«

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the nature
> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that the
> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.

And you believed it!

The designers may have had a "database of 45,000 pictures from which (they)
worked", but that's something else entirely.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 15:01:11 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the nature
>>> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that the
>>> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
>>> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
>>> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.
>>
>>And you believed it!
>>
>>The designers may have had a "database of 45,000 pictures from which
>>(they)
>>worked", but that's something else entirely.
>>
> A camera doesn't need to evaluate and characterise a picture in the
> same way that you do.

Right, it can't. What has that got to do with your claim however?
Matrix metering was an improvement on centre weighted average, which was an
improvement on full screen average, in most cases (but not all) and worked
pretty good for negative shooters. Not so much for shooting slides without
bracketing. The F801s was hardly a camera aimed at P&S auto everything
photographers though.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:57:48 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
>>>>> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the nature
>>>>> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that the
>>>>> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
>>>>> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
>>>>> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.
>>>>
>>>>And you believed it!
>>>>
>>>>The designers may have had a "database of 45,000 pictures from which
>>>>(they)
>>>>worked", but that's something else entirely.
>>>>
>>> A camera doesn't need to evaluate and characterise a picture in the
>>> same way that you do.
>>
>>Right, it can't. What has that got to do with your claim however?
>
> It has a hell of a lot to do with your blatant misunderstanding of
> what I told you Nikon said.

You mean YOUR blatant misunderstanding of what some Nikon rep said, who was
probably completely misinformed himself!


Trevor.