Frank Ernens wrote:
> One of the claims made for the F5 is that, with experience, the
> operator can learn what exposure the matrix metering is choosing. But
> it uses a neural network
The only more or less working neuronal network I know of is that on top
of my neck.
And if the F5 ones would work (higly unlikely) it should also have the
ability to read my mind, because I´m the boss of my camera, (extreme)
highly unlikely that the camera can predict what I intend to do.
> In other words, when the F5's metering fails, it does so without
> warning or pattern in a way which cannot be predicted or even
> rationalized afterwards.
And I bet the F5 metering fails as much as average metering, just in an
random maner.
> Both the OM-4 and the F5 can
> be used for these more classical methods,
Doubt that the F5 is an good tool for that type of photographing, the
display is just to limited (limited scale, size, and resulution of 1/2
stops; comparable to "amateur" models as the F-601 and EOS500).
The EOS-1 and EOS-3 are better, but not as good as an OM-4 (I know the
EOS-1 and T-90 and have seen the EOS-3 cataloge).
> though probably both are
> too complex for students.
I think the OM-4 is pretty intuitive and would be great tool for the
beginer to learn photography. The spot meter is such a great tool to
learn exposure, better than any averaging meter and incident meter (even
incident meters are an easy and reliable tool for practical
photography).
Alexander wrote:
> I dont believe
> there ever will be an alternative to spot metering.
Hear hear..
and - DORIS FANG - made an ever true remark:
> That good-but-puny chip in the camera is a crude piece compared to the
> one we all carry around between our shoulders. I could not agree more with
> this one, Ken.
Regards
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|