[SLR] F5 AND 3D COLOR MATRIX METERING
Cyril FAKIRI
I have got my first F5 for2.5 years now.
I just red yesterday that we just have matrix metering whith NON-D AF
lenses ( vs 3D COLOR matrix metering with AF-S AF-I or AF-D ) !!!
Is-it true or is it a mistake of the French user guide ?
The French commercial documentation report a total compatibility !!!
Thanks for reply
Cyril..
http://perso.club-internet.fr/cylou/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ncpi/expo.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
mail Prof. cyril_...@fr.ibm.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée,
tout se transforme.
Antoine L. de Lavoisier (1743-1794).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted
non-D, AF D and AF-S lenses with my F5 with the meter set to the
middle position 3D Matrix Metering and have great exposures with all 3
types of lenses. I don't see any difference so far. I think in general
photography the difference with D or non-D is small.
Ted
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:28:14 GMT, cy...@club-internet.fr (Cyril
FAKIRI) wrotf:
SNAPBARRON
only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not work
anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont notice
that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
Ted
doesn't work (with D lenses) in Aperture-Priority mode.
The F5 owner's manual says that 3D Matrix Metering works in any
exposure mode (Progarm, Shutter, Aperture priorities, manual), with D,
AF-S, or AF-I lenses.
On 10 Apr 1999 18:18:39 GMT, snapb...@aol.com (SNAPBARRON) wrotf:
Cyril FAKIRI
wrote:
>The owner's manual with my new F5 says the same thing. I've used AF
>non-D, AF D and AF-S lenses with my F5 with the meter set to the
>middle position 3D Matrix Metering and have great exposures with all 3
>types of lenses. I don't see any difference so far. I think in general
>photography the difference with D or non-D is small.
>
Ok for that.
I have friends that play golf and some times I go with them to take
pictures.
I tried to take the metering with a 50 1.8 Non-D on the grass ( very
green ) in "Matrix Metering" position. Then I took my Sekonic L308B
and the difference between the two was about 1.5 stop !!! Too big
difference for me for Velvia shots !
Yesterday, a man from Nikon , here in Paris, told me that the 3D COLOR
MATRIX METERING was totaly compatible with non-D lenses and that there
was probably an error in the user's guide ! I' m not sure of that !!!!
So where is the truth ??
Only me....
Cyril FAKIRI <cy...@club-internet.fr> wrote
> Ok for that.
> I have friends that play golf and some times I go with them to take
> pictures.
> I tried to take the metering with a 50 1.8 Non-D on the grass ( very
> green ) in "Matrix Metering" position. Then I took my Sekonic L308B
> and the difference between the two was about 1.5 stop !!! Too big
> difference for me for Velvia shots !
Who's to say which would give the best exposure? Did you actually take
a shot on Velvia from the F5's meter suggestion, and then anotehr from the
hand held meter? Was the other meter's sugestion over, or under the F5's?
Unless you take a shot on transparency, and actually look at them both, I'd
reserve judgement.
David.
Hybwolf
the distance info is not used in the exposure calculation. It says so in the
F5 manual.
Eric Edelman
priority mode on the F5.
The only function I know of that won't work with a non-D lens is the Lock
function to lock exposure settings.
SNAPBARRON needs to reread his instruction manual on his F5.
--
Eric Edelman
Eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
www.edelmans.org
SNAPBARRON wrote in message <19990410141839...@ng54.aol.com>...
Eric Edelman
without a CPU (non-D), the color matrix metering switches over to matrix
metering.
--
Eric Edelman
Eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
www.edelmans.org
Hybwolf wrote in message <19990411083906...@ng108.aol.com>...
don ferrario
I respectfully submit you may be misunderstanding.
non-D AF lenses *do* have a CPU. They will work with
matrix and 3d color metering. As a prior poster added,
they just don't use distance info (which is primarily useful
for flash).
Manual focus lenses (except the 500-P) do not have
a CPU, and so will not support Matrix on the F5.
--
don ferrario
http://www.ferrario.com/don
Eric Edelman wrote in message <7eqdlo$rhb$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Hybwolf
of the lens are for?
Page 49, F5 manual-
" If a non D-type lens is used,Matrix Metering is performed. Although len's
Distance information is not given,1005-pixel Matrix Sensor provides the correct
exposure in most lighting situations.
NOTE THAT MATRIX METERING CAN ONLY BE USED WITH LENSES HAVING A BUILT IN CPU(
SUCH AS AF NIKKOR AND AI-P LENSES"
The chart on the F5 system guide( little phamphlet that comes in F5 box) shows
AF non D lenses in orange. The lens compatbility chart (same phamphlet)
directs you to note 2.-color matrix metering is selected.
Page 51 , F5 manual-
" If you are using a lens without CPU, or accessories such as bellows or
extention rings
The 1005-pixel 3D Color Matrix metering automatically switches to center
-weight metering and the center weight meter symbol appears."
Thats strange, When I use my Non-D lenses on my F5, It does not automatically
switch to center-weight metering. Must be that there is a CPU in my non-D lens.
Like I said, Non-D AF lenses perform color matrix metering without the
distance information.
Ted
Color Matrix Metering--AF non-D, AI-P
3D Color Matrix Metering--AF-D, AF-I, AF-S (includes distance info)
On 11 Apr 1999 16:16:10 GMT, hyb...@aol.com (Hybwolf) wrotf:
Cyril FAKIRI
>AF non D lenses have a cpu. What do think the electrical contacts on the back
>of the lens are for?
>Page 49, F5 manual-
>" If a non D-type lens is used,Matrix Metering is performed. Although len's
>Distance information is not given,1005-pixel Matrix Sensor provides the correct
>exposure in most lighting situations.
Yes " 1005-pixel Matrix Metrering " not "3D Color Matrix Metering"
Now look page 128 at the line "AF Nikkor non-D" ,
in the french guide it is said : "possibility of Matrix Metering in
place of 3D Color Matrix Metering.
So !?
>NOTE THAT MATRIX METERING CAN ONLY BE USED WITH LENSES HAVING A BUILT IN CPU(
>SUCH AS AF NIKKOR AND AI-P LENSES"
>
>The chart on the F5 system guide( little phamphlet that comes in F5 box) shows
>AF non D lenses in orange. The lens compatbility chart (same phamphlet)
>directs you to note 2.-color matrix metering is selected.
>
>Page 51 , F5 manual-
>" If you are using a lens without CPU, or accessories such as bellows or
>extention rings
>The 1005-pixel 3D Color Matrix metering automatically switches to center
>-weight metering and the center weight meter symbol appears."
There is a CPU in non-D lenses ( that is sure)
>Thats strange, When I use my Non-D lenses on my F5, It does not automatically
>switch to center-weight metering. Must be that there is a CPU in my non-D lens.
>
>Like I said, Non-D AF lenses perform color matrix metering without the
>distance information.
That's what I thought until 3 days ago :o((
Cyril FAKIRI
In that case, I have 1.5 stop of under-ex. whith the F5 !
The best exposure was whith the Sekonic. :o(
Eric Edelman
AF lens that is non-D, color matrix metering switches over to matrix
metering. And if you use a lens without any CPU at all, the metering
switches over to center weighted.
See pages 49, 51, and the chart on p. 130. The chart says that for non-D AF
Nikkors and AI-P Nikkors, you can have matrix metering instead of color
matrix metering.
--
Eric Edelman
Eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
www.edelmans.org
don ferrario wrote in message <7eqgl0$ts$1...@news1.epix.net>...
>Eric,
>I respectfully submit you may be misunderstanding.
>non-D AF lenses *do* have a CPU. They will work with
>matrix and 3d color metering. As a prior poster added,
>they just don't use distance info (which is primarily useful
>for flash).
>Manual focus lenses (except the 500-P) do not have
>a CPU, and so will not support Matrix on the F5.
>don ferrario
>http://www.ferrario.com/don
Ted
lenses there is a footnote that says "Matrix Metering instead of 3D
Color Matrix Metering is possible" I don't think the uncertainty that
seems to come across in that footnote is what they meant.
I worked the Japanese in a camera company for 21 years and they always
have a funny way of saying things in English. There have been times
that I come across strange lines in owner's maunals for numerous
camera models. I would tell the Japanese techs that something in a
english owner's manual doesn't make sense. So then I would have them
look it up it the Japanese owner's manaul and tell me what it says. It
always turned out to be something different. There have been times
where there is infomation that is clearer in the Japanese owner's
manual that is confusing in the english manual, and at times was even
left out of the english entirely. I remember telling the Japanese
techs, "there is nothing like that in the english manual at all"
I think some things get lost in the translation from Japanese to
English, French, etc.
I don't think they really meant to use the word "possilble" in the way
it comes across in the footnote.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:27:26 GMT, cy...@club-internet.fr (Cyril
FAKIRI) wrotf:
(snip)
Ted
brochures, etc. Especially with the terms, "Color Matrix Metering" and
"Matrix Metering"
In the "System Information" foldout that comes with a new F5 on the
back it shows there is a chart that shows:
With "non-D AF" lenses under the column for "3D Color Matrix" it
shows a footnote (#2). Footnote number 2 says "Color Matrix Metering
is selected"
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:16:51 -0400, "Eric Edelman"
<eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org> wrotf:
mark
>if you want to have the best metering you will need to get d lenz but the
>only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
>situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not work
>anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont notice
>that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
???
hhhmmm !!!
I think you may be misinformed.
mark
wrote:
>I don't see any information anywhere that says 3D Matrix metering
>doesn't work (with D lenses) in Aperture-Priority mode.
>
>The F5 owner's manual says that 3D Matrix Metering works in any
>exposure mode (Progarm, Shutter, Aperture priorities, manual), with D,
>AF-S, or AF-I lenses.
>
>
>
>On 10 Apr 1999 18:18:39 GMT, snapb...@aol.com (SNAPBARRON) wrotf:
>
>>if you want to have the best metering you will need to get d lenz but the
>>only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
>>situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not work
>>anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont notice
>>that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
It does work in aperture priority mode (You are right he is wrong)
Scott Fairbairn
SNAPBARRON <snapb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990410141839...@ng54.aol.com...
> if you want to have the best metering you will need to get d lenz but
the
> only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
> situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not
work
> anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont
notice
> that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
P lenses and non-D lenses give color matrix metering, but no distance
information is used for flash exposure.
The manual is annoying because it doesn't specifically say that "color"
matrix metering is used, but just says "matrix metering" is employed. The
camera has 1005 color matrix metering , center weighted metering and spot
metering available. So if it says matrix metering it is merely saying that
you have color matrix metering without the distance info.
Spot or Center weighted do not use color and function as they would on any
other camera.
Aperture mode or not the matrix still works.
Cyril Fakiri
Scott Fairbairn a écrit :
> SNAPBARRON <snapb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990410141839...@ng54.aol.com...
> > if you want to have the best metering you will need to get d lenz but
> the
> > only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
> > situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not
> work
> > anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont
> notice
> > that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
>
> P lenses and non-D lenses give color matrix metering, but no distance
> information is used for flash exposure.
> The manual is annoying because it doesn't specifically say that "color"
> matrix metering is used, but just says "matrix metering" is employed. The
> camera has 1005 color matrix metering , center weighted metering and spot
> metering available. So if it says matrix metering it is merely saying that
> you have color matrix metering without the distance info.
Ok, now, how can you explain the chart on page 130 :
"under non-D AF lenses there is a footnote that says "Matrix Metering instead
of 3D
Color Matrix Metering is possible"
I don't think that it is a mistake .
--
Cyril..
http://perso.club-internet.fr/cylou/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ncpi/expo.htm
------------------------------------------------
mail Prof. cyril_...@fr.ibm.com
Scott Fairbairn
> > information is used for flash exposure.
> > The manual is annoying because it doesn't specifically say that "color"
> > matrix metering is used, but just says "matrix metering" is employed.
The
> > camera has 1005 color matrix metering , center weighted metering and
spot
> > metering available. So if it says matrix metering it is merely saying
that
> > you have color matrix metering without the distance info.
>
> Ok, now, how can you explain the chart on page 130 :
> "under non-D AF lenses there is a footnote that says "Matrix Metering
instead
> of 3D
> Color Matrix Metering is possible"
> I don't think that it is a mistake .
> --
> Cyril..
I don't think it is a mistake , just poor writing. All they are saying is
that with a non-D lens you only get the color matrix and no 3D. I was
confused by this as well. I own the 500 P lens and was told originally that
the color matrix worked. After getting the camera, I saw that in the manual
thought the color matrix didn't work. After further checking, ( I forget
now, but I think it was a Nikon brochure of some sort, I will see if I can
find it ) I found another source which specifically said that the color
matrix worked. If you check the cameras specs in the back of the manual, it
states that 3 meters are present , 3D matrix, center weighted, and spot. So
in order for what you suspect to be true there would have to be 4 metering
modes.ie. 3D color matrix, matrix , center weight and spot.
I think its just an example of less than clear writing. There are several
other areas in the manual that are not very clear as well.
Hope this helps
Only me....
Cyril FAKIRI <cy...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:3710dac2...@news.club-internet.fr...
>
> In that case, I have 1.5 stop of under-ex. whith the F5 !
> The best exposure was whith the Sekonic.
> Cyril..
You mean the sekonic metered slide looks better than the F5 metered
slide? If so, it just goes to show you what I've been saying for a while:
RGB meter? Useless, and no less fallible than any other in camera meter.
Even the sekonic can be wrong though. Do you spot meter, or use incident
readings? I find spotting the darkest, then lightest areas the most
accurate
way to achieve an average reading.
regards,
David.
Scott Fairbairn
> You mean the sekonic metered slide looks better than the F5 metered
> slide? If so, it just goes to show you what I've been saying for a while:
> RGB meter? Useless, and no less fallible than any other in camera meter.
> Even the sekonic can be wrong though. Do you spot meter, or use incident
> readings? I find spotting the darkest, then lightest areas the most
> accurate
> way to achieve an average reading.
>
I think that is a pretty unrealistic statement to say the RGB meter is
useless. Just as matrix meters were an improvement over center weighted
meters, RGB is an improvement over standard matrix meters. It is not
reasonable to expect it be perfect as no meter knows exactly what you are
trying to do. The whole point is to increase the amount of good exposures
when you just don't have time to fine tune the exposure. I have seen a few
people using F5's thinking the matrix was working only to find out much
later that the matrix doesn't work with non-electrical contact lenses. (or
forgetting that the addition of a Tc14b causes the loss of matrix)
The problem is that everyone listens to the promotions , believes it , then
when reality strikes home they start trashing the lens or camera. Its like
the promotions for the EOS 3, they talk about 7fps with the booster, but
they fail to tell you that you have to fork out another $700-800 (Cdn) to
get the NiMh batteries and chargers.
mark
wrote:
>In the English manual on page 130 there is a chart and under non-D AF
>lenses there is a footnote that says "Matrix Metering instead of 3D
>Color Matrix Metering is possible" I don't think the uncertainty that
>seems to come across in that footnote is what they meant.
If it switches to "Matrix metering" instead of "3D color matrix
metering" then how many zones/sectors does it use ?
I.E the F100 uses 10 zones/sectors for its matrix metering,
And the n90,n70 USE 8 zones/sectors.
So how many does the F5 use when using "Matrix metering" And not 3D
color matrix metering (1005 ? 335 ?)
Any answers would be very interesting !
Thank You !!!
Hybwolf
,but without the distance information. That is what the 3D means.Distance.
There seems to be a misunderstanding with the F5 manual. But if you check the
lens compatibility chart on the separate pamphlet that comes with the F5 or the
F5 sales brochure, You will read that with non-D Af lenses, Color Matrix
Metering is used instead of 3D Color Matrix Metering.
Lim Meng Shi
>metering.
There are lenses like the famous 50mm/1.8 AF that has CPU but is
non-D. Then there are manual lenses that don't have CPU and D info.
Only me....
Scott Fairbairn <sfai...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:u7qQ2.21978$134.2...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> I think that is a pretty unrealistic statement to say the RGB meter is
> useless. Just as matrix meters were an improvement over center weighted
> meters, RGB is an improvement over standard matrix meters. It is not
> reasonable to expect it be perfect as no meter knows exactly what you are
> trying to do.
You interpret my post too literally. Obviously it's not "useless". I
mean that it offers no great advantage over Nikons normal 3D matrix
metering. Considering it's aimed squarely at people who should know how to
use a simple CW meter to great effect, I fail to see why it's even there.
It would be better suited to the F50 than the F5. I've sold my F5 in favour
of the F100 now. I never found any great use for RGB metering.
The whole point is to increase the amount of good exposures
> when you just don't have time to fine tune the exposure.
The whole point is that normal matrix will work just fine, and besides,
the people the F5 is aimed at should have time to work manually, and even if
not, the 10 segment Matrix of the F100 is MORE than adequate.
I have seen a few
> people using F5's thinking the matrix was working only to find out much
> later that the matrix doesn't work with non-electrical contact lenses. (or
> forgetting that the addition of a Tc14b causes the loss of matrix)
> The problem is that everyone listens to the promotions , believes it ,
then
> when reality strikes home they start trashing the lens or camera. Its like
> the promotions for the EOS 3, they talk about 7fps with the booster, but
> they fail to tell you that you have to fork out another $700-800 (Cdn) to
> get the NiMh batteries and chargers.
I've been saying this far ages :-) People rush out to buy the best
without thinking. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "Less is more", and
this is very true when it comes to cameras. Unless you need the features of
the F5, an amateur should really be looking at a simpler camera that offers
manual control only. I'll not get into that again though :-)
David.
Scott Fairbairn
> use a simple CW meter to great effect, I fail to see why it's even there.
> It would be better suited to the F50 than the F5. I've sold my F5 in
favour
> of the F100 now. I never found any great use for RGB metering.
I guess the point I am making is that matrix metering works fine in most
situations. When you are in situations that are difficult and you don't have
time to tweak the exposure, color metering may (or may not) save the day.
It is an interesting observation though that as time goes by, the goal seems
to be to turn modern cameras into sophisticated point and shoot cameras.
(hence f5 1005 pixel color matrix, EOS3 21 zone matrix, F00 10 Zone)
With the low end cameras you have the most simplistic metering which you
would need to have a little knowledge to get good exposures when conditions
are difficult.
So the people that should need it the least , get it, the ones who require
it , don't?
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] On 10 Apr 1999 18:18:39 GMT, snapb...@aol.com (SNAPBARRON) wrote:
[]
[] >if you want to have the best metering you will need to get d lenz but the
[] >only time you would need this kind of metering is in very tough lighting
[] >situations if you use the apature priorty setting the 3dmatrix dose not work
[] >anyway and dosent work with the spot meter either all and all you wont notice
[] >that much differance in your work Ihave both d and non d lenzes.
[] ???
[] hhhmmm !!!
[] I think you may be misinformed.
Misinformed and unpuncutated.
----
"Contrary to popular opinion, facts are not established
by popular opinion." - Don Watson, ISPE
..............................................................
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
mark
<sfai...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>
>> You mean the sekonic metered slide looks better than the F5 metered
>> slide? If so, it just goes to show you what I've been saying for a while:
>> RGB meter? Useless, and no less fallible than any other in camera meter.
>> Even the sekonic can be wrong though. Do you spot meter, or use incident
>> readings? I find spotting the darkest, then lightest areas the most
>> accurate
>> way to achieve an average reading.
>>
>
>I think that is a pretty unrealistic statement to say the RGB meter is
>useless. Just as matrix meters were an improvement over center weighted
>meters, RGB is an improvement over standard matrix meters. It is not
>reasonable to expect it be perfect as no meter knows exactly what you are
>trying to do. The whole point is to increase the amount of good exposures
>when you just don't have time to fine tune the exposure. I have seen a few
>people using F5's thinking the matrix was working only to find out much
>later that the matrix doesn't work with non-electrical contact lenses. (or
>forgetting that the addition of a Tc14b causes the loss of matrix)
>The problem is that everyone listens to the promotions , believes it , then
>when reality strikes home they start trashing the lens or camera. Its like
>the promotions for the EOS 3, they talk about 7fps with the booster, but
>they fail to tell you that you have to fork out another $700-800 (Cdn) to
>get the NiMh batteries and chargers.
>
Good point !
Anthony
> It is an interesting observation though that as time goes by, the goal
seems
> to be to turn modern cameras into sophisticated point and shoot cameras.
That's a perfectly logical goal, even for professional photographers.
Let's face it: The essence of photography is not in trying to get a proper
exposure. Proper exposure is requirement imposed by the current methods
used to capture images (light-sensitive film), and will remain a requirement
even with digital cameras. However, it has nothing to do with the art of
photography. The only time a photographer should have to consciously worry
about exposure is when he is trying to obtain a specific effect that is
exposure-dependent (favoring one part of a scene over another, or putting
something in silhouette against a background, or whatever). At all other
times, worrying about exposure is just a waste of time--so why not let the
camera do it?
A photographer needs control over things that are important to the
composition of his image. He needs to be able to point the camera; he needs
to be able to choose where to focus the lens; he needs to be able to adjust
the depth of field; he needs to be able to control exposure insofar as a
general, proper exposure is not satisfactory. He does not need to spend
large amounts of time just trying to get a clean image onto the film--if
that were the case, there'd be no such thing as exposure meters in the first
place, and photographers would walk around with light meters and
calculators.
There is one key feature that all professional cameras must have: You must
be able to switch _anything_ to manual mode. Consumer cameras don't let you
disable the automatic stuff; professional cameras do. Having the automatic
stuff is immensely convenient, for both amateur and professional alike--but
only professionals have a need to be able to turn it all off. So, a camera
like the F5 lets you do everything automatically, and it also lets you do
everything manually, and it also lets you choose any blend of the two. This
is just what pros require.
> So the people that should need it the least , get it, the ones who require
> it , don't?
Everyone needs accurate exposure metering. There are lots of things that
enter into making good photographs, and having to worry about just getting a
decent exposure in the first place is the bane of photographers (or at least
those who are not equipment freaks).
-- Anthony
kai
says...
>Yesterday, a man from Nikon , here in Paris, told me that the 3D COLOR
>MATRIX METERING was totaly compatible with non-D lenses and that there
>was probably an error in the user's guide ! I' m not sure of that !!!!
>
>So where is the truth ??
hmm.. i dont own a F5, but based from my readings, the D stands for distance
(right?) therefore, when using a non-D (non-cpu) lens, you wont be able to get
the distance information needed for your 3D matrix metering.
kai
Anthony
> Yesterday, a man from Nikon , here in Paris, told me that the 3D COLOR
> MATRIX METERING was totaly compatible with non-D lenses and that there
> was probably an error in the user's guide ! I' m not sure of that !!!!
>
> So where is the truth ??
In the user's guide, which contains information from Japan, and not
information from a tiny office in Paris.
My standing rule is: Never believe what the local talent (the local
storefront affiliate of a multinational company) tells you, as they are
usually ill-informed, but eager to appear otherwise. On rare occasions, the
local talent in a really major market (like the U.S.) might have something
resembling a clue, but this is rarely true for smaller markets. Small
subsidiaries usually contain only marketeers, salespeople, and a small group
of technical service people fumbling about in the dark.
The manual says you need a D lens; therefore you should use a D lens, or
change metering modes (although the F5 should force a mode change if it
cannot receive distance data from the lens, anyway).
-- Anthony
dan edwards
Anthony wrote in message <7f1n10$2...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
>Let's face it: The essence of photography is not in trying to get a proper
>exposure.
Something inside me objects to this statement. Perhaps it is that
"photography" = writing with light; the analogy would be penmanship with
writing with ink (or pencil). One may argue (like most modern grade
schools) that penmanship is not important, but in my reading experience good
penmanship by the writer helps me to read faster. Same thing with grammer.
>However, it has nothing to do with the art of
>photography.
Other folks will disagree with this statement. For myself I object
internally, but am having a difficult time putting it into words.
>The only time a photographer should have to consciously worry
>about exposure is when he is trying to obtain a specific effect that is
>exposure-dependent (favoring one part of a scene over another, or putting
>something in silhouette against a background, or whatever).
Hmmm, it seems I almost always try for a "specific" effect. Maybe I'm just
weird...
>and photographers would walk around with light meters and
>calculators.
It seems some of today's photographers do just this.
>Everyone needs accurate exposure metering. There are lots of things that
>enter into making good photographs, and having to worry about just getting
a
>decent exposure in the first place is the bane of photographers (or at
least
>those who are not equipment freaks).
If by "photographer" you mean the folks who need to turn out 100
portraits/day at Walmart, or even the fashion shooter in NY or an AP
reporter, then I guess I would agree with you. However, earlier you
mentioned the "art" of photography. It seems to me you really meant the
"industry" of portraiture or news.
Dan Wells
camera can be left in automatic (I prefer aperture priority) mode more of
the time, allowing the photographer to concentrate on composition and not
falling off the cliff (I do a lot of nature photography). I have tested
the F5s matrix meter against carefully placed spotmeter points, and it is
usually giving almost exactly the exposure I would have spotmetered for
anyway. MUCH better than my FM2n's centerweighted meter (but I don't own a
matrix Nikon apart from my F5). I have used Maxxum 9xis and a few other
"conventional" matrix cameras and the F5 does seem somewhat more accurate
(I don't know if it is the incredible number of segments or the color,
though.)
As for why we don't see color matrix on consumer bodies, I would guess
that the reason is simply PRINT FILM. Only pros and semipros shoot slides
anymore, and any light meter, including a non centerweighted averaging
meter, can get 90% of the exposures within the latitude of print film.
Heck, most serious photographers don't even need a light meter for
prints-just guess, and you'll almost always be within the film's 4 stop
latitude (Kodak MAX actually claims 6 stops!!!) Only slide film, with its
1/2 stop latitude, demands good meters, and most slide film is run through
pro bodies.
-Dan
Anthony
news:7f43s2$s1t$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Something inside me objects to this statement. Perhaps it is that
> "photography" = writing with light; the analogy would be penmanship with
> writing with ink (or pencil). One may argue (like most modern grade
> schools) that penmanship is not important, but in my reading experience
good
> penmanship by the writer helps me to read faster. Same thing
> with grammer.
But exposure is not the equivalent of this. Composing your image, choosing
the focus and depth of field, choosing the _relative_ exposure of parts of
the image are all artistic aspects equivalent to what you describe.
However, just getting an exposure that puts the image cleanly on film is
not.
This is why I have no objection to automated exposure and focus mechanisms,
provided that they are accurate and can be turned off. There is nothing
artistic about just trying to expose the film correctly, nor is there
anything artistic about turning the focus ring yourself (with all the
inaccuracy that is possible there), particularly when a computer in the
camera can do both with much greater speed and accuracy. You still need to
choose what you want to see in focus, of course, and you still need to
select which parts of the image you want properly exposed (if all cannot be
properly exposed at once), but you don't need to go through the dirty work
yourself. That's not art--that's just overhead.
> Other folks will disagree with this statement. For myself I object
> internally, but am having a difficult time putting it into words.
I submit that your object is really just an attraction to equipment.
There are two broad categories of people who buy cameras: those who
photograph, and those who like precise, high-tech gadgets. Many people fall
partially in both categories. The more they fall into the latter category,
the more they will object to anything that interferes with their ability to
play with gadgets. The more they fall into the former category, the less
they will care what equipment they are using, as long as they can compose
their photographs and put them on film.
For me, people who photograph are photographers, and those who drool over
equipment are technicians.
> Hmmm, it seems I almost always try for a "specific" effect.
> Maybe I'm just weird...
Specific _exposure_ effects in every shot? Can you give a few examples?
Apart from playing with depth of field or making sure that the key element
of my composition is correctly exposed, I prefer to leave exposure to the
machine. The advantage of the F5 is that it is extremely good about picking
the correct exposure for the vast majority of situations on its own, so that
you don't have to worry about exposure unless you really want to.
> It seems some of today's photographers do just this.
I know. If technical perfection is required, I can understand it, but if
art is the goal (and if the art does not reside entirely in technical
perfection), I have to wonder about it.
> If by "photographer" you mean the folks who need to turn out 100
> portraits/day at Walmart, or even the fashion shooter in NY or an AP
> reporter, then I guess I would agree with you. However, earlier you
> mentioned the "art" of photography. It seems to me you really meant the
> "industry" of portraiture or news.
Actually, the "industrial" photographers are the ones who seem to worry
about handling exposure themselves the most. Their objective is to produce
a technically precise product, not art. As a result, they concentrate on
the technical details--focus, exposure, etc.--and skip any artistic
interpretation.
The stuff that comes out of portrait mills looks like art, but in fact it's
a mass-produced commodity, originally _designed_ by an artist, but executed
assembly-line style. It always amazes me that these portrait mills assert
copyright on their work, since a machine could do just as well, and machines
can't hold copyrights. Copyright only applies to original, creative works,
and so a copyrightable portrait to me is one that shows some sort of
evidence of originality and creativity.
Anyway, in the portrait mills, everything is always in focus and perfectly
exposed. Does that make it art? I've seen much better portraits that
probably are not perfectly focused from a technical standpoint, or aren't
optimally exposed. They are a lot more interesting, though.
The advantage of automatic stuff on a camera, then, is that it relieves the
artist of the mechanical necessities of creating his art.
-- Anthony
Mr. Photography
> >proper exposure.
>
You shouldn't.
That's how it is with art photography. The more off exposure and off focus
it is - the more art it is.
;-)
Fred Whitlock
an example I'm a Leica owner. Do I need Leicas? Noooooo.
Do I like Leicas? Yesss, indeed. People who know me have
asked when I use a Leica in photographic work. The answer
is never. I use it as a travel camera or a camera to take
with me when I don't necessarily expect to make photographs
because of it's size and weight. I do personal photography
with Leicas. Hell, I just like them and I make great photos
with them. No apologies.
I love Hasselblads too but rarely use them. I find the the
Mamiyas to be more reliable mechanically and electronically
accurate and even optically superior. The hasselblads are
lovely to fondle. I use them whenever a client specifies it
and when I shoot for myself but, if I actually have to make
photos that have an invoice accompanying them, I'd rather
have the Mamiya (or Nikon instead of a Leica.)
I read a post in which a person wasn't able to make their
prints "come out" with an F5. Obviously stronger in camera
lovingness than photography. I have a colleague who still
uses beat up and worn out old Minoltas that he continues to
get repaired over and over again. He just doesn't want to
buy a new one and doesn't care because the old ones bring
home the bacon. I think he'd save money by buying a couple
of new ones. I even took him to the camera store one day to
look at a new X700 to replace at least one of his old ones.
He shrugged it off saying, "my old ones are both working
right now." Obviously more of a photographer than a camera
lover. Some people can be both. Many aren't, of course.
Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Anthony
news:7f4jgb$qtc$2...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net...
> Absolutely right! Some of us, unfortunately, are both.
It's not unfortunate, as long as you realize and recognize the fact. As
long as you are aware of it, you can tell when your gadget-desire is tugging
you in one direction, or when your photographer-desire is tugging you in
another.
> As an example I'm a Leica owner. Do I need Leicas?
> Noooooo. Do I like Leicas? Yesss, indeed.
Well, nobody _needs_ a Leica, but tons of people _like_ them.
That's why I have an F5 (I've always been a SLR and Nikon fan). Do I _need_
an F5? Nope. Do I _like_ the F5. Oh yes. Does it make beautiful
pictures? Yes, it certainly does--so want and need can be reconciled in
many cases. The same is obviously true for a Leica. You don't need it, but
since you want it, and since it does make really beautiful photos, there's
really no conflict.
> People who know me have
> asked when I use a Leica in photographic work. The answer
> is never.
Well, the last work I got _paid_ for was done with my little Kodak digital
camera. It had to be fast, and on the Web the same day. And so it was.
But, of course, the F5 would have been nicer, if circumstances had
permitted.
> I use it as a travel camera or a camera to take
> with me when I don't necessarily expect to make photographs
> because of it's size and weight.
Pretty nice little travel camera you have! Although I'm sure it feels warm
and fuzzy to have a real Leica for your trip photos instead of some junky
little plastic P&S camera.
> I love Hasselblads too but rarely use them.
I've never drifted outside of 35mm. Too much overhead and investment, and
too hard to get the finished results (because of labs and stuff). And I
have no place to put gigantic prints made from razor-sharp medium-format
negatives, anyway.
> The hasselblads are lovely to fondle.
That's always a factor; it's the geek in you drifting forth. An F5 has a
nice heft to it, too. Indeed, all metallic Nikon bodies (and perhaps, to
some extent, all metallic bodies generally) have a good sturdy feel.
> ... or Nikon instead of a Leica.
So why do you prefer the Nikon over the Leica for paid work?
> I read a post in which a person wasn't able to make their
> prints "come out" with an F5.
That seems impossible. There isn't much that you can screw up on an F5. In
full auto you just point and shoot. The only way to mess up exposure,
focus, etc., is to _deliberately_ turn things _off_. How that could happen
accidentally is a mystery to me; I have a hard time remembering how to do it
deliberately!
> Obviously stronger in camera lovingness than photography.
Or perhaps neither of these. A geek would still be able to figure out how
to make a correct exposure with an F5, even if the actual content of the
photo were worthless artistically.
> I have a colleague who still uses beat up and worn
> out old Minoltas that he continues to get repaired
> over and over again. [...] Obviously more of a
> photographer than a camera lover.
Yup. He sounds like the type that might even be superstitious about a new
and unfamiliar camera. I'm sure he takes fine pictures, though.
Even a fifty-year-old box camera can take good pictures in talented hands.
I tell myself that whenever I'm not satisfied with something from the F5:
Whatever went wrong, it sure wasn't the equipment, so that leaves only...
me. Reassuring and disappointing at the same time.
-- Anthony
Only me....
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f1n10$2...@news.dns.microsoft.com....
>
> Let's face it: The essence of photography is not in trying to get a
proper
> exposure.
I see..... Go on?
>Proper exposure is requirement imposed by the current methods
> used to capture images (light-sensitive film), and will remain a
requirement
> even with digital cameras. However, it has nothing to do with the art of
> photography.
So, if I produce under exposed trannies, but the content is still
artful, it's still a valid work of art? I could still sell it?
I think if Ansel Adams were still alive today, he would have a few
choice words for you. You're above sentences just shit upon his entire
life's work ;-) Mastery of exposure and processing is crucial if you are to
produce consistent results, and if you are to be able to translate the image
in your mind onto film successfully. Letting the camera do it for you will
never achieve the same results. If you do that, you're just another point
and shoot user, except you paid a lot more for your camera than the rest of
the crowd around you did.
>The only time a photographer should have to consciously worry
> about exposure is when he is trying to obtain a specific effect that is
> exposure-dependent (favoring one part of a scene over another, or putting
> something in silhouette against a background, or whatever). At all other
> times, worrying about exposure is just a waste of time--so why not let the
> camera do it?
Because the camera is all too often wrong. Only the photographer knows
precisely what he/she wants to achieve, and the camera is just guessing.
These days, they make very good guesses, but they still get it wrong. I was
often disappointed with the results from my F5, and never really trusted the
RGB meter any more than I did the CW or Spot meter.
>
> A photographer needs control over things that are important to the
> composition of his image. He needs to be able to point the camera; he
needs
> to be able to choose where to focus the lens; he needs to be able to
adjust
> the depth of field; he needs to be able to control exposure insofar as a
> general, proper exposure is not satisfactory. He does not need to spend
> large amounts of time just trying to get a clean image onto the film--if
> that were the case, there'd be no such thing as exposure meters in the
first
> place, and photographers would walk around with light meters and
> calculators.
What do you mean by a "clean image"? As for walking around with light
meters: You seem to think that the ones in your camera are different from
the ones you carry. What's the difference between the spot meter in my
F100, and the Pentax spot meter I carry in my bag? They both do the same
job, don't they?
>
> There is one key feature that all professional cameras must have: You
must
> be able to switch _anything_ to manual mode.
You can with even amateur cameras.
>Consumer cameras don't let you
> disable the automatic stuff; professional cameras do.
So, the F60 is a professional camera? You can use that manually.
Having the automatic
> stuff is immensely convenient, for both amateur and professional
alike--but
> only professionals have a need to be able to turn it all off.
There are now thousands of amateurs out there wanting to kill you :-)
Being an amateur doesn't mean your requirement are any less in terms of your
imagery. I'm a pro, but I don't think that makes me any "better" than a
talented amateur. I know many amateurs who's work I envy. They simply
have no desire to be pro, as their quite happy in their chosen career. You
make the mistake of thinking that every amateur wants to be a pro. You're
wrong. So, given that, why is it that I need a pro camera, and my amateur
friends don't? Do amateur all use their cameras on auto, and never use
manual? <laugh>
So, a camera
> like the F5 lets you do everything automatically, and it also lets you do
> everything manually, and it also lets you choose any blend of the two.
This
> is just what pros require.
...and you would know what a pro requires? You seem not to know what
the amateur requires, so if you ARE a professional, did you just miss out
being an amateur first?
> Everyone needs accurate exposure metering.
You've just spent the last few paragraphs telling us that exposure isn't
important.. let me refresh your memory, "Let's face it: The essence of
photography is not in trying to get a proper exposure", or how about,
"However, it has nothing to do with the art of photography." It seems you
don't really know what to think.
There are lots of things that
> enter into making good photographs, and having to worry about just getting
a
> decent exposure in the first place is the bane of photographers (or at
least
> those who are not equipment freaks).
No it's not. I can meter manually, and get correct exposures without
even having to think about it anymore, even with my FM2, or my Bronicas and
incident meters. Perhaps you just need more practice.
David.
mark
>In article <37105f8...@news.club-internet.fr>, cy...@club-internet.fr
>says...
>
>>Yesterday, a man from Nikon , here in Paris, told me that the 3D COLOR
>>MATRIX METERING was totaly compatible with non-D lenses and that there
>>was probably an error in the user's guide ! I' m not sure of that !!!!
>>
>>So where is the truth ??
>
>hmm.. i dont own a F5, but based from my readings, the D stands for distance
>(right?) therefore, when using a non-D (non-cpu) lens, you wont be able to get
>the distance information needed for your 3D matrix metering.
>
>kai
Just because it is not a "D" lens does "NOT" mean it is not a CPU lens
OK !!!
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Of course, and the CPU will deliver information to the camera, but if
it's not a "D" series lens, it cannot send distance information.
Clarification Statement: A non-D lens is compatible with a camera
that has 3D COLOR MATRIX METERING, but you won't get the 3D part pf
the metering, you will only get the COLOR MATRIX METERING part (which
is still pretty valuable). It's up to you to decide of the distance
information will be important in your exposure metering.