Newbie "adjusting" to his D80

[ccfutbol]

After pondering what camera to get for my lenses, and going by some comments

here on Photo.net, I bought a D80. It arrived a couple of days ago and I've

been playing with it. I've shot mostly in Aperture Priority and program. I

tried auto ISO but changed that to where I could set the ISO. I think I've

figured out all the custom choices and set her up like I want. I've been using

matrix metering. I've got 60 or so good shots from around the house, a park, a

and a friend's home. Very quickly I found out that the D80 over-exposes nearly

every single shot = I haven't one single underexposure when the camera's meter

was set to 0 compensation. AS a result, I now start at -.7 for every

exposure, ... but, ... really, one shot went all the way to -3 and many were

at -1 and -1.7 or so. I'm trying to figure out what is making the meter want

to add exposure. Sometimes it makes some sense but at other times it makes no

sense at all. I even find the flash overexposing in the same manner. From

what I read, I expected something of a problem, but this is much more severe

than expected.

 

I may be learning to predict when it's going to overexpose like a demon. If the

scene is lit in somewhat of a low light level, or if there are dark areas, it

will try really hard to bring everything up into a high level of brightness.

The little blinking highlights will be going bezerk. I think it's interesting

that the camera will consistently throw those alarming blinking lights at you

when it's own stupid matrix meter has selected the exposure. Doesn't it pay

attention to itself? (smile) My own matrix meter, the one in my head, is going

to have to work through (and remember!) a lot of scenes so I can get a head

start on getting the exposure right. By using the LCD screen, I was able to

get the exposures I wanted. I'm definitely hooked on this digital thing!

 

So, ... that's what the deal is. Now, ... I'm wondering. Is there someone I

should be fussing to about the meter's workings, ... like Nikon, ... or B&H? I

think I can still send the body back. Is there a way to set up your shooting

preferences that will get better behavior from the matrix (file sizes, for

example)? Is my D80 behaving worse than others out there, ... or is this par

for the course? As a corrective strategy, has anyone tried sending the body to

Nikon, asking them to recalibrate the meter so that it generally moves the

exposures over in the direction you want it?

 

CC

[iambaxter]

I have found that using matrix metering works good on any scene that has little difference between highlights and shadows. But anytime I shoot in high contrast situations I will switch to center weighed or spot. Expose more towards the shadows, and do a little post processing. In situations when the lighting is extreme I will shoot raw to give myself a little more margin for error. And if all else fails bracket the shot. I have found that an under exposed a shot can be salvaged in post, but once you blow out the highlights hit the delete button and try again. This is one of the many advantages of digital over film.

[tonybeach]

Len wrote:

 

In situations when the lighting is extreme I will shoot raw to give myself a little more margin for error.

 

My reply:

 

It is a common misconception that RAW allows you to make exposure errors. There is only so much latitude that the sensor can capture, properly exposing in RAW allows that and JPEG does not. If you overexpose you lose color accuracy in the highlights and if you underexpose you have a lower S/N ratio in the shadows, even when you shoot in RAW; but WB gain applied to the JPEG means you are often forced to essentially underexpose (typically by a stop or so).

 

It is hard to say if CC's D80 is actually overexposing without actually looking at the RAW data before WB gain is applied. Since it is also impossible to load a uni-WB into a D80, it is difficult to see the true RAW data, although I'm pretty certain it can be done.

 

I agree with Len that CC should avoid Matrix metering on the D80. Instead, calibrate Center weighted metering to 10mm and use that. As for Spot metering, aim at highlights (other than direct light sources like the sun or lightbulbs) and add two stops.

[ronald_moravec1]

All reflected and onboard camera meters try to make all subjects grey or midtone. Snow will grey, coal will grey.

 

The way to avoid is meter something that is supposed to be grey or use an incident meter.

 

If you expose a nice green grass and blue sky and center the horizon, it should expose properly. If not the camera needs an adjustment.

 

Post some examples of what you consider overexposed for further help

[leonard_evens]

Have you been using the histogram and highlights displays to check exposure?

 

I'm a bit surprised that you consistently get overexpsosures. With the D70 I had earlier and now wih my D80, if anything, I've had consistent underexposure.

[bruce_rubenstein]

What ever program Matrix Metering they have for evaluating the sensor readings in the D80 is a mess. Not only is it less predictable than my D200, but it's also much worse than the D50 I bought for my son and it uses the same metering hardware as the D50.

 

There are situations where you can't bracket shots, and if you have changing lighting conditions you can't always take a shot and check the histogram.

[elliot1]

I have been a d200 user since they came out. I just got my hands on a d80. I agree with Leonard. My d80 exposes BETTER than my d40 or d200, much to my surprise!

 

I suspect that there may be defective d80's out there, or Leonard and I are just lucky.

[tri-x1]

On my D100 I have found that on bright sunny days with contrasty light, center weighted metering works better than matrix.

[ccfutbol]

As I mentioned in my post, I know how to find and place my tonalities. I used to use an F3HP which is basically a large spot meter. I have learned the meters in my cameras. F5 matrix always seemed very close to nailing exposures on slide film (mostly Velvia)with matrix. For example, in a snowy scene, using matrix on the F5, I usually only had to compensate by +1 or so to get the snow back to white while keeping detail. It normal situations the F5 matrix metering was very reliable, the envy of one of my buddies with Canon equipment. The intelligence of that matrix meter made it a very reliable camera in a fast shooting situations. My N80 film body overexposes in somewhat of an unreliable way, but it seems more consistent than this D80. For that reason, I shoot Reala in the N80 as that print film has good latitude and it seems to like overexposure. As I stated in my post, I use the blinking lights to determine what's overexposed to the point of not registering useable information. I am learning about the histograms (RGB). Now, ... admitedly, I do like saturation and a slight underexposure can provide a boost there. What I'm seeing isn't a slight overexposure, and, ... as I've said, I've yet to see the meter err in the opposite direction. Knowing that everyone's eyes are different (there's acutally a difference between my own two eyes in viewing contrast), ... I checked my thoughts in an unbiased way with my wife. Her opinion was exactly the same as mine -- she didn't like the exposures coming straight out of the camera matrix metering. she was delighted with the ones I compensated on, ... remarking that the colors were brilliant. I told her that I had set the camera up that way as I was planning to shoot mostly landscape, colorful birds and macro. I was hoping that by bumping the saturation selections in the D80, I would get close to Velvia, ... and, when I get the exposure right, I am finding what I want on the D80 screen. I just have to translate that to the computer now.

 

As for uploading smaples to Photonet, ... I'll have to figure out how to do that. I'd like to find an easy way to size the files correctly but time is a problem for me. I'm on a short vacation right now, so it's a good time to figure some things out. Today's my last day.

 

I like the way digital allows you to get rid of your trash shots and confirm your exposure results. Confirming focus takes a little more time but that too is an improvement. At this juncture, digital isn't turning out to be faster, though, and reliability is improved because I can see the results on the LCD. With my F5, I would bracket, one at camera reading (matrix), then based on my evaluation of the what the scene would beg for, I would compensate plus or minus. If the scene contained an "extreme" situation, I might bracket three shots. Maybe I really should just bracket my shots on the D80 and keep playing. I'm hoping that in time, I'll learn this camera's meter as I have my other bodies. If I can just figure out what "makes the D80 matrix tick."

 

Okay, I just ran over to compare my F5 to the D80 -- just a ten minute test. Same lens, Aperture and Manual priority, ISO 100. Spot, Center and Matrix readings. Various subjects/scenes, indoors and out. Auto white balance. It's a bright cloudy day outside. Result on the readings: Spot = exactly the same. Center = very close (1/3 stop variance). Matrix = D80 wants around one stop more exposure and was tending to match the center readings from both bodies, which was close to spot readings. The F5's matrix metering fluctuated more. I shot a mixed light subject, tree with light breaking through it. The matrix of the F5 again called for one stop less than the D80. The D80 shot was overexposed if I'm reading the histogram correctly as the rounded mountains of color are over to the right and the green mountain is especially over on the right. The subject in this case is the green leaves, so I take it that the camera knows that this color is too hot. One stop of reduced exposure put the mountains in the middle. For my preference, I would likely put it just a tad more to the left of the middle on the histogram. I'm trying to bring the leaves back to where I see them, and most are in shadow and a deep green. Of course, due the wild contrast range, there's no way to get anything but featureless white in the light breaking through the trees, ... so the objective is to get the right color of green. As I mentioned before, the D80 camera knows that the matrix screwed up and will tell you so on the playback. The spot and center-weighted are accurate, so the basic meter is working fine, ... it's the matrix meter program that's got a problem, ... or perhaps it's just more primitive than the F5. Sometimes, ... thinking of the D80 matrix meter as a center weighted meter, you can figure out what it's going to do, but it's not that predictable and,... well, it defeats the "concept" of shooting with matrix metering.

 

I just downloaded the shots I took over the past few days. I didn't keep the gross overexposures as I was deleting as I went along. I was hoping that maybe the pictures would come out a little richer on my screen (it's not calibrated -- remember, I'm the newbie with this digital stuff). On the computer screen, the saturation and contrast went down from what I was seeing on the D80 screen, so the viewing experience isn't as enjoyable as I would have liked. It comes nowhere near Velvia on a projection screen, but I expected that. I'll try playing with the computer monitor's settings to get it to where it imitates the D80's screen which I hear tell is a fairly accurate portrayal of what's on file. I'm out of money at the moment, so I can't just now invest in a bunch of computer enhancements for my photography. Next thing for me to do is to march over to the lab and see if I can get a colorful, contrasty print from the files I've got. I'm not going to go the route of making my own prints. For the small amount of printing I will do, I think I'd rather go with my local lab as they have always done me good. I use Picasa to organize and tweak the files. I'm not looking to print really big and I should think that normal jpegs will be fine for now. At some point in my learning curve, I'll go with the large Raw files and play with Photoshop.

 

Has anyone else compared the F5 matrix with the D80 matrix? For that matter, has anyone compared the D200 matrix to the D80 matrix? CC

[lahuasteca]

Reading these D80 post I am now more confused than ever. I have a D70s, the RAW

images seem a little drab and lifeless, but I take care of that in Photoshop, no problem. I'd

like a second digital camera for street photography, and several times I've almost gone for

the D80. Mind you, I've never used one, but these posts are making me a little gunshy.

 

The answer, obviously, is the D200, but prices are increasing, it's almost $500 more right

now than the D80. For now my second camera for the street is an F100 and slide film - it

never misses on the matrix meter. The F100 has a 28-105 lens, the D70s a 35-135

(50-200 equivalent), so I've got the range that I need covered. This gives me good IQ,

without having to change lenses.

 

The D80 would be the perfect size for the street, but I may wait a little longer for an

upgrade or a fix.

[bruce_rubenstein]

FWIW, I've had F100's since 1999, a D200, D80 and shot a bit with a D70 and D50.

 

The F100 metered better with slide film than any of the DSLRs. However, keep in mind that slide film was still still film (log exposure response rather than a linear one) with more of a shoulder and toe than digital. Film starts to compress the tonal range at its exposure limits, but at the high end digital goes pretty much straight to clipping. This makes digital particularly ugly in transitions into

overexposed areas.

 

Flashing highlights are a very good way to judge exposure, because you can see what is overexposing. Remember that the flashing highlights are based on a camera generated JPG (even if you're shooting RAW), so small flashing areas may look fine when you do your own RAW conversion (if you shoot RAW).

 

After wedding season is over I'll probably drop my D80 off at Nikon to map out a few stuck pixels and have them check the metering.

[ccfutbol]

I posted an update on the situation but I see it didn't "take." The problem is not with the D80 body and exposure meter. The problem is with the 35 2.0 lens I was using. A close examination showed that there was oil on the diaphram blades which caused the lens to be sluggish. Since I wasn't taking pictures with my F5, ... I could see the problem results. Sorry to have scared any D80 potential batteries. Shots I have taken with my 50 1.8 are turning out well. Thanks for "keeping company" with me on this one. I was getting concerned about all the blown out imagery. I found the spot meter and center weighted meters of my D80 and F5 to be almost the same. The matrix comes up with different exposures, but nothing horribly different or completely off the scale. File that one away = remember to check the lens! Guess I'll need to save a hundred bucks to get the lens cleaned. CC