No, Rick, I'm not going to be easy on the camera, and I'll tell you why. First, camera makers have been touting their technologies as a panacea for all sorts of situations, which of course I know is just a pile of horse pucky. Also, a bunch of people here over the years have been critical of my suggestion that no matter how smart built-in meters can be, they are not as accurate as someone who knows how to read light and make proper exposures. I know how to make exposures, and believe that I can do better than what this meter can do. When I look at the background of this scene, in both pics, I don't see much difference except in the way the bright areas are distributed. One has a big bright area on the left, the other on the right, The face is pretty well centered. I'd have thought that with all the magical abilities these cameras have been credited with, a simple backlighted shot would be easy for it to meter, and the exposures would have been a lot closer. I guess I was wrong about that and right in my original assumption that these newer cameras are no better than the older ones.
If I were metering the scene, I'd have taken one reading, and put the camera on manual exposure, leaving the aperture and shutter speed alone. Anyway, this was just a learning experience to see what the metering system on the istDs could do. Looking at the other 94 photos, er, images, made with this camera on that day, I am not impressed with it's automatic metering skills. But in all fairness to the pea-brained computer that lives within this attractive little body, it's probably no worse than most other metering systems, and I will no longer trust it generate good, consistent results when set in any automatic mode. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Rick Womer > Gosh, Shel, give the poor camera a break! > > This is a very, very tough shot for a little > microchip. You've got background highlights, a very > bright background highlight on the left, a midtone > face, and a black hat. > > This is what they put spot meters in cameras for.
