What is the most rugged F and why?
-
A
- Thread starter Ariston
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
Sold Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale SPECIAL BOXED SET OF 14 PHOTOGRAPHS 1972
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Ricohflex TLR CAMERA
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
It's sort-of useful, but you can get to the same end point with a handheld meter in a few seconds anyway. Some people seem to feel an urge to say how many days they spent spot-metering the most irrelevant stuff, because apparently it was far more important than the content/ composition of the image itself...
F-1 = What every sports car wants to be.
You make a good point. But I have the other three and not the Canon.
How dare you call the Herman Munster of cameras goofy!
I think so too. The "3D Color Matrix Metering" on my F6 supposedly uses the camera to subject distance to determine what is supposed to be metered. i.e. it is supposed to meter on what is in focus if you use the appropriate D or G lens.
Sounds great, no?
Except it doesn't work for squat. Just like every average weighted system, if your subject is back lit, it will be underexposed. There is a reason that Nikon also adds center weighted and spot metering to the mix. Cuz the 3 metering modes are really avg, center weighted and spot. Of course 3D Color Matrix sounds way fancier than avg..
Imagine it with a black buttergrip.
Of course. Since 1996 F5 Nikon does that. It also includes film latitude class from the DX code in the cassette, and the Neural Network Artificial Intelligenge also considers what color a point has, detecting Sky, Terrain Skin... That Neural Network was trained with real shots exposed by prominent photographers...
It detects even if the subject is centered or not... A marvel...
Not only sounding fancier... it is also a very sharp tool.
It's very difficult the F5/F6 "3D Color Matrix Metering" fails a single shot in a roll, it only fails when you want a silhouette or something "non standard".
The problem of the intelligent Neural Network evaluation is that the calculation is opaque to us.
A Neural Network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network) has an "input layer" of "digital neurons" taking the parameters, then some processing layers... to end in one output layer telling its "reasoning"...
When we have not much time to meter, sure this is the best way to nail a perfect exposure in the vast majority of the situations, but we have no idea how the camera calculated the exposure: it has a very intelligent scene interpretation...
in some way it knows if you have snow in the background and if it is illuminated by run rays or if it is in the shadow... because the Neural network was also trained with samples of winter snowy shots.
So IMO we can have total confidence in the F5/F6 matrix meter in the vast majority of the situations, I know former wedding shooters that made all the wedding shots in a row without disconnecting the Matrix mode for a single shot, with perfect results in Auto mode, also with perfect flash exposures.
...but we have no idea what exposure it will result in a certain spot in the scene that may be interesting for us to have a certain exposure level. In that situation, when we want to force a certain region to have a certain exposure, then a less intelligent evaluation has a clear advantage, simply because we guess better the local result (with center-weighted) or we know exactly what will result (spot mode).
Let me say an example... We shot Velvia 50... In a contrasty scene we may overrun the Velvia dynamic range, at one point the camera has to decide what it will be sacrificed. We may want to decide that ourselves, of we may want to expose for the terrain and to know how overexposed the sky gets, just to use the right Graded ND. Still, if we mount a suitable G ND in advance then the camera will Auto expose perfectly !!
IMO the F5/F6 Matrix meter is as much as perfect as an automatic exposure system can be, but sometimes we want less intelligence and the more control CW and Spot offers.
Last edited:
Having shot huge numbers of slides with Nikon's matrix metering, the tech was definitely hit and miss. Unlike modern cameras with fancy algorithms to determine subject, Matrix was always slightly dumb. Backlit subjects were generally underexposed and highlights blew easily. Contrast with a modern digital camera where bright snow scenes are correctly exposed, to see how far automated exposure has come.
What Nikon cameras? The F100 matrix meter or the F4 is way less intelligent than the F5/F6 ones. For Color Negative film the F100 delivers good results easily, but with the narrow range of the slides even the most intelligent system may have problems.
Also, these are the DX code latitude instructions for the camera, encoded in the second row of contacts:
For example the F4 and F90 lacks the DX "second row" of contacts, the F80 and the F5 have it... Those cameras having it have an advantage in the matrix evaluation.
Those cameras not reading the latitude from the DX code don't know if CN or slides are loaded, having to play a conservative policy to deliver an acceptable compromise. In that situation IMO we can use the compensation dial to change a bit the behaviour depending if we shot CN than or slides.
Matrix metering had an evolution over time, cameras using the DX film latitude information expose slides better, and those sporting Neural intelligence form 3D Color Metering represented a large improvement, paving the way for today's performance.
By year 2000, even the entry level F65 made amazingly good Auto exposures (manual lenses not supported), it didn't had the F6 intelligence but it still delivered a perfect job in most of the situations, specially with negative film sporting large latitude.
Last edited:
The F5's matrix is at the end of the day an 8-segment meter that averages from the RGB sensor. And a lot of the press/ professional market weren't using transparency in them either. The bigger selling point was that Nikon had sorted out AF speed - and you didn't need an extra grip to get the full motor drive speed.
It's not asking a lot of any metering system to do an OK job with amateur films categorised in the '+3/-1' part of the DX coding. A lot of (most) professional colour neg films are coded in the '+/-1' sector - and even then, they have their own quirks - but nothing that can't be done just as effectively with a handheld meter & a tiny bit of common sense. If you are getting 'better' results from the matrix meter than handheld, it's probably because you are either reading irrelevant values, and/ or making indexing errors with the subsequent reading.
It's not asking a lot of any metering system to do an OK job with amateur films categorised in the '+3/-1' part of the DX coding. A lot of (most) professional colour neg films are coded in the '+/-1' sector - and even then, they have their own quirks - but nothing that can't be done just as effectively with a handheld meter & a tiny bit of common sense. If you are getting 'better' results from the matrix meter than handheld, it's probably because you are either reading irrelevant values, and/ or making indexing errors with the subsequent reading.
You skipped over the whole bit that Nikon claims it bases the exposure of what is in focus. It does not. Clue - if this was the case, then it wouldn't matter if something is backlit. It would ignore the backlighting and just expose for the in focus subject. It does not, It underexposes. Just like the avg metering pattern that it is. Which is why Nikon offers that little switch that changes the exposure mode from Avg, to Center, to Spot.
It does, but it depends on the camera, on the lens and on the focus mode...
in the F5 case
The F5 is not a like a regular 8-segments Matrix, if subject is not in the center this is considered. Also for color film it prevents blowing texture of saturated colors. A bright saturated red would give the same reading than a less bright gray. The F5 detects that the red channel can be blowed independently...
When using a Flash with Pre-Flash feature it uses the 1,005 dots RGB sensor to compare the avaliable light exposure with the pre-flash effect, allowing a perfect fill, with Distance informantion sourced by the chip ion the lens (D and G lenses) to feed all in the intelligent Neural evaluation, trained with those 30,000 images.
As mentioned, obviously Nikon (and Canon, etc) Matrix metering had an evolution over time... From the 1983 FA to the F6 that system has continuously been enhanced. This way allowed not trained casual photographers to get well exposed rolls, and Pros got a tool that was very useful for them in dynamic shootings, allowing them to spend all their energy in the composition and in the subject's expression.
if you take an F5 in matrix mode, you will see that exposure does not change if you take more sky, its is not an averaged method, it tries to work like human mind, if metering Spot/manual you decide an exposure and you are not to change it if you frame to get more Sky, because your metering comes from the scene interpretation. Those 30,000 well selected shots served to train that behaviour.
Last edited:
I wanted to get an XK for years and years, but i didn't find any in my city.
At the end I think i'll never collect minoltas. With three systems (Canon, Nikon and Pentax) it's already a lot of lenses and cameras that i need to babysit. Nothing wrong with Minolta lenses of course, and in fact last month a guy was selling a complete set of Rokkor-X lenses: fisheye, 24, 28, 50 macro, 50/1.4, 85, 135, and the coveted 250mm mirror lens that sells for ridiculously silly prices today. All these lenses plus a Minolta X-500, the best ugly camera ever made!! (because it's really ugly and it is also a very good camera).
I was tempted to buy, but it was a lot of money...
That's just another one of those life's mysteries that I may never understand!
I'm with you. I held the 250/5.6 lens, and i did not like the build quality. You could say it was built by Sigma or Samyang and somebody would believe you. Perhaps it wasn't built by Minolta (the other lenses were beter built, in particular the fisheye, really well built!) Yet the 250 fetches more than USD 1000? wow...
Yes, it's small but my Canon New FD 200/4 isn't much bigger, is decently built, awesome ergonomics, gives sharp pictures, no doughnut bokeh... So I told the owner of the 250 to offer it to the lunatics that might pay a huge price for that mirror lens.
Next to it there was a Reflex-Nikon 500mm f5.0 (yes, the big one), amazing build quality. I almost bought it,, the owner just wanted about USD 120 and the beautiful leather case for it was worth the price IMO...
Nikon F2
Unless you need to lock focus on a red Formula 1 car and accurately meter it under changing light conditions as you pan with it, the F5's meter provides no significant advantages over most other meters - especially not handheld incident and spot meters - which also have the advantage of giving you a clear idea what you metered from. To read some of the stuff above, you'd think that fast, accurate metering was impossible before Nikon put matrix metering in a camera! This may be a shock to some people, but you can accurately meter a scene with one (at most two) readings with either an appropriately indexed spot meter (ie one with the IRE scale) or an incident meter & a suitable shadow in a matter of seconds - even if the light is changing. All the Nikon F5 is doing is attempting to automate this at a very high speed for specific applications. I think some people would be better off learning how to actually use a handheld meter, then they'd have an easier time understanding scene contrast.
This guy shot Formula 1 with a 4x5 Graflex from 1913. I don't have the spec sheet with me, but I have a feeling it did not have "3D Color Matrix Metering tm"
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/13/photographer-shoots-f1-1913-graflex-4x5-view-camera/
And Rembrandt made better images with a bare brush... but he dedicated much more effort to each image !
Of course an skilled photographer requires even no meter to craft perfect images, see this: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-the-most-rugged-f-and-why.180022/page-7#post-2357794
Still an intelligent Matrix Metering has a predictable result, when a Pro photographer is used to it he delegates the exposure to tha Auto mode to concentrate in composition and to subject's expression.
A Pro knows how the (say) F6 or D6 meter exposes, so for most of the day he uses that while the meter is to expose like he wants, which it can be 98% of the shots. When he wants something different than what the meter is to do then he uses a Cro-Magnon era metering mode.
Let me use the Cro-Magnon term for fun, quoting the always wise an provocative Ken Rockwell.In the F65 review Ken says this:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n65.htm
LOL, funny irony...
Ken is always great... I love his way of being provocative, sporting quite beautiful irony mixed with deep wisdom. Making a living from reviewing gear is not that easy... But he is right, for the vast majority of F65 users of the time the Matricial mode was just perfect.Jokes apart, the Matricial mode was a convenient, fast and reliable way to expose. Totally perfect for (say) 98% of the situations, still we may want a Cro-Magnon (
) mode for 2% to 20% of the situations, and if we know how our particular Matrix system works, then we have no doubt about when we have to shift to Cro-Magnon. Please note the irony.IMO, to learn, best is using Spot mode. If we take notes then we realize how each area is depicted from its over/under local exposure level, and personally what I love is the pre Cro-Magnon
way. Nobody is able to deny that the Sally's big prints are the most impressive we have seen on a wall.(Cro-Magnon, primitive, not an insult)
Last edited:
I knew Pros that were in love with the Minoltas... really well crafted gear !
One told me that the F5 his wife had (they teamed when shooting events) was a bit better in the AF, the meter and the glass availability, but he totally preferred the Minolta Maxxum 9, all in dials, he judged it was a sweet midpoint between the F4 and the F5. It was able 1/12,000 speed, to say number.
Well, today we have that heritage in the Sony Pro range, which rocks quite a lot. When Sony bought Konika/Minolta in 2006 they knew what they were doing, and of course the Sony's "Alpha" product name comes from the Minolta heritage.
Finally, the voice of reason.
Not at all, Flavio.
First metering in the hobby photography is about personal prefences, everything will work if knowing what we do and we have time enough for it.
Second, even in the case of skilled photographes, usually better exposures are obtained from Matricial Auto mode than from manual evaluation, with the exception when we want a certain effect.
A clear case is weddings, true Pros in that business have been intensively using Matrix mode in the film era and today with digital cameras, they obtained/obtain a clear benefit, the F6 or the D850. This is a fact.
In a wedding (for example), you have to shot hundreds of people with very variable light conditions, indoor and outdoors, inside a church or inside a car, etc, etc while having to play extreme attention to people's expression and to composition, and to illumination quality, many times talking a lot to the subjects. The shooting becomes very immersive for the photographer and he cannot play attention to what Auto does perfect.
Third, incident metering can be great in some situations, but it is a total total pitfall in other situations. Incident is good when you meter the light that reaches your subject, but your subject can be far and then you are not able measure the light reaching it, or emited by it, so incident is not a universal way to recoomended, it can only be recommended for the situations where it is suitable.
Last edited:
A Pro knows how the (say) F6 or D6 meter exposes, so for most of the day he uses that while the meter is to expose like he wants, which it can be 98% of the shots. When he wants something different than what the meter is to do then he uses a Cro-Magnon era metering mode.
Yes a pro knows Matrix metering is for amateurs. It is just for avg lit shots.
The documentary showing Steve McCurry shooting the last roll of Kodachrome in his F6 is enlightening. He, of course, does not trust the matrix metering in the camera even for his controlled lit portraits.
I use the F6. I know how the metering behaves. I guess I'm just not a fanboi and call it like it is.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |