Nikon F5 RGB matrix metering with filters

[a_tonkin]

I'm thinking of getting a second-hand F5 but the only real reason for

favouring that over the F100 is the RGB matrix metering so as to get

pictures that are as well exposed as on a cheap modern compact

digital camera that all seem to have automatic white balance built

in. I know film will still fall foul of artificial light (or can the

F5 correct for that too after all ...?) but that's getting away from

the real question - how does the RGB matrix metering cope with

filters, especially graduated ones. Do they confuse it and it tries

to correct for the effect you're tying to impose on it!?

[Jerry_]

The matrix meter measures the entire scene. If you, the operator, want to use a graduated filter, then you should be able to use the spot (large or small) to figure out the exposure you want for a certain area of the scene. Simple, no? Yes, a graduated filter may create matrix metering problems that were not 'noted' in the engineering phase of the F5...but a good color printer should be able to 'correct the color' some during the printing stage.

[curt wiler]

One does not normally take meter readings through graduated density filters. Take the meter readings first for the bright and dark areas (usually in spot mode, which is not RGB), set the exposure for the dark area, decide how much density you need to control the bright area, and place the filter over the lens.

[erik_loza]

FWIW, I find the F5's metering system to be no better than that of the F100's or F90's, for

that matter. I purchased mine solely because of it's build quality and fast AF system, not

because of the metering system and it's just as easy to trick the F5 as one of the others. In

fact, I think the selling point that it sees color is irrelevant, since we're talking about film

here. Honestly, my old F3 produced just as many properly exposed images as the F5: The

F5 just does it faster. No matter what camera it is, it's your job to be careful where you

point it because none of them will do what you want if yo just leave it on "Matrix", then

point it at a patch of snow, the sun, an overcast sky, etc. I would take a simple camera

with an accurate spot meter over the most sophisticated 1,000 pixel "smart meter" any day

of the week for landscapes (assuming that's what you're inquiring about since you

mentioned ND grad filters).

 

Without meaning to disagree with the other gentleman here, I always meter (F5, F100, F3,

whichever) AFTER composing when using an ND grad for landscapes. The reason is that all

I am trying to to is even out the scene top to bottom. In my experience, when used most

effectively, there will be little to no EV difference across the scene if the correct density

filter is used, so why waste time metering beforehand? In fact, withe the right ND grad in

place, this is one of the few times where I actually feel safer leaving the camera on Matrix,

since the scene has a balanced tonality.

 

The F5 is a terrific camera and as cheaply as they can be had these days, there's no reason

not to own one if you're thinking about it, so I would go for it. As many things as it does

that lots of other cameras can't, the metering system is very run-of-the-mill and, as

always, it's the guy behind the camera's job to get what he wants out of the scene. Good

luck with your decision.

[arnabdas]

Erik Loza "FWIW, I find the F5's metering system to be no better than that of the F100's or F90's, for that matter....."

 

I'm impressed to see someone blurting out with the plain, simple truth.

 

My D70 meters no better compared to my friend's D100.

 

My ex-N80 metered no better than my ex-N90s.

 

I could get just as good exposure with my FM3A (if I knew what I was actually metering) as i could with my ex-N90s in matrix mode for the brief period I had them together.

 

Coming back to the topic: My D70 manual says in page 191: "Color matrix and 3D color matrix metering may not produce the desired results when used with a filter with an exposure factor (filter factor) over 1 x (<a list of filters>). We recommend center-weighted metering. ..."

 

It could be the same with F5 too. Does the F5 manual say any such thing?

[arnabdas]

I'm sure some experienced photographers here have faced some contrasty/challenging lighting situations where the F5 metering far outformed any other meter, and I'm not debating on that.

[Rick Waller]

Whoa - I disagree. I own an N90S, an F100 and an F5 (and a D2H) and I can categorically state that the F5 has the best meter I have ever used in a film camera. Sure...if the scene is not a particularly challenging one metering wise, you will notice no difference over the meter in the N90 or the F100 (or, if the scene is really simple, then you won't notice an improvement over my old center weighted F2).

 

BUT - and this is a really big "but" - if the lighting is tricky, the F5 excels. It is damned near uncanny how often the algorithms get the scene right and I mean in all sorts of difficult situations.

 

In fact, the meter is so good, that it actually creates a different problem. Take the case of the black labrador filling the frame or a snow scene. We all grew up learning that if you meter a black dog, stop down 2 stops to make him black and if you shoot a snow scene, open up 2 stops to keep the snow white. Well guess what...with the F5 that old addage can actually get you in trouble because with the "smart" meter, you never know quite how the exceptional meter is already correcting for the scene. So...in some instances, if you stop down a stop or so to maintain black and if the meter has already figured out the dog was black, you can get an underexposed image. When I shoot with my F5's (which is almost all of the time when I am shooting film) I need to readjust my thinking about maintaining blacks and whites.

 

As for split ND filters, while I do use spot metering to judge how much of a grad I need to use, once I decide which grad to use, I just mount it, meter through the grad and shoot away. Nothing else is required. With apologies to the other folks above who recommend spot metering and all of that......it is simply not needed if. By the way, I maintain that shooting on evaluative metering through the grad ND is the way to go with the F100 and the N90S as well.

 

Try it and I think you may agree. I have not played with the new F6 yet (and it has gotten some rave reviews), but I adore my F5's.

 

As for the D2h....I have used it so far almost exclusively for sideline sports and it meters just great, but I have not had enough experience with it in tricky lighting situations to compare it to the F5. Seems to me that picking the white balance is more an issue with digital capture than picking the exposure. One thing I can tell you about the D2h is that I find that the resulting images are even more unforgiving of underexposure than chromes are. You know that you need to nail the exposure when shooting transparencies, but heaven help you if you underexpose a shot with a D2h.

[constance_cook]

Erik's right on about the RGB metering in the F5 and my brief experience (12 rolls so far) with the F6 shows it to be equally good and faster.

Conni

[gaius1]

I agree with Eric - I have found the F5 meter to be significantly smarter than the EOS 3 too.

[ajaytyagi]

Unless shooting silhouttes, the matrix meter is rarely off by +0.3/-0.3. That is how good the F5 is!!!!

I stand by that statement anyday.

[ajaytyagi]

Read silhouettes.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I'm in agreement with Constance, Erik, Ajay, & Guy: when you shoot slides there is an

obvious difference in metering and exposure with the F5 & N90s (F5 better, more

accurate & more consistent) just as the N90s metering systemwas an improvement over

the F4s. Where the color meter in the F5 matrix mode comes into it's own is when yopu

have a strongly monochromatic scene or a scene lit with light that had a strong color cast

like sunsets, tungsten and fluorescent lighting.