Thoughts on Nikon's Matrix Metering?

[markbarendt]

with zero Exposure Compensation dialed in by you? [/IMG]

While I have done this type of shot without compensation, and they regularly fall very workably, why in the world would I not apply a little experience/compensation?

We "compensate" (or should) with every type of metering. What I'm getting at is that with center weighted meters or spot meters we "meter and reframe" which is a form of compensation; judgement is required with every metering technique.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

My experience too with the Nikon N-75 and F-100. I sometime use the F-100 to augment the reading from the Hasselblad PME.

 

[wiltw]

While I have done this type of shot without compensation, and they regularly fall very workably, why in the world would I not apply a little experience/compensation?

We "compensate" (or should) with every type of metering. What I'm getting at is that with center weighted meters or spot meters we "meter and reframe" which is a form of compensation; judgement is required with every metering technique.

The point of doing it with no EC is to determine what the programming inherently will do, so that folks can get an idea of how much EC to crank in...to set a baseline. After all, Nikon's Matrix metering (or Canon Evaluative) automatically puts in some mysterious 'fudge factor', but the user is certain not advised anything about the logic (at least not by Canon...does Nikon?)... while primary AF zone gets priority, the surrounding AF zones get factored in by some mysterious amount. That is exactly why a number of folks call matrix metering 'unpredictable'.

You might know how much EC to crank in, but what about the poor person who is stepping up to an SLR from the point and shoot? This is a way of imparting some level of understanding of how the camera behaves, without intervention.

 

[Lamar]

I do balanced fill flash in CW manual, ap or sp all the time. No matrix meter needed.... Just expose for the scene correctly and set you flash up correctly and your set. Make sure you don't exceed the max flash sync speed when you set the shutter speed.

Nikon F4 in manual exposure mode CW metering 80-200mm f/2.8 with SB-800 in TTL BL with -0.7 comp. Film E100G




Nikon F4s in manual exposure mode CW metering 80-200mm f/2.8 with SB-800 in TTL BL with -0.7 comp. Film HP5 shot at ISO 3200 and pushed 3 stops.

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?

 

[markbarendt]

The point of doing it with no EC is to determine what the programming inherently will do, so that folks can get an idea of how much EC to crank in...to set a baseline. After all, Nikon's Matrix metering (or Canon Evaluative) automatically puts in some mysterious 'fudge factor', but the user is certain not advised anything about the logic (at least not by Canon...does Nikon?)... while primary AF zone gets priority, the surrounding AF zones get factored in by some mysterious amount. That is exactly why a number of folks call matrix metering 'unpredictable'.

You might know how much EC to crank in, but what about the poor person who is stepping up to an SLR from the point and shoot? This is a way of imparting some level of understanding of how the camera behaves, without intervention.

That's a worthwhile goal.

The wild card though is the next step. If it's on slide film that test can be meaningful. With negatives maybe, maybe not. If the important parts of the image fall inside the normal latitude range of the film the exact placement is purely academic; the limits may be measurable with a densitometer but irrelevant in the print.

 

[markbarendt]

I do balanced fill flash in CW manual, ap or sp all the time. No matrix meter needed.... Just expose for the scene correctly and set you flash up correctly and your set. Make sure you don't exceed the max flash sync speed when you set the shutter speed.

Nikon F4 in manual exposure mode CW metering 80-200mm f/2.8 with SB-800 in TTL BL. Film E100G

View attachment 77644


Nikon F4s in manual exposure mode CW metering 80-200mm f/2.8 with SB-800 in TTL BL with -0.7 comp. Film HP5 pushed 3 stops.

View attachment 77645

I agree that this can be done quite nicely.

Matrix balanced metering though allows me to shoot in a wider range of situations because the camera meter is "smarter" than the flash gun's meter. It also requires less thought so I can devote more thought to composition.

 

[zanxion72]

Matrix metering is a great generic metering tool that will hit just the point in many situations. Of course matrix metering provides you with what camera things correct and not what you always have in mind. This is why CW metering becomes more useful after time, when one becomes more demanding and develops an eye for certain details in the frame.
When the lighting is even, matrix metering can never go wrong, but in times of high contrast, say noon time, you have to tell to the camera what you are aiming for (highlights/shadows).
You can either learn the behavior and tendencies of the matrix metering of your camera and compensate the exposure when you thing it won't give you what you want, or stick with CW and always point to it what you want to expose for.