightly to compensate for the white water. Fortunately, I bracketed, and discovered that the opposite was true - underexposing resulted in the right exposure. Thinking about it, I understand why. Learning takes place. I probably could have used the Mz-S or F-5 in matrixed mode, and they may have exposed the scene OK. But now I know what to do in the future. I'll still bracket next time I shoot waterfalls, but ultimately I won't need to. So to answer your questions: 1. There is not much point in bracketing with matrixed metering. In theory, the auto-metering function should already be over or under exposing the subject as needed. If you are going to bracket, shoot center weighted, analyze the results, and learn. 2. In regards to trusting matrixed metering: matrixed metering is better than just blindly using centerweighted, so if you have only one shot and don't have a feel for what compensation is needed, use it. Otherwise, trust your experience, and if you don't have experience in a situation, bracket, study the results, and learn. Just my two cents. - MCC At 11:23 AM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote: I just read this at Boris's site (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html): Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation together with multi-segment metering. So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering? Hernan Mouro. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
-- From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001, 6:59 PM Nicholas Wright wrote: I strongly agree with Pal on this one... this also harkens back to the same arguments that have been passing through this lists. The biggest complaint that manual camera users have against auotmated cameras is that it does everything for you and ppl do not know what the camera is doing. Well, I'm not exactly a manual focus camera apologist, but in this case you *don't*. Huh? I'm sorry, maybe it's late, but I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Also, I just realized that I did not type my statement correctly, for that I apologize. It should have read something along the lines of One of the biggest complaints that I percieve that manual... Sorry for any misunderstanding in that regard. It should be noted that I am a big proponent of manual cameras in certain situations. I think matrix metering is a rather misleading term...it should really be labelled programmed metering or something like that. When you seen the exposure reading from a center-weighted meter in your finder, you're seeing what the meter sees. When you see a MM reading, you're seeing how the camera's programming interprets the various EI's from the different segments. I suppose you could get a feel for what a certain camera's MM will do in certain situations, but I was suprised often enough that I don't really try anymore, unless I'm shooting color neg film that I can let someone else worry about. The thing that I always wonder is If manual camera users can through experimentation learn what their cameras are doing (meter wise) why cannot auto camera users do the same thing? Well we can and we do... Except in this case the experimentation would have to be much more thorough. I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. True, the multi-segment metering will adjust exposure according to the way the computer percieves the scene, but if you know your camera you will also know how the computer will percieve that scene so you can make the adjustments that you see fit. Anyway the point of this post is to share with you this URL from Moose Peterson's web site which contains the procedure for a simple test that you can use to determine what your cameras matrix metering will be doing under certain circumstances. It requires slide film a notebook and some time... Hope this helps! :) http://www.moose395.net/howto/teddybear.html I think his test is simplistic. I don't often shoot a single colored subject against a simple evenly-lit background. His test is not simply a single colored subject with an evenly lit background. His test involves two stuffed bears (one white, one dark) against several different background lighting conditions. It may not be a totally 100% complete test, but it would give someone with an unfamiliar camera a huge step towards understanding what the matrix metering is doing. The biggest problem for me with MM are point source lights...a lamp or window in the background. When that's the case you'd have to take into consideration what segment it's in, how much brighter then everything else it is...I can't think that fast, and I probably couldn't compute it anyway. I have never been guilty of the error of saying that MM (or any other method, piece of equipment, etc) is the cure all for every situation. One reason that there will ~always~ (well as long as they can be repaired anyway) be a pz-1p in my bag is the ability to switch metering modes on-the-fly. Having said all that, I find that MM gives me a decent exposure 90% of the time, and if I only sent neg film to a lab, that would be fine. However, that 10%, and the other 20 or 30% that are pretty close give me a hell of a time when printing my own negs. tv Again, I am ~not~ saying that MM is the perfect solution. In fact, I will be the first to admit that my best photos (no exceptions) were taken using the zone system with spot meter. And when the time presents itself, or when lighting conditions dictate (as in the above mentioned light source in photos) I will always switch to spot. But for journalistic stuff where one or so stop exposure error means less than the content of the photo it's matrix all the way. -- Blessings, Nick - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
I agree with Mark. My main metering on Z1p is multisegment metering unless I want to know how much that point brighter thanthis point then I switch to spot. And most of my picture are good. Ronachai Pratanaphon PhD. student, Dept. of Biotechnology, UNSW., Sydney, NSW. 2052 Australia From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:57:42 -0400 You know, I'd heard so many horror stories about matrix metering that I'd never used it until last weekend. Then I found myself needing to get a lot of photos in a short time in difficult lighting conditions: many subjects in shaded areas with lots of bright backgrounds and all kinds of variations. I thought Hmm, this is just the sort of thing matrix metering is supposed to be made for so I set the PZ-1p into matrix mode and fired away. The result was great exposures. (All on slide film, BTW) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
