Z fc folks: Do you use the ISO Dial?

bobn2 said:

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

Operationally, the Zfc and Df are more like the FA than anything else. With motor drives and data backs. And in a much smaller and lighter packag.

Click to expand...

I can't see that. They aren't so much like the FA. And the Df is certainly not in a smaller and lighter package, it's like an FA on steroids. The Zfc more so, but then it's a half-frame camera, so it's still relatively oversize.

bobn2 said:

The FA was the most advanced of the line and it has a very differently shaped pentaprism.

Click to expand...

Yes, different from either the FE or FM.

bobn2 said:

Yet when I shot with a FE and a FA side by side, I used the FA in Aperture Priority and center weighted metering just like the FE and they operated as if they were the same model.

So the shape of the pentaprism really means little.

Click to expand...

It's a design cue, that was all I was talking about. This is industrial design, it's about form not so much function. And it's significant that Nikon decided to take the design cues of the FM series, not so much the FE or FA when it came to the major difference, that pentaprism housing. There must be a marketing reason, that is it is the FM series that is 'iconic', whether that is rational or not.

bobn2 said:

And they'd have been better off calling the FM3a the FE3.

Click to expand...

They didn't think so. So why did they call it the FM3A? As above, the FM series was the 'iconic' one, and a large reason for that its that it wasn't battery dependent, so it could be put forward as more of a 'pro' tool (before you say it, marketing things as 'pro' is mostly spurious, whichever company does it). The FM3A retained the ability to operate without a battery, though as I remember you only got one shutter speed.

Click to expand...

I'm glad someone else remembers that purely mechanical shutter speed, operative without the battery. I think other bodies may have had that feature as well. Was it the 250x (flash sync speed) that worked without the battery?

bobn2 said:

Still, that made it more 'pro' and 'iconic', so it became an FM. This is all marketing, there doesn't need to be sense to it.

Click to expand...

I used the FM2n for years. It would operate on any shutter speed setting w/o a battery. Self timer worked w/o a battery. The only thing that didn't work was the meter.

The F3 would only work at 1/60th w/o a battery; all other shutter speeds on the F3 required a battery.

capanikon said:

I used the FM2n for years. It would operate on any shutter speed setting w/o a battery. Self timer worked w/o a battery. The only thing that didn't work was the meter.

The F3 would only work at 1/60th w/o a battery; all other shutter speeds on the F3 required a battery.

Click to expand...

Bingo, that's it, thanks. I still have my F3, which I originally purchased along with the 55 micro lens. I loved that the F3 had the high eyepoint finder and mirror lockup. I shot a ton of Kodachrome 25, and every shot was a long exposure almost.

Hi,

Sounds like you never used a FA with a MD15 then. I have such and the Df right here. The FA is huge and heavy with that MD15 on it. Even before you put all those AA batteries in. And you don't get continuous shooting without the MD15. You do with the Df.

Add the Data Back to the FA and now it sticks out the rear like the digital control part of the Df. I have that here as well. A legal requirement for the main use I had for the FA. Photos had to have the date and time on each frame.

And the FA gave you shutter priority and program mode while no other camera of the type did. So, again, the Df is more like the FA than the FM. Not just M and A modes.

And the FE and FE2 had electronic shutter speed same as the FM3a and only offered one mechanical shutter speed without the battery power. Hence why I call the FM3a the FE3.

Stan

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

Sounds like you never used a FA with a MD15 then. I have such and the Df right here. The FA is huge and heavy with that MD15 on it. Even before you put all those AA batteries in. And you don't get continuous shooting without the MD15. You do with the Df.

Click to expand...

OK, so you were referring to the camera with the motor drive attached. I missed that.

Stan Disbrow said:

And the FE and FE2 had electronic shutter speed same as the FM3a and only offered one mechanical shutter speed without the battery power. Hence why I call the FM3a the FE3.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Nikon chose to call it the 'FM3A' (not FM3a) and to style it as a member of the FM line. The reason being, as I said earlier, that the FM line achieved 'iconic' status whilst the FE line didn't. You might not think that's just, but 'iconic' status rarely is. As I said, I think it was a combination of the FM line's more distinctive styling (maybe subtle, but the pentaprism bump is the most noticeable part of an SLR) and the fact that it had a more 'pro' reputation, at a time when professions apparently demanded full mechanical operation.

I think you're not unjustified in saying that the camera itself was more an FE than an FM, but Nikon made the decision to market it otherwise.

Hi,

I recall the FE being out prior to the FM for the first series. And they looked alike. The FE had no model on the front but they added the FM moniker on the front when that came out to make it easy to differentiate it from the FE. Otherwise, one would have to look at the shutter speed dial to spot the Auto setting on the FE - or lack of on the FM.

What set the FM apart from the FE in the first and second series was that it could shoot manual shutter speeds at any dial setting *without having batteries in the camera*. The FM batteries were only for the internal meter.

Can the FM3a use all the shutter speeds on the dial sans batteries? I never bought one so I don't know for sure. But I think it only gives one mechanical shutter speed like my FE does.

If it can use all the shutter speeds without battery power, then it is an FM3 with automatic shutter speed capability. If it can't, then it truly was an FE3a.

Not that it matters these days. They are all old now....

Stan

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

I recall the FE being out prior to the FM for the first series. And they looked alike. The FE had no model on the front but they added the FM moniker on the front when that came out to make it easy to differentiate it from the FE. Otherwise, one would have to look at the shutter speed dial to spot the Auto setting on the FE - or lack of on the FM.

Click to expand...

No. Sure the FM came out in 1977 and the FE in 1978 but glad to be proving wrong.

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

I recall the FE being out prior to the FM for the first series. And they looked alike. The FE had no model on the front but they added the FM moniker on the front when that came out to make it easy to differentiate it from the FE. Otherwise, one would have to look at the shutter speed dial to spot the Auto setting on the FE - or lack of on the FM.

Click to expand...

I remember the FE being first as you do, but doing some research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FE) shows that the FM was first. Maybe they were released in a different order in different markets. Doing a Google image search shows that neither the FE nor the FM had large identifier labels on the front - at the time that wasn't Nikon's style, the model identifiers were small and up at the back of the top plate. The big labels came with the FM2 and FE2. Still, as I said they could be identified by the different pentaprism shapes, and it was the FM shape that was carried forwards.

Stan Disbrow said:

What set the FM apart from the FE in the first and second series was that it could shoot manual shutter speeds at any dial setting *without having batteries in the camera*. The FM batteries were only for the internal meter.

Click to expand...

I remember when the FM3A came out Nikon publicity went on about a special hybrid shutter. Again, doing some research from the quickest available source shows that 1 - 1/4000 s were available without batteries. between 8 and 2 s were electronic only.

Stan Disbrow said:

Can the FM3a use all the shutter speeds on the dial sans batteries? I never bought one so I don't know for sure. But I think it only gives one mechanical shutter speed like my FE does.

Click to expand...

Yes it does. As has been said, it's really an FE3, but Nikon marketed it as an FM3 (with an 'A' for 'automatic')

Stan Disbrow said:

If it can use all the shutter speeds without battery power, then it is an FM3 with automatic shutter speed capability. If it can't, then it truly was an FE3a.

Click to expand...

The truth is in between. It can use all of the speeds available on the FM2 without batteries but the longer exposure times available on the FE's electronic shutter need a battery. As for the name, It's Nikon that gets to determine that, so it is an FM3A, whether or not anyone else likes that.

Stan Disbrow said:

Not that it matters these days. They are all old now....

Click to expand...

But the style lives on in the Z fc, which looking at all these pictures is a much better styling effort that the Df.

michaeladawson said:

I have used auto-ISO from time to time. More often than not it puts the camera into a higher ISO setting then necessary. Or should I say higher than what I want for the resulting brightness of the image. As I result, I only use auto-ISO now when I am being totally lazy about my settings.

Click to expand...

Very easy to rectify. When this happens to me, I change to Manual and choose a lower shutter speed than the Auto setting chooses (which is normally 1/focal length. Only the older Nikons had a fixed base shutter speed choice for Auto ISO, and I use the Automatic setting with current Nikon cameras and it works very well for me. Plus I can reliably shoot up to ISO 3200 or so with my Z6ii and Zfc and get superb image quality.

bobn2 said:

FingerPainter said:

capanikon said:

I did a test of manual vs. auto ISO this morning with my D3300 and 18-55mm and recomposition. Matrix metering.

Top row shows manual exposure with auto ISO.

Bottom row shows manual exposure with manual ISO.

Images are jpegs straight out of camera (though resized smaller and arranged in this nifty layout in Gimp).



Try this test yourself!

Click to expand...

And you used matrix metering with no change in EC, right?

Camera is behaving as expected.

Incident light on the side of the book facing the camera is about the same in both shots. Metering solution has changed because the two backgrounds are radically different.

Click to expand...

The metered illuminance should be the same for the two right hand shots, of the meter has been properly centred in the Auto ISO version. Strangely the matrix metering seems to have decided that the main subject is different for the two shots. In the auto ISO version it's gone for the window, in the manual for the book.

Click to expand...

I've never seen matrix metering on a Nikon behave different using Auto ISO vs. a fixed ISO setting. But the right image is clearly going to be under if you don't account for the window light coming in. Using auto ISO that's accomplished with an easy spin of the EV adjustment wheel, probably a +1 or +1.5, done!

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

I recall the FE being out prior to the FM for the first series. And they looked alike. The FE had no model on the front but they added the FM moniker on the front when that came out to make it easy to differentiate it from the FE. Otherwise, one would have to look at the shutter speed dial to spot the Auto setting on the FE - or lack of on the FM.

Click to expand...

Actually the FM had no model designation on the front, instead, early iterations had 'FM' on the back before the serial number. It wasn't until the FM2 and FE2 that the model name was on the front of the camera body.

camerosity said:

michaeladawson said:

I have used auto-ISO from time to time. More often than not it puts the camera into a higher ISO setting then necessary. Or should I say higher than what I want for the resulting brightness of the image. As I result, I only use auto-ISO now when I am being totally lazy about my settings.

Click to expand...

Very easy to rectify. When this happens to me, I change to Manual and choose a lower shutter speed than the Auto setting chooses (which is normally 1/focal length. Only the older Nikons had a fixed base shutter speed choice for Auto ISO, and I use the Automatic setting with current Nikon cameras and it works very well for me. Plus I can reliably shoot up to ISO 3200 or so with my Z6ii and Zfc and get superb image quality.

Click to expand...

Yes. I know how to operate my camera. What I'm saying is that I stay in control of my camera and I know what it is doing. Which is why I say that I often don't like the auto choices the camera makes. Most of the time I'll stick to manual ISO control. Given the ISO invariance of today's sensors it's not a huge deal if the image is underexposed by some amount.

The beauty of all the options on a modern camera is we can all choose to use them how we wish. My choice is to only use auto-ISO in specific situations.

michaeladawson said:

camerosity said:

michaeladawson said:

I have used auto-ISO from time to time. More often than not it puts the camera into a higher ISO setting then necessary. Or should I say higher than what I want for the resulting brightness of the image. As I result, I only use auto-ISO now when I am being totally lazy about my settings.

Click to expand...

Very easy to rectify. When this happens to me, I change to Manual and choose a lower shutter speed than the Auto setting chooses (which is normally 1/focal length. Only the older Nikons had a fixed base shutter speed choice for Auto ISO, and I use the Automatic setting with current Nikon cameras and it works very well for me. Plus I can reliably shoot up to ISO 3200 or so with my Z6ii and Zfc and get superb image quality.

Click to expand...

Yes. I know how to operate my camera. What I'm saying is that I stay in control of my camera and I know what it is doing. Which is why I say that I often don't like the auto choices the camera makes. Most of the time I'll stick to manual ISO control. Given the ISO invariance of today's sensors it's not a huge deal if the image is underexposed by some amount.

Click to expand...

And I also stay in control of my camera. Not sure why you implied using Auto ISO loses control of the camera. Very odd thought. When in doubt, a multi-exposure bracket can capture all the shadow and highlight values I need anyway if I'm wanting that result.

The problem with bracketing or autobracketing is it doesn't work for action shots. It only works for more stationary subjects.

With an action shot, like sports or street photography of people doing things or whatnot you only get one unique exposure per frame so you want that exposure to be good. You could bracket but then the frame with the best action might also be the frame that's overexposed or underexposed depending on your bracketing setting at the time of that exposure.

Using manual mode with auto Iso and then using exposure compensation to compensate for the bright window example shot is just a lot of work.

camerosity said:

Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

I recall the FE being out prior to the FM for the first series. And they looked alike. The FE had no model on the front but they added the FM moniker on the front when that came out to make it easy to differentiate it from the FE. Otherwise, one would have to look at the shutter speed dial to spot the Auto setting on the FE - or lack of on the FM.

Click to expand...

Actually the FM had no model designation on the front, instead, early iterations had 'FM' on the back before the serial number. It wasn't until the FM2 and FE2 that the model name was on the front of the camera body.

Click to expand...

The FE's front "trapezoid", the plate on the pentaprism where "Nikon" is printed, was shorter (lower height) than for the FM. I used to look at the spot the moment I saw a camera that could be the FE or the FM, and I felt camaraderie with the people whose front plate indicated they had my same camera model, an FM. It was my very first SLR.

camerosity said:

bobn2 said:

FingerPainter said:

capanikon said:

I did a test of manual vs. auto ISO this morning with my D3300 and 18-55mm and recomposition. Matrix metering.

Top row shows manual exposure with auto ISO.

Bottom row shows manual exposure with manual ISO.

Images are jpegs straight out of camera (though resized smaller and arranged in this nifty layout in Gimp).



Try this test yourself!

Click to expand...

And you used matrix metering with no change in EC, right?

Camera is behaving as expected.

Incident light on the side of the book facing the camera is about the same in both shots. Metering solution has changed because the two backgrounds are radically different.

Click to expand...

The metered illuminance should be the same for the two right hand shots, of the meter has been properly centred in the Auto ISO version. Strangely the matrix metering seems to have decided that the main subject is different for the two shots. In the auto ISO version it's gone for the window, in the manual for the book.

Click to expand...

I've never seen matrix metering on a Nikon behave different using Auto ISO vs. a fixed ISO setting. But the right image is clearly going to be under if you don't account for the window light coming in. Using auto ISO that's accomplished with an easy spin of the EV adjustment wheel, probably a +1 or +1.5, done!

Click to expand...

I agree. Anyhow, we learned that this has nothing to do with matrix metering. He applied an ISO 'correction' in his manual ISO shot and as you point out, could have done so with the auto ISO version using the EC control. The advantage of auto ISO is that it gets it (about) right most of the time without user intervention.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

camerosity said:

michaeladawson said:

camerosity said:

michaeladawson said:

I have used auto-ISO from time to time. More often than not it puts the camera into a higher ISO setting then necessary. Or should I say higher than what I want for the resulting brightness of the image. As I result, I only use auto-ISO now when I am being totally lazy about my settings.

Click to expand...

Very easy to rectify. When this happens to me, I change to Manual and choose a lower shutter speed than the Auto setting chooses (which is normally 1/focal length. Only the older Nikons had a fixed base shutter speed choice for Auto ISO, and I use the Automatic setting with current Nikon cameras and it works very well for me. Plus I can reliably shoot up to ISO 3200 or so with my Z6ii and Zfc and get superb image quality.

Click to expand...

Yes. I know how to operate my camera. What I'm saying is that I stay in control of my camera and I know what it is doing. Which is why I say that I often don't like the auto choices the camera makes. Most of the time I'll stick to manual ISO control. Given the ISO invariance of today's sensors it's not a huge deal if the image is underexposed by some amount.

Click to expand...

And I also stay in control of my camera. Not sure why you implied using Auto ISO loses control of the camera. Very odd thought. When in doubt, a multi-exposure bracket can capture all the shadow and highlight values I need anyway if I'm wanting that result.

Click to expand...

Especially, as discussed elsewhere in thins thread, if you want to vary the ISO from how the camera has set it the EC control on a Nikon does that. Not all brands do, for some reason some auto ISO implementations don't allow EC.

Old Ed said:

Hi,

I enjoy my Z fc a lot, and I'd buy it again for sure.

However, it does have issues. One is the ISO dial, which seems like an outright design blunder.

Yes, it's pretty. But beauty is as beauty does, and I've found no useful application for it.
If you've found a useful application for yours, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Happy shooting,

OE

Click to expand...

What an odd statement, ISO is part of the exposure triangle. Of course it’s extremely useful to have the dial on the body.

thisisbenji said:

Old Ed said:

Hi,

I enjoy my Z fc a lot, and I'd buy it again for sure.

However, it does have issues. One is the ISO dial, which seems like an outright design blunder.

Yes, it's pretty. But beauty is as beauty does, and I've found no useful application for it.
If you've found a useful application for yours, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Happy shooting,

OE

Click to expand...

What an odd statement, ISO is part of the exposure triangle.

Click to expand...

What is the relevance of something being part of an unuseful and misleading infographic?

Hi,

Ah. Thanks. I never paid attention to the FM3a. If it can fire more than one shutter speed from the dial sans batteries, I can see why they called it what they did.

I bought my FE in 79 and it was in the store alongside the F2AS. Both using AI lenses and having the pop open AI tab. There may have been FM units sans the FM on the front and I'd have not noticed they were different. And it was the FE I was interested in so there was little point in the store pointing the FM out.

I just recall that the FM sported the front model moniker after I already owned the FE. So that would make me think it came out later. I was buying up a used F2 Photomic kit at the time, a year later.

Then I figured out which of all those lenses I wanted to keep and bought up the relevant AI replacement aperture rings. Most are still around.

Stan