Why do Nikon mirrorless show exposure meter (with auto ISO) but Sonys do not?

Cameranoobie said:

...

I never knew that just because my photos are taken with the exposure meter right at 0.0 doesnt mean that it's always properly exposed.

Click to expand...

ishwanu said:

.....

Some people use a different technique called expose to the right in order to capture as much useful light as possible. They like to see the histogram always pushed to the right side, but not letting anything go beyond. That might produce a result that looks too bright, but it will have the minimum noise and can be darkened later when processing the RAW file.

Click to expand...

Bill Ferris said:

Cameranoobie said:

I never knew that just because my photos are taken with the exposure meter right at 0.0 doesnt mean that it's always properly exposed. So in other words for majority of the shots taken (excluding really dark or really bright ones intentionally shot for that artistic look) if my histogram is slightly off to the left or right, it doesn't mean that my photo wasn't properly exposed. Correct?

Click to expand...

Correct. The histogram and in-camera meter are indicators of image lightness; not exposure.

If you're photographing a winter landscape with a large snow-covered field in manual exposure plus auto ISO, you'll want an EC in the +1 to +2 range to force the camera to produce a photo that looks bright white without the details on the field being blown out.

By contrast, if you're photographing a dark city street at night, you may want to dial in an EC of -1 to -2 to force the camera to choose an ISO to render the scene with a natural darkness.

Every scene has a tonal appearance to the eye. It could be light, dark or something in-between. If the camera is in a semi-auto mode, use EC to guide the camera in its choice of settings. Make the scene look good to you.

Bill Ferris said:

So basically while viewing the histogram, get the reading as close as possible to the centre while judging on screen what you think looks the best. Correct? Excluding shots that are intentionally shot really dark or really bright of course.

Click to expand...

I use the histogram to confirm that I'm not blowing out highlights or crushing blacks. I rely mostly on the EVF display. If the scene looks good to me, that's what matters.

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

Cameranoobie said:

tbcass said:

Cameranoobie said:

A74Me said:

I dont understand your problem, on my a7iv in caf with my shutter half pressed panning the camera my iso floats around in auto iso.

Click to expand...

But your exposure meter won't show on the screen, it will only show exposure compensation with auto ISO.

Click to expand...

I use the histogram which is 100% more useful than an exposure reading which really doesn't tell you much. Hardly anybody makes use of the exposure meter any more. Even exposure compensation is more useful. Since this is the first time I've read this complaint apparently most on DPR agree with me. I suspect the only time an exposure meter is useful is in manual mode.

My question is why does Nikon bother showing the exposure meter in auto ISO?

Click to expand...

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

To be honest I rely on the WYSIWYG feature of the EVF combined with the histogram and have no use for the exposure meter because the histogram works very well for me. The histogram is more accurate and useful than a simple exposure meter which doesn't really tell you anything other than suggesting a generic "proper" exposure.

Click to expand...

ishwanu said:

Cameranoobie said:

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

With either an exposure meter or a histogram, you have to be able to understand the content of the scene and relate it to what the display shows you in order to predict what the result will be. A scene in which the exposure meter is zeroed might easily turn out underexposed or overexposed. Interpreting a histogram only takes a little more study and practice than interpreting an exposure meter reading.

Simply speaking, a histogram is an exposure meter on steroids.

Click to expand...

Dem Bell said:

Cameranoobie said:

...

I never knew that just because my photos are taken with the exposure meter right at 0.0 doesnt mean that it's always properly exposed.

Click to expand...

Try articulating what "properly exposed" means and you will see that it has nothing to do with zeroing the "exposure meter".

Fun fact. If you change metering mode, your meter might zero at different exposure settings. Try switching to "spot metering" and pointing the camera at a chess board, as an extreme example.

Click to expand...

BertIverson2 said:

ishwanu said:

.....

Some people use a different technique called expose to the right in order to capture as much useful light as possible. They like to see the histogram always pushed to the right side, but not letting anything go beyond. That might produce a result that looks too bright, but it will have the minimum noise and can be darkened later when processing the RAW file.

Click to expand...

I use a simplified ETR. I have a monetary button programmed that chooses highlight metering and chooses +1EV. Obviously shooting raw. I use it mostly to preserve cloud details and blue skies.

I also have 3 setup memories which are set up for many scenes:
(1) Very poor light: min SS 1/30, Auto ISO, f4
(2) Normal daylight shooting: min SS 1/125, Auto ISO , f4
(3) Extreme tele and fast moving subject (<=600mm) min SS 1/1000, Auto ISO, f4

Shooting raw these days with AI NR, I do not think about exposure these days.
BTW 1 inch sensor.

Bert

Click to expand...

Cameranoobie said:

ishwanu said:

Cameranoobie said:

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

With either an exposure meter or a histogram, you have to be able to understand the content of the scene and relate it to what the display shows you in order to predict what the result will be. A scene in which the exposure meter is zeroed might easily turn out underexposed or overexposed. Interpreting a histogram only takes a little more study and practice than interpreting an exposure meter reading.

Simply speaking, a histogram is an exposure meter on steroids.

Click to expand...

Good way of describing it. I can see how a histogram is useful now. I always thought exposure meters were dead on accurate.

Click to expand...

Cameranoobie said:

ishwanu said:

Cameranoobie said:

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

With either an exposure meter or a histogram, you have to be able to understand the content of the scene and relate it to what the display shows you in order to predict what the result will be. A scene in which the exposure meter is zeroed might easily turn out underexposed or overexposed. Interpreting a histogram only takes a little more study and practice than interpreting an exposure meter reading.

Simply speaking, a histogram is an exposure meter on steroids.

Click to expand...

Good way of describing it. I can see how a histogram is useful now. I always thought exposure meters were dead on accurate.

Click to expand...

Dem Bell said:

Cameranoobie said:

ishwanu said:

Cameranoobie said:

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

With either an exposure meter or a histogram, you have to be able to understand the content of the scene and relate it to what the display shows you in order to predict what the result will be. A scene in which the exposure meter is zeroed might easily turn out underexposed or overexposed. Interpreting a histogram only takes a little more study and practice than interpreting an exposure meter reading.

Simply speaking, a histogram is an exposure meter on steroids.

Click to expand...

Good way of describing it. I can see how a histogram is useful now. I always thought exposure meters were dead on accurate.

Click to expand...

They are accurate for what they are designed. What you mean is they do not always give you the exposure you want.

Click to expand...

Cameranoobie said:

ishwanu said:

Cameranoobie said:

I have the histogram on my Sony showing but I don't find it to be as accurate as the exposure meter. Even if you take a photo with the histogram ever so slightly off to the left or right, the slight under or overexposure will show in the photos.

Click to expand...

With either an exposure meter or a histogram, you have to be able to understand the content of the scene and relate it to what the display shows you in order to predict what the result will be. A scene in which the exposure meter is zeroed might easily turn out underexposed or overexposed. Interpreting a histogram only takes a little more study and practice than interpreting an exposure meter reading.

Simply speaking, a histogram is an exposure meter on steroids.

Click to expand...

Good way of describing it. I can see how a histogram is useful now. I always thought exposure meters were dead on accurate.

Click to expand...

Cameranoobie said:

Im just curious why these two are so different. Nikon mirrorless bodies will show your constant moving exposure meter when using auto ISO. But on a Sony (especially newer models), it only shows Exposure compensation when your ISO is set to auto. And once you switch to manual ISO, it then shows the constant moving exposure meter.

Just curious. Even using Zebras and histograms, it's harder and takes more work to properly expose on a Sony mirrorless compared to a Nikon mirrorless. On my Nikon, I have the ISO on auto and I just set my aperture and then shutter speed until it's 0.0 on the exposure meter and it's always properly exposed. I dont use Zebras or the histogram on my Nikon.

But on a Sony you have to rely on zebras and histograms. And even that is not as accurate. I manually set my ISO dependant on my ambient lighting, and then set my shutter speed after until my exposure meter is at 0.0.

Click to expand...

Cameranoobie said:

BertIverson2 said:

ishwanu said:

.....

Some people use a different technique called expose to the right in order to capture as much useful light as possible. They like to see the histogram always pushed to the right side, but not letting anything go beyond. That might produce a result that looks too bright, but it will have the minimum noise and can be darkened later when processing the RAW file.

Click to expand...

I use a simplified ETR. I have a monetary button programmed that chooses highlight metering and chooses +1EV. Obviously shooting raw. I use it mostly to preserve cloud details and blue skies.

I also have 3 setup memories which are set up for many scenes:
(1) Very poor light: min SS 1/30, Auto ISO, f4
(2) Normal daylight shooting: min SS 1/125, Auto ISO , f4
(3) Extreme tele and fast moving subject (<=600mm) min SS 1/1000, Auto ISO, f4

Shooting raw these days with AI NR, I do not think about exposure these days.
BTW 1 inch sensor.

Bert

Click to expand...

Which camera is this, RX100?

Click to expand...