«

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-03-28 06:01:01 -0700, "Focus" <> said:
>
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31436871
>>
>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
>> for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>
>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>
>>
>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
>> renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
>> exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
>> on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
>> exposure
>> accuracy."
>>
>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
>>
>>
>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>> shooter, does it?
>>
>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>
> Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
> for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
> camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
> for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
>
> The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
> ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
> do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
> do about them.
The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit
landscape a "lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit
landscapes would probably be the next most commonly shot
thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum & dad snapshooters.

I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging
from 35mm rangefinders with no light meter, through to
mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I never had a single problem metering
this type of shot, until I got a DSLR. Getting these shots
nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no meter, sunny 16
and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide
film. Your gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted
adjustement of the exposure (snowfields, beach etc), but a
simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of those situations.

Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals,
but you should still be able to trust the meter, and IME,
you can't. Trust the meter and you'll get a white sky pretty
much every time. This is what I've found with my Canon and
Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from others
with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse
than Canon & Samsung/Pentax.

When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular
occurrence that people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming
they were faulty because of this very fault. I'm not talking
about the mum & dad snapshooter with their first DSLR camera
- they probably don't know enough to recognise that they are
getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.

Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of
experience knows that if they go manual, put negative EC on,
bracket, or use the histogram they can get a correct
exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the
photograph and adjusts for the type of photo, should not get
something as common as a sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.
>


--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:00:06 -0700
C J Campbell <> wrote:

> And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be
> a need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
> foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it.
>
Often quite easily overcome with a ND filter aligned with the horizon,
and some really high-tech metering system like my Leningrad 4.

"C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
news:2009040807000643658-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-04-08 01:16:56 -0700, Doug Jewell <>
> said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-03-28 06:01:01 -0700, "Focus" <> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31436871
>>>>
>>>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
>>>> OK
>>>> for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>>>
>>>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System:
>>>> Nikon's
>>>> renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
>>>> exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
>>>> on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
>>>> exposure
>>>> accuracy."
>>>>
>>>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>>>> shooter, does it?
>>>>
>>>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>>>
>>> Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
>>> for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
>>> camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
>>> for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
>>>
>>> The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
>>> ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
>>> do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
>>> do about them.
>> The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
>> "lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably be
>> the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum
>> & dad snapshooters.
>>
>> I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
>> rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
>> never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
>> DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
>> meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
>> that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide film. Your
>> gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of the exposure
>> (snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of
>> those situations.
>>
>> Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you should
>> still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the meter and
>> you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what I've found
>> with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from
>> others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse than
>> Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
>>
>> When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence that
>> people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty because of
>> this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad snapshooter with
>> their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know enough to recognise
>> that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
>> seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
>>
>> Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
>> that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the histogram
>> they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
>> especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the photograph and
>> adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something as common as a
>> sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.
>
> So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which did
> not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not seem to be
> a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites. Neither do I
> see the problem on photo sharing groups.
>
> I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
> camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
> cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
> does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme dissatisfaction
> with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a guy who has gone
> through so many cameras in such a short period of time. So I hope you will
> understand that if Focus complains about his camera, it is pretty much
> getting to be "same-old, same-old."
>
> Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then run
> out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure. But I
> would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro shooter like
> Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
>
> However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion that
> there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual photos,
> along with additional information such as what metering mode the camera
> was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or one of the
> built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG, etc. So far,
> both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in demonstrating the
> actual problem.
>
> And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
> need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
> foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it. This
> is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera sensors, both
> digital and film, can only address a very limited range of stops. A "pro"
> would know this.
>
> For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on his
> camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light meter,
> so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
> under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for a
> particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also know
> that this can change over time.
>
> So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your experience
> appears to be contrary to that of most users.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

The D70 doesn't have this metering problem. The D300 gives very good
accuracy too; ditto the pro level cameras. This problem started with the
D80, then the D40(x)/60 and now the D90. Althought the D90 is slightly
better. . It seems Nikon decided to adjust the exposure levels for these
cameras to expose for the shadows instead of the highlights as in the D70
and D300. So you get overexposure. Worse is that it is not consistance so
just setting a 1/3 or 2/3 stop decrease doesn't work. It appears that they
regard people who buy these cameras are likely to be beginners who prefer
images that are bright and cheerful rather than the slightly dull result you
get on the so called pro range. The result is frustration for anyone who
knows how to expose images correctly.
PDM

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:02:32 +0100, Focus whined:

> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.

The more one looks, the easier it becomes to find bogus gripes
that complain about virtually anything that one wants to find.


> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to
competently evaluate cameras. You quickly bounce from "It's a
perfect camera" to "it's a piece of crap". Even without owning a
D90, Mssr. Waddling Eagle is a better judge of it than you.


> On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
> were aware much more people that had problems with it.
> But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
>
> Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
> you are, sir!

Thom Hogan is a pro that you should read more of. He finds the
matrix metering of the D40 is comparable to the D50, just slightly
better than the D80, but meters hotter than the D200, and he doesn't
particularly care for the D80's matrix metering. But he says in his
review of the D90 that he likes it quite a lot more than the D80 and
that the D90's metering and AF performance are both better than the
D80's, but not quite as good as the D300's AF and metering.

Thom is quick to point out flaws in Nikon's products and it should
be no surprise that I respect his opinions much more than yours.
But then he doesn't come across as a perpetually whining immature
little boy that has a lot to learn. What seems clear is that you
don't understand how matrix metering works, how its implementation
differs among the different Nikon bodies, and probably little tricks
such as how to get an exposure that's the average of two different
matrix-meter evaluations. A pro wants their DSLR to be a flexible
tool and will take the time to learn how to use it to the best of
their abilities. You seem to be looking more for a camera that can
be used without requiring much thought to get decent pictures.
Maybe a D40 or even a P90 would suit you better.

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:02:32 +0100, "Focus" <> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
>news:2009040807000643658-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>> On 2009-04-08 01:16:56 -0700, Doug Jewell <>
>> said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> On 2009-03-28 06:01:01 -0700, "Focus" <> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31436871
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
>>>>> OK
>>>>> for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System:
>>>>> Nikon's
>>>>> renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
>>>>> exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
>>>>> on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
>>>>> exposure
>>>>> accuracy."
>>>>>
>>>>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in
>>>>> them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>>>>> shooter, does it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
>>>> for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
>>>> camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
>>>> for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
>>>> ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
>>>> do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
>>>> do about them.
>>> The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
>>> "lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably be
>>> the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum
>>> & dad snapshooters.
>>>
>>> I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
>>> rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
>>> never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
>>> DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
>>> meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
>>> that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide film. Your
>>> gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of the exposure
>>> (snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of
>>> those situations.
>>>
>>> Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you should
>>> still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the meter and
>>> you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what I've found
>>> with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from
>>> others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse than
>>> Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
>>>
>>> When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence that
>>> people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty because of
>>> this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad snapshooter with
>>> their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know enough to recognise
>>> that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
>>> seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
>>>
>>> Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
>>> that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the histogram
>>> they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
>>> especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the photograph and
>>> adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something as common as a
>>> sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.
>>
>> So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which did
>> not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not seem to be
>> a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites. Neither do I
>> see the problem on photo sharing groups.
>>
>> I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
>> camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
>> cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
>> does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme dissatisfaction
>> with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a guy who has gone
>> through so many cameras in such a short period of time. So I hope you will
>> understand that if Focus complains about his camera, it is pretty much
>> getting to be "same-old, same-old."
>>
>> Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then run
>> out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure. But I
>> would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro shooter like
>> Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
>>
>> However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion that
>> there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual photos,
>> along with additional information such as what metering mode the camera
>> was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or one of the
>> built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG, etc. So far,
>> both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in demonstrating the
>> actual problem.
>>
>> And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
>> need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
>> foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it. This
>> is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera sensors, both
>> digital and film, can only address a very limited range of stops. A "pro"
>> would know this.
>>
>> For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on his
>> camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light meter,
>> so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
>> under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for a
>> particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also know
>> that this can change over time.
>>
>> So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your experience
>> appears to be contrary to that of most users.
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>
>Maybe you should do more reading and less writing.
>"Most users"???
>The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
>agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
>experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
>problem.
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31335581
>
>If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>
>Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
>That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
>problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
>Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
>
>On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
>were aware much more people that had problems with it.
>But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
>
>Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
>you are, sir!

Before things get too heated .... there is another aspect which has
not yet been mentioned.

For many years I used a Nikon 801s (8008s in the US) which almost
totally exclusively was set in 'A' mode. I would choose the aperture
according to the needs of the picture and then check that the shutter
speed was acceptable. This camera had matrix metering but to the best
of my recollection never exhibited the over-exposed sky problem.

Later I used a Nikon D70 which I used in the same fashion. Virtually
all of my shots were in RAW mode and processed by Nikon NX software.
No over-exposed sky problem.

I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.

There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?



Eric Stevens

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:

> However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
> "matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
> would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
> and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
> Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
> foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
> Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
> the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
> a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
>
> I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.

Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning. As I
said, the camera is a tool and better results will come from
learning how to understand how it works, in order to use it to the
photographer's best advantage. In his D90 review, Thom Hogan
repeatedly points out how the D90 functions similar to the D300, and
says that as far as metering is concerned, its improved over the
D80, but not quite as good as the D300. He says of the D300 :

> Metering has changed on the D300, as has autofocus, and the two
> are now having relations together. Yes, we still have the same
> 1005-pixel CCD in the viewfinder doing the metering, though its
> position has changed (still vulnerable to light coming through the
> viewfinder, by the way) and it's now linked in real time to the AF
> system. The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300
> pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used
> than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention
> to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter"
> than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon
> has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives
> the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast
> scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200
> and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright
> or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of
> the metering in such cases than the D200 gave.

And the same applies to the D90. Most real daylight scenes have a
much greater dynamic range that any camera can capture, so it's up
to the photographer to steer the camera towards capturing the subset
that is wanted. If Focus thinks that the D40's metering is much
better, then that's the camera he should use, and not be seduced by
what others think of the D90. The D90 simply exposes how he's
succumbed to the Photographer's Peter Principle.

> I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
>
> There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
> metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
> Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
> RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
>
Eric Stevens

Metering is not affected by using RAW and/or NX2
PDM

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:38:12 +0100, "PDM"
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>> I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
>>
>> There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
>> metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
>> Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
>> RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
>>
>Eric Stevens
>
>Metering is not affected by using RAW and/or NX2

I agree. But the OP only believes his metering is wrong on the basis
of what he sees in the image on the screen or print. I'm saying that
what he he sees depends in part on what has happened in between the
taking of the picture and display of the image.

In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
have been due to a camera fault.



Eric Stevens

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:34:32 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
> have been due to a camera fault.

"may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
without having all of the facts.

> So, Nikon: explain yourself.

> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM

>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>> photographer) is really tight.
>
> So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
> is a wise decision?
To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.

> The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
> agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
> experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
> problem.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31335581
>
> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>
> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.


> Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
> pictures". I just don't believe it.

And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
a trouble shooting technician.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:36:39 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:34:32 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
>> have been due to a camera fault.
>
> "may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
>face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
>certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
>really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
>so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
>without having all of the facts.
>
>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>
>> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM
>
>>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>>> photographer) is really tight.
>>
>> So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
>> is a wise decision?
> To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
>appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.
>
>> The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
>> agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
>> experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
>> problem.
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31335581
>>
>> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>>
>> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
>> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
>> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
>> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
>
> But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
>a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
>considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
>making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
>never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
>think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
>After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.
>
>
>> Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
>> pictures". I just don't believe it.
>
> And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
>a trouble shooting technician.

I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.



Eric Stevens