> "You will never get the same consistency in exposure with an
> OM(anything) compared to say, a Minolta with matrix metering".
> For what it is worth, I did see a Popular Photography comparison of
> metering accuracy for automatic cameras a few years ago and the
> thing that I remember is that Minolta's matrix metering seemed to be
> better than others and Nikon's seemed a little worse. Of course,
> those things are true until the next model comes out, but it does
> indicate that Minolta had a handle on it back then.
Can you say "Rashomon"?
I remember that article. My conclusion was that _all_ the evaluative systems
did a poor job, compared to what you'd _expect_ them to do. They seem to be
incapable of making even a half-assed judgement of what's in front of the
camera.
The Nikon with thousand-element metering wasn't available then. But you'd
expect such a system to be dead-on nine times out of ten. Is it?
By the way, Matrix Metering is Nikon's trademark, not Minolta's.
< 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 >
|