Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mxsmanic wrote: > > After getting an M6, I was surprised at how accurately the primitive meter was, > overall. But then again, I suppose metering isn't really black magic, and most > meters probably get most situations right. This is so true. I think that on board photographic automation is subject to the "90/10" rule meaning that a little bit of technology covers 90 percent of the situations in which one finds oneself. Dealing with the remaining 10 per cent gets very very expensive. The basic deal with metering has yet to change. You come up with two numbers which define the amount of light to admit to the system, transfer them to the camera, and you then take your shot. Someday digital technology will get to the point where you can have an image area made up of billions of pixels, and an exposure meter with a similar number of pixels such that they exposure of each pixel can be individually controlled. > > > After using an M6 for a while and being forced to go back and think about ISO > ratings, f-stops, and shutter speeds again, I finally figured out that in a lot > of situations, you can just guess the correct exposure and get things right. > This is certainly true for daylit scenes, and it is even easier if you are > shooting negative film (although it works even with slides). This, too, is so true. How often do we go outside on a sunny day with a fancy camera, look at what the meter says, and go, "OK sunny sixteen. Iso 100. That means 1/100th at F16. This super slick meter has it right. I'll take the shot. It ain't yet rocket science, and I often suspect that the way automatic cameras are marketed lead us to believe this is far more complicated than it is. Barney