Time to do away with the exposure meter?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back in the day, with the Canonet and other rangefinder cameras, you looked through the glass viewfinder and got some rough guidance on exposure.  Things got more sophisticated with the M5 (didn't have one) and the Nikon F series cameras.  But you still had to have your wits about you - what was the meter reading, and would your highlights be blown out (Kodachrome)?  Today, we have a myriad of fancy electronic aids, with different exposure settings - centre weighted, 1º spot, matrix etc etc.  

 

But with EVF based cameras (the SL and TL2, and presumably the CL), I think the time is up for the traditional exposure meter.  What we were always grappling with was what the meter was reading compared to what we were seeing.  With my SL and TL2, I now see in the EVF what is read off the sensor, so I don't need the meter's approximation - I see the exposure directly.  As a default, I would be quite happy to see the meter disabled completely, and for an "Essentials" EVF based camera to have no meter at all.

 

[LD_50]

I prefer to keep the meter. I like to know how much EC I am dialing in so I do not overdo it and can prepare for recovery in post processing. This gives me a better feel for how much shadow recovery will be available in the RAW file. The EVF is not completely reliable for the output RAW files in my opinion.

 

I would welcome a live RGB histogram from the RAW file rather than the current setup. It would move us one step closer to not needing the exposure meter, as you describe.

[robgo2]

Are you sure that the EVF shows the full brightness range that is being registered by the sensor? I doubt it, but I do take your point that you can usually judge exposure reasonably well by how the image looks in the finder. The big thing to remember with the SL is to err a bit on the side of underexposure, as it does not have much headroom for highlights.

[sillbeers15]

Unlike film days, digital cameras with reasonable DR allows more recovery and isolated exposure adjustments (except blow outs due to over exposure). So even the exposure isn’t precise can be adjusted in LR. It is especially so for subject to background exposure variation. So it makes sense to under exposure more than over exposure. Although that said, there is limitation and a well planned shot beats post processing adjustments.

[jaapv]

The thing is that the exposure latitude of digital cameras has become so wide that it is indeed often possible to get a decent exposure by eyeballing it in an EVF. However, for optimal results, it is still needed to get exposure exactly right, especially if the tonal range of the subject is as large or larger than the sensor can handle. And then there are things like getting the noise down to a minimum by ETTR techniques. No, I don't think we can live without exposure metering. (yet?)

 

@ LD50: the MM1 has a raw histogram.

[LD_50]

@ LD50: the MM1 has a raw histogram.

 

Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten this. I'm not aware of many cameras that offer a RAW histogram. I believe the Phase One XF does the same. Perhaps it's a processing issue but it would certainly be another nice differentiator for the M, S, and SL cameras.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

 

I think that in the late 1980's or early 1990's this same discussion arose when Kodak released a negative film that could be used at a number of ISO's, all on the same roll of film, going thru the same C-41 processing machine which was set at standard settings.

 

Yellow box with (Possibly) light to medium brown stripe.

 

I think that the ISO's went from 50/18 - 100/21 to 800/30 - 1600/33.

 

The only difference, of course, was: With Negative Films people expose for the shadows & let the highlights take care of themselves.

 

With Digital Sensors: Sensors treat light more like Transparency/Slide Films where people expose for the highlights & let the shadows fall where they may.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited November 21, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht

[wildlightphoto]

... with EVF based cameras (the SL and TL2, and presumably the CL), I think the time is up for the traditional exposure meter.  What we were always grappling with was what the meter was reading compared to what we were seeing.  With my SL and TL2, I now see in the EVF what is read off the sensor, so I don't need the meter's approximation - I see the exposure directly.  As a default, I would be quite happy to see the meter disabled completely, and for an "Essentials" EVF based camera to have no meter at all.

 

 

This would be fine with me.  This feature is one of the really great benefits of the EVF; prior to the SL's FW 3.0 the need to set the exposure preview on the SL for every exposure was one of the features that drove me to the other FF EVF camera brand, which allows the exposure preview mode to be 'sticky', i.e., stays on after each exposure.

[stray cat]

Whew! When I saw this topic on the International User Forum main page, all it had room for was

Time to do away with the ex

 

I was a bit worried, John...

[jaapv]

Hello Everybody,

 

I think that in the late 1980's or early 1990's this same discussion arose when Kodak released a negative film that could be used at a number of ISO's, all on the same roll of film, going thru the same C-41 processing machine which was set at standard settings.

 

Yellow box with (Possibly) light to medium brown stripe.

 

I think that the ISO's went from 50/18 - 100/21 to 800/30 - 1600/33.

 

The only difference, of course, was: With Negative Films people expose for the shadows & let the highlights take care of themselves.

 

With Digital Sensors: Sensors treat light more like Transparency/Slide Films where people expose for the highlights & let the shadows fall where they may.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

I tried that film out - it was awful.

[MT0227]

If you wear glasses or just don't get a good light seal when holding the EVF to your eye, I feel you will get close with EVF only, but not perfect.  In real bright light scenarios like the beach, I find it hard to use the EVF only and the exposure meter confirms what I see.

[Michael Geschlecht]

I tried that film out - it was awful.

 

Hello Jaap,

 

The film may have not been to your liking but, most likely, the exposure was probably reasonably close.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[ramarren]

LOL! Funny topic for someone who just bought yet another external light meter.

Sorry, no WYSIWYG EVF does what a light meter does ... at least for me.

[jaapv]

Hello Jaap,

 

The film may have not been to your liking but, most likely, the exposure was probably reasonably close.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Even exposure was ummm.. surprising when used outside its comfort zone 400-800, not to mention the horrible colour shifts, even  if it was a negative film.