Thom's remark on limits of MM and luminosity

Backsideup -- You are definitly stirring the pot just to cause trouble and drama. Even comment you exaggerate and hype to the max.

As I said, you don't even have the camera in question, don't use it, and don't ever say you are interested in acquiring it. So bugger off and leave us interested owners alone to discuss a topic of interest and concern to a number of folks, including reviewers.

Graystar said:

Steve Bingham said:

"Nonetheless, it’s a Matrix limitation, even in M mode."

Says who? I certainly don't read it that way and, shooting Aperture or Shutter priority, I have yet to blow an exposure since October. And yes, I use Matrix Metering most the time - along with raw. This would be a HUGE mistake on Nikon's part - and totally illogical. 16.3EV limitation on a 20 EV system? Nonsense.

However, if you have "evidence" to the contrary I will certainly be willing to change my mind.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is test it yourself.

Click to expand...

But of course I did! Is that the sum of your evidence?

So if I pick f8 in Aperture priority are you saying that the camera will not pick an appropriate shutter speed for a really bright scene, but will stop short and be a little over exposed? Mine doesn't. That would truly be a bizarre and senseless camera design.

Graystar said:

.

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

I think it has something to do with the mapping of the matrix. The 16.33 EV has to do with the middle value in the scene. You still need higher values in the matrix to measure the highlights.

Put another way, if the maximum value were not limited below the maximum you would not have light measurement inputs from the highlight portions of the picture. The whole point of the matrix is to measure the brightest and darkest parts of the scene and to assign an overall weight. That overall has to be set below the maximum of the meter EV scale or it cannot map the brighter portions.

I don't think it serious or new. There is not a long string of complaints about not being able to use matrix metering in bright conditions. And there are the other metering modes.

Thaddius Danton said:

My personal experience is that in bright conditions like summer in Australia the matrix meter gives up and runs away and overexposes the bejesus out of everything. MM is good for indoors and lower light situations.

A real shame. The solution so far is to use centre weighted. Much more realiable and consistent.

My experience is that with the pentax k5 it underexposes ( consistently) in matrix and 450 canon is usually spot on in bright conditions but not very consistent in low light (which the d7000 gets everytime and the k5 sometimes)

Click to expand...

I've used a 450d quite a bit and I find it overexposes a bit (not loads) for more contrasty scenes. The previous one the 400d was a bit under (probably better)

My question to Nikon is just this..why can't they just use the D200 metering? lol Honestly it seems pretty good to me at least for bright scenes.

Pentax tend to be a bit under as are Sony in general. I do think it's best to be a bit more cautious esp for low ISO contrasty scenes.

Quite a few cameras don't do very well in very low light for metering (at least the non high end ones)

binary -- "Actually, I was asking an honest question. You've claimed in multiple posts that the D7000 has a tendency to overexpose with matrix. Yet you do a casual test, and the D7000 shots are better exposed than the 1Ds shots. Basically, I'm asking what you were attempting to accomplish by posting your results."

I apologize, the hyperbole has been getting a bit thick around here, and I took your remark as a joke.

The Nikon shots were more consistent exposure between the two, regardless whether the center AF point was on the brighter palm or the darker cypress. This was in response to someone's remark about their feeling the D7000 AF point was tied to exposure, or a main influence on exposure. It isn't according to my photos there. The metering was reduced by Exp Comp to darken the imaged toward "normal", as setting I kept in throughout the shots I took for the shooting that day.

The Canon shots show a marked influence of the metering being tied directly to the AF point when focused on the same subjects as the Nikon was. That's all -- no statement intended on the MM discusson. This just a clarification on the side comment brought up about AF points and exposure tie-in.

Like you, I'm not brand loyal. I like what gets the job done. I also like to try new things to stay current on brands and technology, as money allows. I still think the D7000 has great potential for me, and I'm happy for other owners that aren't having any difficulties. That's how it should be.

Steve Bingham said:

Graystar said:

All you have to do is test it yourself.

Click to expand...

But of course I did! Is that the sum of your evidence?

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Test it again...this time, correctly. If it still seems to work then take it up with Thom Hogan...he's the one who raised this point.

.

Swedish -- It may be that there is a specific defect in your camera, and mine too.

I take what people say here at face value regarding the results they are getting. If people say they are not having a problem, I believe them, even if that puts me in the minority. I'm not going to try to convince them they have a problem when they don't.

But there is no denying there are a few of us that seem to have uncommon problems with exposure, and I accept those (like you) who are not getting the results they hoped for, or are used to getting with other bodies.

I don't advise switching brands. It seems better to either submit to Nikon for adjustment (that sounds painful in that phrase!), or perhaps exchange at point of purchase. Your odds must be pretty good for a fix either way, with the majority of owners expressing satisfaction.

So, using Aperture mode you shoot a very bright scene, are you saying your D7000 picks a shutter speed that over exposes by 1 stop? If in raw, you would certainly see this before converting to a tiff. I have yet to see this with my camera and if I do it will go back to Nikon! I wonder if some nonsense default setting is doing this? I mean, why would a camera with an EV meter of 20 not be able to handle a bright scene. This simply makes no sense. I would also want to take a careful look at the lens I am using - just for grins. Sticky aperture? Poor contacts?

Shooting a typical beach scene (bright sand and sky) I can easily see ISO 100 producing f8 at 1/800, maybe even f8 at 1/1200. Why on earth would the Nikon give you 1/400 (1 stop over)???????

In any case, mine is behaving.

Gunzorro said:

Steve -- I've been shooting the majority of my tests in Aperture mode and RAW. Occasionally I'll shift to Manual. Very rarely S, and so far never P.

I have used Bulb on several twilight shots, but that's really Manual.

Outside of novices using P, perhaps mine has a failure or out of adjustment. Perhaps a few other owners are experiencing the same. I can't speak for anyone else.

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

Gunzorro said:

binary -- "Actually, I was asking an honest question. You've claimed in multiple posts that the D7000 has a tendency to overexpose with matrix. Yet you do a casual test, and the D7000 shots are better exposed than the 1Ds shots. Basically, I'm asking what you were attempting to accomplish by posting your results."

I apologize, the hyperbole has been getting a bit thick around here, and I took your remark as a joke.

The Nikon shots were more consistent exposure between the two, regardless whether the center AF point was on the brighter palm or the darker cypress. This was in response to someone's remark about their feeling the D7000 AF point was tied to exposure, or a main influence on exposure. It isn't according to my photos there.

Click to expand...

The problem with you, and your photos, is that you do not quite understand what you are doing, or so it seems from everything you posted here.

Oops, I promised Renato not to post here, unless you come up with something meaningful. My bad. Please disregard this post.

Gunzorro said:

Swedish -- It may be that there is a specific defect in your camera, and mine too.

Click to expand...

Yes guys!
Zorro, I am so proud of you! You finally nailed it!

Frankly I suspected this to be the case long ago, and this is why I suggested you should pool your resources!
But please take it off-line.

Jason -- The original point I was presenting this to describe had to do with whether the central/single AF point had an undue influence over the exposure, in effect overriding the Matrix's calculation of various zones. My shots show clearly that was not the case, or else it would have looked more like the Canon, which was very strongly influenced by the center AF point being placed on the dark cypress.

Your observation is undoubtedly correct - that the bright patch had a direct influence on the Nikon Matrix metering. This again more info that the Nikon is not center AF dominant in metering.

It really has very little to do with MM, and more to do with how these two models handle the single AF point and whether it has a weighted exposure influence.

I didn't mean for it to seem like a big sweeping statement. I just needed two sets to show the effect in that scene.

win39 said:

I think it has something to do with the mapping of the matrix. The 16.33 EV has to do with the middle value in the scene. You still need higher values in the matrix to measure the highlights.

Put another way, if the maximum value were not limited below the maximum you would not have light measurement inputs from the highlight portions of the picture. The whole point of the matrix is to measure the brightest and darkest parts of the scene and to assign an overall weight. That overall has to be set below the maximum of the meter EV scale or it cannot map the brighter portions.

Click to expand...

I'd buy that.

.

ott -- We may not be the only two. There have been a few more at least on this thread. And it's been mentioned in reviews. So, I expect there are more cases, even if not anything that is a huge percentage. What percentage would be acceptable? 5%, 10%, 20%? It seems to be more than a few percent, so it must be of relatively broad interest.

Stricktly rhetorical, but if my sensor is bad or out of adjustment, and so is ill's, and Swedish's, and DPR's, and Cameralabs', when does it get to be enough for discussion? I suppose it is possible (but unlikely) that we were the only ones affected somewhat lighter exposure than expected, or some other erratic MM condition. It's a wide dispersion area too -- I'm in L.A., Cameralabs in NZ, DPR now in Seattle, Swedish in . . . Sweden? I don't know where the others are, but it wasn't one bad batch that landed at a Best Buy in Omaha, Nebraska.

Steve -- I wouldn't call these overly bright scenes. The one I shot with the 24/2AIS would be metering a typical sunny day exposure EV around 13.0 for Zone V. Not anything odd. Just a nice sunny day in a park setting.

The others shown were 18-105, in a shaded backyard with "bright" pre-sunset sky and bounced light off buildings and things.

And it hasn't been restricted to these two lenses -- that was my thought too. I've had apertures stick or other mechanical problems in the past -- it happens. I've had 4x5 lenses need repair. But that wasn't the issue here.

I do appreciate everyone's interest in discussing this and trying to narrow down the variables. I don't rule out operator error, overlooked settings, or sensor malfunction. But from comments I've read, and bits taken from reviews (Thom's review and experience can't be dismissed), it seems to be something of an unintended consequence of the design strategy going back to metering innovations introduced around the time of the D3/ D300. That, or less likely, electronic failure of the metering sensors.

illdefined said:

wrong person. please find where I've compared Nikon's metering accuracy to Canon or Pentax.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you appear to be joined at the hip like a support group or something

illdefined said:

I'd just like it to be acknowledged. By Nikon and brand zealots (thankfully, not many of you) who brush off any Nikon criticisms by attacking the user and their skills.

Click to expand...

Well that sounds like you want 15 minutes of fame for discovering a problem that doesn't appear to be what you are demanding Nikon acknowledge. Do you want them to come to your house and apologize?

illdefined said:

I do not know the other poster, he speaks for himself. I do know my way around this problem, but feel personally bad for the people I've recommended this otherwise great camera to. I will make sure to send them a copy of Hogan's guide ASAP, which seems to be your answer for everything.

Click to expand...

Tell them you're sorry and help them to return the camera. It is your mistake, after all, if you recommended a camera prematurely, even by your own admission. Why are you angry at someone else for that? I wouldn't tell someone this is the camera to buy if I had not used it. I will recommend several other Nikon bodies and stand by the recommendation without reservation. But not this one, not yet. And yeah, I lean on Hogan's knowledge because I have come to trust his intentions and his expertise over the years. In fact, I recommend him without reservation.

illdefined said:

apparently, "good" info is only info that doesn't acknowledge any weaknesses, because you dismiss anything that does.

Click to expand...

No, I want info from someone that is thorough. I particularly like Nikon experts for good reason. I'm not going to use anything but Nikon - period. They have never let me down. They've given me years of pleasure and 65 or 70 cents for my piggy bank. I want info from someone who knows what they are talking about. They use to have one here.

illdefined said:

also note that the various threads about metering have been started by others. just because the problem doesn't effect you doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Click to expand...

but not pushed to the shrill level you have achieved. And is it really a problem, or is it just an idiosyncrasy? All the Nikons I have ever used had those. It is actually one of my favorite things about them, and that probably goes for a few other people as well.

You seem a serious person. If you don't mind, please tell me what you are seeing without all the slurs about Nikon camera design. I'm loyal to them for one reason, they have always delivered, and I simply don't trust anything else. If that makes me a fan boy, so be it.

But If I can find out something from you pertaining to the camera I'm interested in, I would appreciate it. I have it on order, and I already know how to return it, but at this point I doubt seriously I will. I do know I will probably sell it when the D400 comes out, but for this nesting season in southern Louisiana I'm going to give it a go. I do have a fall back.

So what kind of scenes are metering wrong? Is it more highlight related or shadow related? If you can give me specifics I can know what I need to adjust for. What adjustments, I don't know yet, whether it be compensation or another metering mode. But I would appreciate a measured sensible response, and I will answer any question you might have for me in the same manner. And if you have any comments about focus tracking, I listening.

And I honestly don't care if Nikon does a firmware change because I will just go through the same exercise again. It's the part I enjoy because I get it wrong more than I get it right. Kinda like a crossword you can never quite finish.

I'll let you write what you wish without comment for people looking at this thing a different way.

[redacted]

Gunzorro said:

ott -- We may not be the only two.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are not. There must be many of you. Not everybody as vocal, but no question more than two.

Gunzorro said:

I suppose it is possible (but unlikely) that we were the only ones affected somewhat lighter exposure than expected, or some other erratic MM condition. It's a wide dispersion area too -- I'm in L.A., Cameralabs in NZ, DPR now in Seattle, Swedish in . . . Sweden?

Click to expand...

Good point. Maybe you should contact Roman Enterprises? They seem to be offering exactly what you need: a kit which would allow you to compensate for your different coordinates.

Gunzorro said:

I don't know where the others are, but it wasn't one bad batch that landed at a Best Buy in Omaha, Nebraska.

Click to expand...

I see your point. Well, my interest in this camera stems from the fact, that it is possibly a game changer - there is so much new about it, that it would be interesting to see, how the actual users see it. Your input here is just noise.

I did try to bring your attention to the relevant part of Thom Hogan's review, but you clearly ignored my previous efforts. Let me try again, this time I am going to quote an excerpt from his review for you:

"But the real issue here is that we've got a lot of people buying into very sophisticated equipment--and the D7000 is extremely sophisticated--and expecting magic "just set to auto and shoot" results. If you're thinking about the D7000 as your camera, expect to spend some time learning it, mastering it, and setting it appropriately for what you're trying to do at any time."

Think about it for a sec.
HTH

I agree, I had the D70& the metering was never anything to brag about....

Except for testing to get all my lenses properly tuned with the D7000, I don't have any issues with AF-S, Av mode and matrix metering and all I've been doing is real shooting. It's also been fine AF-C with expanded 9 points for action. I dial between -.03 to -1 EV depending on how I want the scene recorded. I couldn't do that if my meter wasn't very consistent. When shooting what I know will be real difficult, like stage lighting, I switch to manual mode with spot metering. Anyway, I don't find MM in Av mode inconsistent at all. I would think about sending it in if yours truly is having problems.

Gunzorro said:

Steve -- I've been shooting the majority of my tests in Aperture mode and RAW. Occasionally I'll shift to Manual. Very rarely S, and so far never P.

I have used Bulb on several twilight shots, but that's really Manual.

Outside of novices using P, perhaps mine has a failure or out of adjustment. Perhaps a few other owners are experiencing the same. I can't speak for anyone else.

Click to expand...

--
Best Regards,
"See the Light"
photography by Christian Kuiphoff
http://kuiphoff.smugmug.com/
http://www.ckuiphoff.com
http://www.facebook.com/ckuiphoff