• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Thoughts on Nikon's Matrix Metering?

I understand the F6 will matrix meter and program mode with AI AIs AI'd and manual lenses (if retro fitted with the lift tag) now if only it wasn't six or seven times the price of an F100.
This from a sunny sixteen shooter, sometimes just sometimes it would be useful.
 
Things that seem "too easy" can sometimes be hard to trust.

When cake mixes came out many years ago they didn't need anything except water, and they didn't sell well. They tasted fine and they cooked fine, those weren't the issues. The problem was that they were too easy, it was tough for people to think of those cakes as home-made; so the manufacturers changed the recipes and made us add eggs and they started selling well.

Matrix metering works really well and is really fast.

Sure, if I whip out the incident meter I might be able to improve things, a little; same if I decide to spot meter, again a little. The difference in most situations is normally pretty minor or nonexistent right off the bat, and with a bit of experience, a little thought, and AE lock on occasion, it can become a nearly bullet proof method.
 
I'm glad to hear this. At this point my photography requires I concentrate on subject and composition. Freeing up a little brain power from worrying about exposure (somewhat) helps. I have found the matrix meter in my D90 is about a stop pessimistic in bright situations. I'm checking the F5 on the last 2 rolls,one unfinished so we'll see.
 

The metering method that has saved me most when I needed saving was film exposure latitude. Maybe I'm just lazy.
 
You're right, I use several AI'd lenses and forgot they were slightly different from manufactors AI
 

You're spot on......matrix metering for transparency film........centre weighted for b&w and colour neg. Matrix tends to favour highlights, Centre weighted usually cuts out bright skylight and meters for the shadows. This applies to general "out and about" shooting. Personally, when I am in control of my subject and am not in a hurry, I prefer to meter with a separate light meter + invercone attachment.
 
I've had no difficulties exposing B&W and colour print film with my FA, F90 and F90X camera in their matrix mode. It's the first time I hear it's meant primarily for slides.
 

There are certain situations that will fool any reflective meter, they are normally pretty obvious, thats where I use exposure lock; frame once for exposure then reframe for the shot.
 
miha said:
It's the first time I hear it's meant primarily for slides.
Click to expand...

It's not, matrix metering is matched to an ISO standard. A 400 speed film is a 400 speed film...

Matrix metering is based on lots of testing done to see how (most) people like their shots to print/display. That doesn't mean it works for everybody, many people shoot and print their negative film differently because they can, not necessarily because they need to. Others have a real need or want to print more detail than a typical "slide" exposure might give them; that's just a technical correction to their personal E.I. based on their artistic preference.
 

It's certainly based on a lot of testing using slide and print film.

BTW, I read a certain Kodak publication stating that their Ektachrome Panther slide film was designed to be exposed using in-camera metering systems (whatever that means :confused.
 

I am sure that only Sisyphus agrees with you.
 
miha said:
It's certainly based on a lot of testing using slide and print film.

BTW, I read a certain Kodak publication stating that their Ektachrome Panther slide film was designed to be exposed using in-camera metering systems (whatever that means :confused.
Click to expand...

Used car dealers in the area where I work proudly advertise a 3-day return privilege. What they don't advertise is that "that is the law, and has been for many years". "They" want people to think "they" are being nice and providing more value than expected when in fact "they are giving away nothing".

I think Kodak was essentially doing the same; advertising that their film was designed to meet the ISO standard. Sure it's a fact, but so what? Fuji's isn't?
 
miha said:
I've had no difficulties exposing B&W and colour print film with my FA, F90 and F90X camera in their matrix mode. It's the first time I hear it's meant primarily for slides.
Click to expand...

Exposure and development are very much a personal thing. It's what works for you. I'm quite happy using my F90X in auto-matrix mode for colour tranny, not so happy shooting that way with black & white. For many years I used FM2's which have centre weighted metering only. When launched around 1980 they were aimed primarily at the news photographer shooting mainly in black & white. Nikon were aware of the old adage at the time re. black & white.....i.e. that you "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights".....meaning that in bright or normal light, many would rate their 400asa film at 320asa and slightly cut development. Nikon (as I was told by one of their technicians) based their centre weighted system on this theory.
This meant a metering system giving a slightly "generous" exposure, which suited "black & white" but not transparency film. If using 100asa colour tranny in a FM2, then I would reset the metering to 160asa to bring out the full richness of colour.
 
I too have been using a couple of FM2 mainly with Fuji Press 800 film in the mid '90s working as a press photographer for a local newspaper, it was a student job for me at the time. I was also happily exposing slide and B&W film in my free time, all with success. I've left Nikon for another make. I've checked light meters on my new cameras comparing them with my FM2s before I sold them, the meters agreed. I'm sorry, I'm just not buying into that. But then again all my meters could have been faulty.
 
miha said:
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying into that. But then again all my meters could have been faulty.
Click to expand...

I agree miha.

I have two Sekonic L-358's, an N90s, an F100, and an F5. I have had three other N90s, two FE's, an FM2. When tested they have all agreed within a third of a stop and I think that difference is mostly in how I held my tongue.
 
miha said:
I've had no difficulties exposing B&W and colour print film with my FA, F90 and F90X camera in their matrix mode. It's the first time I hear it's meant primarily for slides.
Click to expand...

It works great for negatives as well, but if the scene is very contrasty I have found on the F100 and N80 that matrix metering will slightly underexpose the shadows compared to how I would like the negatives exposed. For a normal contrast range it does a great job. So I think it works better for slides. When they designed it they needed to bias it one way or the other. I think they made the right choice. Blown highlights in a slide will ruin it, where as blocked shadows in a negative usually can still make an excellent print.
 
I've learned from all the years that, without matrix I can get more predictable results.
 
It does seem wrong really to lump all matrix metering together. The difference between the 25 segment metering in the F4 and the 1005 pixel RGB sensor in the F5/F6 is large, the latter distinguishing colour temperature as well, surely the difference in outcome cannot be minimal? Whilst the changes may only affect a small percentage of shots it is the confidence in those outlier situations that makes all the difference.
If you have only shot with an F4 say it must be wrong to dismiss all matrix metering implementations?
 
That about sums it up for me as well. You can talk about all the advantages of matrix but when it's said and done I get a higher percentage of good exposures using CW. I am able to more accurately predict and compensate in CW than matrix. Add to that the fact that I have many different bodies ranging from Nikon F's all the way up to a D300, trying to keep up with how each matrix system on those bodies that have them responds is just an added level of unnecessary complexity with no benefit and in some cases is a detriment. CW response is simpler making interpolation of required exposure settings simpler and for me that makes shooting CW more accurate and more fun.


dehk said:
I've learned from all the years that, without matrix I can get more predictable results.
Click to expand...
 
One of the advantages of matrix metering that has not been talked about yet here is the ability to do balanced fill flash. Once you "get" what it does and then see what it does it can become really handy for many situations.

Ever wonder why a lot of newspaper shooters have a strobe on the camera mid-day?
 

the answer can be summed up in one word'amazing.Nikon's matrix metering has never let me down.for me,it replaced zone-system metering;just let a Nikon handle it and transfer the settingsto a manual camera.the built-in logic is nothing short of fantastic.well done Nikon.
 
OK, folks, let's test matrix metering in a situation like this one...



Imagine the grey card is backlit the head of a person, shot against a bright sky, in this case the sky is 6.8EV brighter than the grey card (this test shot made at 8:30am on a Fall morning). Shown is the result of a spot metered exposure on grey card target.
How well does your Matrix metering work -- with zero Exposure Compensation dialed in by you? (I'll post my result after a few of you have results)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register