«

Chris Malcolm <> writes:

> nospam <> wrote:
>> In article <>, Chris Malcolm
>> <> wrote:
>
>>> >>>> E-M5 is weak. OM-D is strong. OM4-4 would have made more sense, but
>>> >>>> I doubt it has manually selectable, multiple spot metering.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> if only it did. the multi-spot metering on the om3& om4 was awesome.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, the multispot metering was awesome, because the spot readings
>>> >> were additive, and exposure could be beautifully controlled regardless
>>> >> of the difficulty that the scene presented. I treasure my large
>>> >> collection of OM-4 and OM-4T bodies, lenses, motor drives, flashes,
>>> >> etc., even though I no longer use them. I would love to have a digital
>>> >> body that could utilize all these items, but it is probably not going
>>> >> to happen.
>>>
>>> > I loved the idea of multi-spot metering. I envisioned myself getting
>>> > near-zone-system exposure precision much MUCH faster (and hence usably
>>> > on things that aren't static or repeating).
>>>
>>> Does not Sony do the same kind of thing on their Alpha models which
>>> have two image sensors, one for taking the photograph, the other for
>>> presenting the LCD live view? That enables fast phase autofocus while
>>> using live view, and it also makes use of the live view secondary
>>> sensor to do very accurate multi-spot metering.
>
>> nobody has had anything remotely close to om-3/4 multi-spot metering. i
>> don't know why, since it was so damned useful.
>
> I did a bit of googling to find out what this was. Seems it allowed
> you to spot read up to 8 regions of the photograph which could be
> either averaged for a mid-tone exposure, or expose to the left
> (darkest) or right (lightest), giving you some automation to help you
> apply a simplified version of the zone system.

Furthermore, it displayed the spots measured graphically across the
bottom of the screen, so you could quickly determine what was falling
where, and perhaps what was going to be clipped.

> I used to do that the hard (and more expensive) way with a light
> meter. I've still got the light meter. I now use it to balance manual
> flash guns, and to assess exposure for some purely manual lenses. But
> I find I never now use it for doing zoney exposure stuff. Why not?
> Because when I want to do that kind of thing, being able to take a
> shot and immediately see all the oversposed and underexposed areas
> highlighted, plus being able to see not only the light level histogram
> but the individial colour histograms, lets me have so much more
> detailed control so much more easily.

Yep, detailed histograms give us a LOT more data now. I do so like
progress!

> So I conclude that had I owned an OM4 I would have liked and used the
> multi-spot system, but if I had it now in my camera I wouldn't bother,
> I'd go for the histograms etc..

That sounds right.

> I still carry the light meter around, BTW. I use it to balance flash
> guns and assess initial trial exposure for totally manual lenses. Even
> in the simple easily accessible confines of the studio I never bother
> doing the zone thing with it because the camera now offers me better
> ways of doing that.

At this point my two light meters just sit in the cabinet (I hope I
remembered to take the batteries out). I find I can "guess" (based on
40 years of experience) quite a good starting point, and whether I need
one, two, or very occasionally three test shots really doesn't matter
much (especially compared to digging the meter out of the shoulder
bag).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info