Nh3
Well-known
Film is too expensive I can't afford to 'guess'.
AE or not???
- Thread starter fleetwoodjazz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 75
- Views 1K
usagisakana
Established
I ended up going for an M6 rather than an ikon. Decided I didn't need the AE. 99% of the time i'll probably use a handheld meter, it seems to work the best for me, and i no longer find setting exposure a hassle- after a week or two you soon pick up what settings are right for which environment, and adjust automatically.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
-doomed-
film is exciting
I like having the AE function on my R2A , i like that its accurate to a point .
If you dont trust what the meter says you can always override it ,i guess what im saying is that its a useful tool.
If you dont trust what the meter says you can always override it ,i guess what im saying is that its a useful tool.
MCTuomey
Veteran
18% average metering = average exposure
on average, giving the right exposure
neither bad nor good, on average
hmmm
on average, giving the right exposure
neither bad nor good, on average
hmmm
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't understand why so many here are willing to use a hand held meter but not AE in a camera. The first thing I do when I get a used camera is put a roll of film through it. If it has AE, I want to ensure the combination of shutter speeds and AE give me well exposed photos. If so, I then use it without worry unless I am shooting in a lighting situation I know is tricky. Then I compensate, perhaps even bracket.
If I use a camera without built in light meter of any sort, I use a hand held meter. I still have to be aware of tricky lighting situations. On those rare occassions when I don't have a built in meter or a hand held meter, I must use experience and my eyes. I try to keep them calibrated but I am more likely to bracket as the situation gets more and more tricky.
But I truely feel a meter will give me more consistancy. That of course is just me. Everyone gets to do it as works best for them and gives them the most enjoyment.
If I use a camera without built in light meter of any sort, I use a hand held meter. I still have to be aware of tricky lighting situations. On those rare occassions when I don't have a built in meter or a hand held meter, I must use experience and my eyes. I try to keep them calibrated but I am more likely to bracket as the situation gets more and more tricky.
But I truely feel a meter will give me more consistancy. That of course is just me. Everyone gets to do it as works best for them and gives them the most enjoyment.
richard_l
Well-known
The way most people just chase the meter lights (or needles, as the case may be), they might as well be using AE.
As for missing shots because one doesn't have AE, there's generally no excuse for that. Just set the camera for a generic exposure by taking an incident reading or just guessing, and click away. Exposures won't be perfect, but neither is AE, and film latitude will forgive a multitude of exposure sins. Anyhow, manual exposure doesn't slow one down any more than manual focus.
Some people probably need cameras with both AE and AF. There's nothing particularly wrong with that; it just doesn't seem like much fun, and it's generally not as accurate as the alternatives.
Richard
As for missing shots because one doesn't have AE, there's generally no excuse for that. Just set the camera for a generic exposure by taking an incident reading or just guessing, and click away. Exposures won't be perfect, but neither is AE, and film latitude will forgive a multitude of exposure sins. Anyhow, manual exposure doesn't slow one down any more than manual focus.
Some people probably need cameras with both AE and AF. There's nothing particularly wrong with that; it just doesn't seem like much fun, and it's generally not as accurate as the alternatives.
Richard
user237428934
User deletion pending
Regarding AE you might be right. Regarding AF my experience is the opposite. Sometimes I take photos at the ballet training. At a relatviely close distance (2-3m) I take photos from moving people in low light situations. Tried this with my M8 and were not able to take a correct focussed shot. Prefocussing didn't work for me. And I was too slow to focus before the shot. For that I rely on my 40D with the 2.8 zoom and Image stabilizer. The AF is very fast and very! accurate. Can't imagine a faster and even more accurate solution.
You are right with the fun factor. I use my M8 when I want to have fun or tavel light. When I really want a reapeatable result I take my much too heavy DSLR.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
AE to me is not as satisfying or fun as the Sunny-16 system.
As long as I am shooting for myself or my family, I'll always prefer the latter.
But when the pressure is on (portraits, events, etc.) I am glad that I have AE to confirm or correct my estimations.
As long as I am shooting for myself or my family, I'll always prefer the latter.
But when the pressure is on (portraits, events, etc.) I am glad that I have AE to confirm or correct my estimations.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Let's see - IIIf one day - Hexar RF another - and places in between. Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't.
hiorgos
Established
Thats a very good point..
richard_l
Well-known
Prefocussing doesn't work very well at large apertures and/or close distances because of limited DoF, so yes, I agree that AF can be an advantage sometimes.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Richard, try focusing on a dancer and then moving along with that dancer to keep a constant distance between the two of you. Forget trying to chase focus by turning the lens. Your percentage of sharp shots should go way up.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
One thing I've noticed about the AE function in my OM-2 is because the shutter is electronic and stepless from memory (correct me if I'm wrong) the match needle meter reads in a linear style and doesnt just flash 30 or 60 at me etc. I tend to meter with the camera set on AE so I can see what the reading bias is directly in the viewfinder between the two nearest shutter speeds. It's much better than flipping backwards and forwards between two shutter speeds manually in normal metering mode trying to work out whether you'll buy slight overexposure or slight underexposure. I have used AE on the OM a couple of times and it really is very good considering the age of the camera.
Apparently my Konica Auto Reflex, circa 1965, was the first SLR camera to be marketed with auto exposure ... the infamous 'Electric Eye' and incredibly it still works and is very accurate ... shutter priority interestingly!
Anyway all this SLR talk must be making a few of you a bit tense ... I'll go now! 😛
Apparently my Konica Auto Reflex, circa 1965, was the first SLR camera to be marketed with auto exposure ... the infamous 'Electric Eye' and incredibly it still works and is very accurate ... shutter priority interestingly!
Anyway all this SLR talk must be making a few of you a bit tense ... I'll go now! 😛
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
I think it really comes down to one's comfort level with a given methodology, and just how well you know your equipment.
I never owned a handheld meter until about four years ago. The last non-AE camera I owned was an Olympus OM-3 sometime in the early 90s. I've had in-camera meters that ranged from flat-averaged-metering dumb (pre-electro-era Yashica) to too-smart-for-its-own-good (Minolta 9xi). When I moved to the Hexar RF as my Main Axe, the ecision was partly based on the two previous cameras that I recall having the highest comfort level with in terms of metering: as mentioned in another thread recently, those cameras were the Canon F-1 and Nikon F3. Inthe former case, the camera was not in itself AE (but that didn't stop me from getting a Servo EE Finder for mine...please, don't try this), but that hard-edge square-spot meter was golden. The F3 had a CW average metering system, but it was a tight CW setup, just about as golden, IMO, as Canon's. The Hexar's metering setup comes pretty close to Nikon's. More important, I know how to work such a metering setup, without head-scratching. It less about what the "best" system or method is than what you work best with, and that takes time to sort out initially.
- Barrett
I never owned a handheld meter until about four years ago. The last non-AE camera I owned was an Olympus OM-3 sometime in the early 90s. I've had in-camera meters that ranged from flat-averaged-metering dumb (pre-electro-era Yashica) to too-smart-for-its-own-good (Minolta 9xi). When I moved to the Hexar RF as my Main Axe, the ecision was partly based on the two previous cameras that I recall having the highest comfort level with in terms of metering: as mentioned in another thread recently, those cameras were the Canon F-1 and Nikon F3. Inthe former case, the camera was not in itself AE (but that didn't stop me from getting a Servo EE Finder for mine...please, don't try this), but that hard-edge square-spot meter was golden. The F3 had a CW average metering system, but it was a tight CW setup, just about as golden, IMO, as Canon's. The Hexar's metering setup comes pretty close to Nikon's. More important, I know how to work such a metering setup, without head-scratching. It less about what the "best" system or method is than what you work best with, and that takes time to sort out initially.
- Barrett
user237428934
User deletion pending
It wasn't richard, it was me taking photos of dancers. Your solution could probably work when you manage to move in the right speed along with a dancer. But we have an agreement. I take a position and hold that position for a while so that I don't distract them too much. So it's a special case here.
Similar threads
- Article
