Stupid Question about Nikon FE2

wilonstott

wilonstott

Wil O.
Local time
2:03 PM
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
453
Alright, I know this is dumb, but I'm just making sure.

I normally use rangefinders, but have needed a polarizer lately, and have been using an FE2 I bought for my girlfriend.

Compared to 2 other cameras and a handheld incident meter, the meter in the FE2 is overexposing by about a stop.

So, I've been using it on manual, and metering with my handheld meter.

Now for the stupid question:

The meter and the shutter speeds operate independently, right?

The speeds would be the same even if the meter is off by a stop or two, right?

And if the battery gets low, then the camera would cease to function--not have screwy shutter speeds, right? --except for the manual 250th

I bought the camera about a year ago from KEH, and I'm confident it was fully functional then, and I really don't have any reason to doubt it now (I haven't gotten the roll processed yet), I'm simply curious if anyone has any input or anecdotes.

Thanks in advance.
 
Speeds should be as marked and not affected by meter issues. Only on A would you have problems where it picked the wrong speed. :)

Ronnie
 
wilonstott said:
Alright, I know this is dumb, but I'm just making sure.

I normally use rangefinders, but have needed a polarizer lately, and have been using an FE2 I bought for my girlfriend.

Compared to 2 other cameras and a handheld incident meter, the meter in the FE2 is overexposing by about a stop.

So, I've been using it on manual, and metering with my handheld meter.

Now for the stupid question:

The meter and the shutter speeds operate independently, right?

The speeds would be the same even if the meter is off by a stop or two, right?

And if the battery gets low, then the camera would cease to function--not have screwy shutter speeds, right? --except for the manual 250th

I bought the camera about a year ago from KEH, and I'm confident it was fully functional then, and I really don't have any reason to doubt it now (I haven't gotten the roll processed yet), I'm simply curious if anyone has any input or anecdotes.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

First of all, the polarizer will throw the meter off easily by a stop as the meter is reading the light from the polarizer. Use the compensation dial to take care of the difference. Forget the handheld meter.

Example (I just checked with my own FE2s outside using the Nikon circular polarizer):

Sunny day today, without the polarizer, f8 and shutter speed 1/750
with the polarizer, f8 and shutter speed 1/250

What do you think? Overexposed (by comparing the numbers, yes, but the photo looks fine) by a bit more than one stop? Yes.

Again, if the FE2 meter is already off a stop, either compensate with aperture, or shutter speed, or use the compensation dial. Good luck, let us k ow how it works out.
 
This is so cool...I haven't yet tried a red filter or the circular polarizer on the X1 yet. So, because of the OP's thread, I just did and find that I really need to order the extension tube so I can mount these filters. Just holding the filters up to the lens and running some test shots proved how useful these can be even with a digital camera with a fixed telescoping lens.

Kiwifotos, here I come. The extension tube is really cheap and will allow me to use the infrared filter too.

Thanks for posting this thread, Wil, I learned something today.:angel:
 
Lord Nikon said:
If you are metering through the filter no compensation is necessary for a polarizer or other "neutral color" filters.

OTOH, one must note the filter factor (which is different at different times for a polarizer!) when comparing to an incident light reading.
Click to expand...

It is definitely different...I placed the polarizer in front of the X1, got the same 1 stop + difference with the polarizer and it varies of course when turning the circular polarizer. A static polarizer would not vary.

The OP is not clear whether or not the FE2 meter is a stop off with or without the polarizer.
 
I would think there wouldn't be any compension necessary. The exposure with the polarizer SHOULD be more than without it. It the exposure is 500th @ f16 without the filter, it SHOULD be 500th at f5.6 to f8 with the filter on. With a medium yellow, it would be one stop, with red, two. That's the cool thing about TTL metering. You don't have to think about filter factors. Am I misunderstanding the OP's question?
 
Vics said:
I would think there wouldn't be any compension necessary. The exposure with the polarizer SHOULD be more than without it. It the exposure is 500th @ f16 without the filter, it SHOULD be 500th at f5.6 to f8 with the filter on. With a medium yellow, it would be one stop, with red, two. That's the cool thing about TTL metering. You don't have to think about filter factors. Am I misunderstanding the OP's question?
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say, but it looks as if he is comparing the numbers, not the final image result. He has not received the prints back yet.

TTL metering will take care of the one-two stop difference but only if the meter is working right to begin with which is not clear in the OP.
 
This site http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fe2/index.htm should have most of the info you need on the FE2 and how it operates. If you are saying that the camera overexposes with the polarizer in place compared to a hand meter then that is normal. The camera has TTL metering and is metering the light that gets through the polarizer, the hand meter meters the light with no filter in front of it. the polarizer robs light so the camera automatically takes that into account and adds exposure. The meters in the FE2 are very accurate and the shutter speeds stepless in any mode other than manual, IIRC.

Bob
 
The shutter speeds are in fact stepless. On to another point: the FE/FM and FE2/FM2 meters take light bouncing through the focusing screen. So, if it's overexposing w/o the polarizer, make sure the focusing screen is not notably dirty. And make sure it's the right one for the FE2. It would overexpose if someone had put an FE screen in, as they are not as bright as the FE2 screens for which the meter is calibrated.
 
sparrow6224 said:
The shutter speeds are in fact stepless. On to another point: the FE/FM and FE2/FM2 meters take light bouncing through the focusing screen. So, if it's overexposing w/o the polarizer, make sure the focusing screen is not notably dirty. And make sure it's the right one for the FE2. It would overexpose if someone had put an FE screen in, as they are not as bright as the FE2 screens for which the meter is calibrated.
Click to expand...

Cool. I'll check that out. Hadn't noticed any dirt, but I wasn't looking for it specifically.

Can I clean that myself?



Also, for all the hubub about polarizers: thanks for the concern--I know how they work.

Reading back over my question, I realize it was ambiguous--sorry about that.

I'm using a circular which cuts +/-1.5 stops according to the literature, and I'm shooting Portra 160.

Thus, the meter on the camera would not be affected (circular), but I've set the incident meter at iso 64, and shot the whole thing on manual.

Like I said, haven't gotten them processed yet, just curious.

Still--the in-camera meter seems to be off by about a stop with no filters--so the Auto is off as well.
 
wilonstott said:
Cool. I'll check that out. Hadn't noticed any dirt, but I wasn't looking for it specifically.

Can I clean that myself?



Also, for all the hubub about polarizers: thanks for the concern--I know how they work.

Reading back over my question, I realize it was ambiguous--sorry about that.

I'm using a circular which cuts +/-1.5 stops according to the literature, and I'm shooting Portra 160.

Thus, the meter on the camera would not be affected (circular), but I've set the incident meter at iso 64, and shot the whole thing on manual.

Like I said, haven't gotten them processed yet, just curious.

Still--the in-camera meter seems to be off by about a stop with no filters--so the Auto is off as well.
Click to expand...

Ah...that is what I thought you meant. You can set the compensation dial for a stop difference if that will help. You might prefer the handheld meter but if a simple setting will equalize the situation, then, maybe that is a good work-around.

Strange for a meter to be off that much, though. What batteries are you using? :confused:
 
When I bought my two FE2s, sometime around 1987 or so, I shot some black and white and a lot of Velvia 50. I felt my exposures were fine. But recently I shot a test roll and found that I got the best exposures with the camera set to EI 64 or 80. And in comparing readings with the FE2 vs. my F3 and F100, the readings are nearly a stop off. How to explain this?

I recalled that many photographers felt that Velvia 50 is over-rated at ISO 50, and so they prefer to shoot it at 40, or even at 32. I had always told myself that they couldn't be right, my pictures always looked fine at 50. But: what if my camera had been overexposing all these years? What if it had been overexposing by 1/3 stop, for instance? Then I would have really exposed over a thousand pictures at 40, not really 50. And what if it had been overexposing by 2/3 stop? then I would have really exposed all those shots at ISO 32. And all the while I thought I had been exposing at 50. And what if the camera were a full stop off? Well, you get the idea. The FE2 could be overexposing by some amount, and Velvia 50 could be slower than the box speed by some amount, and these two errors could have compensated for each other.

I went on the Nikon forum at Photo.net, and saw some evidence of the FE2 over-exposing, documented by others. I'll see if I can still find those threads and post a link.

The question in my mind is whether my FE2s have gotten worse in this regard. A full stop or 2/3 stop seems an awful lot for me to not have noticed. But I do suspect they were off by about 1/3 stop right from the beginning.

So I think it is not the OP's imagination. There is something going on here.
 
dnk512 said:
No, circular means the *autofocus* will not be affected. The meter is affected by the 1.5 f stops.
Click to expand...

The polarizer being "circular" also means that the meter will not be made inaccurate/inoperable. In the case of the FM/FE/FM2/FE2 this is a non-issue as they work equally well with conventional polarizers.

Still, there will be a shift in the meter reading since the meter is reading through the pol. The meter's opinion when reading through a pol is generally close to correct, though it can be off depending on the effect desired and how the image is framed.
 
Hi,

One of my two FE2s overexposes close to a stop, compared to other cameras... I don't know the technical reason... I don't want to fix it either... I've measured it and it's 2/3rds of a stop... So, about your question: when your FE2 is in A mode, speeds are stepless, and compensation (e.g. +1) is considered. But if you set a manual speed, that one will be an absolute, so it won't be stepless of course, and it won't be affected by any compensation either, in case you leave the compensation on while setting manual speeds and shooting...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I think that whether on the manual setting, or on A, the thing that needs correction is the meter, rather than the shutter. I set my FE2's film speed dial a little higher than the box speed: 2/3 stop for Velvia 50. I feel that this procedure is foolproof, because it corrects for the meter's error with a compensatory change in the film speed setting. And it seems to me that dialing in compensation basically does the same thing, since the compensation mechanism just offsets the film speed shaft from its nominal setting by the amount of compensation dialed in. So I think it's OK to correct the exposure using the compensation dial. Of course, that would not affect or correct the exposure when using a hand-held meter.
 
I have no experience with a FE2, but I had used both the FM and the FE at the same time period. When I shot Fujichrome 100, I would set my FM at ISO 125 and the FE at ISO 160. So iut appears to me that the over-exposure of the meter started with the FE, at least in my case,

Just a speculation---could it be the FE/FE2 were designed that way to prevent under-exposure for negative films?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom