That's not to say that I don't use evaluative metering - one of the things I really like about the Mz-S is that with a quick flick of a switch you can see the exposures as set by evaluative, spot, and center weighted metering, and you can better understand what's going on. While one metering system may be more accurate in some circumstances than another, the degree of difference is pretty negligible. The whole idea of marketing is to
What really impressed me was when I learned about the zone system in a class last year - not only in terms of determining exposure, but also in terms of integrating over or under development of the film into the exposure system. The fullness and accuracy of the system was a real eye opener - so far beyond something that one could expect a camera and a computer chip to do.
- MCC
At 10:03 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
These days I carry an ambient > light meter with me at all times. That's not because Pentax can't meter > accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate as > an ambient light meter.
Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more accurate... Regards Artur
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
