Nikon D300 Camera Out performing the Metering System in both A and S Modes

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by LuvLatins, Dec 25, 2007.

  1. LuvLatins

    acl Guest

    That may or may not be the case, but his reply was neither helpful nor
    particularly friendly this time. And the irony was completely
    unnecessary (IMNSHO, of course).
     
    acl, Dec 26, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    it was rude and nasty but I dont know what he thinks because as I
    said, he qualified for my Kill file and I cant see any more of his
    posts. <g>
     
    LuvLatins, Dec 27, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. If it was just a "tad" underexposed and just to the left, then your meter
    should have had no trouble displaying it. Are you sure you aren't comparing
    histograms of images that have been post processed? I didn't read any of your
    posts in another newsgroup as has been aluded to here by others, so please
    note my ignorance of what may have been posted there.

    If you took a picture with the meter showing "Lo", that picture should have
    been VERY dark and WAY TO THE LEFT.

    What camera did you photograph with before you bought the D300?
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 27, 2007
    #23
  4. I didn't see his examples ... there were no links posted [in this group] and I
    haven't read any of his posts on the subject outside this thread. One thing
    that I am sure of is that if the meter is showing "Lo" and a picture is taken,
    that picture will be severely under exposed [very very dark] and be way to the
    left on the histogram. The fact that you and he have referenced photos that I
    have no links to, but they indicate barely a difference in histogram suggests
    to me that they were post processed. Please post the link? Better yet, post
    the link to the NEF originals [assuming the links presumably posted elsewhere
    are not already to the original NEF].
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 27, 2007
    #24
  5. Why would that be?

    Nikon advertizes the meter as within a certain degree of
    accuracy, and the "Lo" indicates that, because it is out
    of range, it cannot provide that accuracy. It is *not*
    an indication that it is "VERY" inaccurate, but only
    that it is out of specs. I don't know what their specs
    are, but given they increment exposure in 1/3rd f/stops,
    can't we expect accuracy to at least half that?

    Probably "Lo" *should* appear if the image is 1/6th of
    an f/stop underexposed! (And certainly if it is 1/3rd
    of an f/stop underexposed.)

    Most people can't see that small a change in the average
    image.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 27, 2007
    #25
  6. How can you be "sure" that? It isn't necessarily true!
    What indication is there of that?

    http://www.nycsaintmusic.com/Public/Nikon/013.JPG
    http://www.nycsaintmusic.com/Public/Nikon/014.JPG
    I, of course, don't know if he was shooting RAW or not.
    However, the EXIF data embedded in the posted images
    suggests it was processed only by the camera.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 27, 2007
    #26
  7. "Lo" means the camera can't find a shutter speed [since we are talking apeture
    priority] that it is capable of controlling at the given apeture. In short,
    you need to use bulb and time it yourself. I fail to see how the OP could
    have taken the image he did [I found the links] handheld with the camera
    indicating "Lo" as it would have meant an exceedingly long shutter speed ...
    and the first image was excessively noisy which looks to me as if it has been
    corrected for exposure [not to mention it was take at the highest ISO and
    gain].

    Something seems a little fishy here.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 28, 2007
    #27
  8. You are correct, it isn't necessarily true. However, since he wasn't using
    flash and he was using apeture priority, the "Lo" would appear when it only
    acceptable shutter speed is so long that it won't control it automatically and
    you woud have to use "bulb" [also assuming auto ISO wasn't on or that the
    camera attempted at the highest ISO]. In short, I fail to see how that
    picture could have been taking handheld in apeture priority mode with "Lo"
    indicated; it is too sharp.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 28, 2007
    #28
  9. LuvLatins

    acl Guest

    Well, why don't you take your d200 (or whatever it is you use), set it
    to ISO 3200 and see when Lo appears? Surely it's not that hard :)
     
    acl, Dec 28, 2007
    #29
  10. It is a D200 and I didn't say it was hard to make it appear. I can probably
    make "Lo" appear at ISO100 without much effort ... f/22 will aid in that!

    But that was hardly the point.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 28, 2007
    #30
  11. LuvLatins

    acl Guest

    So try it. Set your lens to f/22 and see if Lo appears. You'll find
    that "Lo" doesn't only indicate what you say it does (ie that more
    than 30s), but also something else...
     
    acl, Dec 28, 2007
    #31
  12. Your understanding of what "Lo" means isn't correct, which
    makes everything based on it illogical.

    "Lo" does *not* mean the camera can't find a shutter
    speed... It just means the metering system is beyond
    its range and will be inaccurate.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 28, 2007
    #32
  13. What do you base that definition of "Lo" on?
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 28, 2007
    #33
  14. A lack of light for the meter to suggest an [acceptable] shutter speed. The
    OP was using apeture priority is why shutter speed is the defining variable
    here. If the OP were in shutter priority, then it would simply be that the
    lens can't open enough at the shutter speed selected to get an acceptable
    exposure and would also display "Lo".
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 28, 2007
    #34
  15. But where do you get that definition of what it means
    from???? That is *not* what Nikon says it means!

    Nikon merely says that it indicates the image will be
    underexposed; they do not say by how much, nor do they
    indicate the cause.

    I would interpret what Nikon says as to include what you
    are saying, but to _also_ include the absolute light
    level being below the range of the metering system.
    Hence, if the spot meter is rated from 2 EV to 20 EV, I
    would expect that at 1.67 EV the camera will display
    "Lo" regardless of the shutter/aperture settings. Or
    below 0 EV for other than spot metering.

    Obviously it _also_ will show "Lo" if it cannot provide
    a slow enough shutter or a wide enough aperture.
    The EXIF data for the two images show the 014.JPG image,
    shot at ISO 800, has EXIF data for the "Light Value",
    which it says was 1.3 (which I'm assuming is 1.3 EV);
    however, there is no "Light Value" entry for the 013.JPG
    image data.

    The light for the 013.JPG image is apparently too low to
    be measured. The two images are not framed exactly the
    same, and it appears that there are fewer bright areas
    in the 013.JPG image, thus resulting in a 0 EV or lower
    light value. It could also be an anomaly in the
    metering system when using ISO 6400 as opposed to 800.
    Or a combination of the two.

    Note that the actual exposure, when shifting 3 fstops
    from ISO 800 to ISO 6400 was indeed very close to 3
    fstops (0.6 seconds shutter speed to 0.08 seconds with
    the same aperture).

    Heh... all else aside, the 800 ISO shot at 1.3 EV is
    just astounding! (For an APS sized sensor.)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 28, 2007
    #35
  16. LuvLatins

    ASAAR Guest

    Sorry Luv, but I agree with John on this, and think that you
    misinterpreted what Chris was trying to tell you. No big deal
    though - it happens a lot in this imperfect medium. From what I've
    seen of his posts, he's one of the more helpful, thoughtful guys,
    and he doesn't thrive on snippy, snide, and downright mean replies,
    as is the custom of some of the others posting here . . .


    [From your OP] :
    Nope. Maybe not enough light for a perfect or proper exposure?
    Maybe with the focal length you used with the 18-200mm lens, the
    D300 had already determined that to get a good exposure it needed
    more light, but the lens at f/3.5 was already wide open or close to
    it, and lengthening the shutter speed was the other primary option.
    But it was already excessively long, and the D300 may not have
    wanted (for the ISOs you selected) to change the shutter speeds from
    "2, 1/10, 1/20" to values of say, 16, 1/2 or 1/5 sec. that might
    have produced more optimal exposures. Did you have the lens's VR
    engaged? It's not able to compensate adequately at shutter speeds
    that are too slow, and your shots seem to be using shutter speeds
    near the problem area, unless the lens was zoomed towards the wide
    end of its focal length range.

    Or, one of the other explanations could be closer to the point, but
    I'll leave it to you to figure it out as I have neither the camera,
    the lens, nor the manual. :)
     
    ASAAR, Dec 28, 2007
    #36
  17. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    I actually learned a great deal reading the two of you arguing. The
    pictures were taken using an 18-200 mm VR lens. Amazing how low and
    slow you can go and still get a steady looking picture. The camera
    was set to take it in RAW and fine JPG but I only posted the JPG
    because of the size. On A mode I got a shot, when I tried it in S
    mode the shutter opened for over 1 minute and since I was hand holding
    the camera it was not possible to get the shot.

    I have concluded that when the meter flashes and the indicator says LO
    it means there is not enough light to get a "0" right on exposed
    perfect shot. I think Nikon agreed by saying slightly underexposed. I
    guess it is underexposed according the the D300 meter but it must be
    like 1/3 of a stop uder exposed which explains why it still looks
    fairly good. When light gets this low, I am going to try M mode next
    time.

    Thanks for helping me to learn here both of you provided good examples
    which helped me to understand my camera better
     
    LuvLatins, Dec 29, 2007
    #37
  18. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    kewl, i removed him from my kill filter. Thanks
     
    LuvLatins, Dec 29, 2007
    #38
  19. LuvLatins

    acl Guest

    One thing to try for longish handheld exposures with no tripod is the
    exposure delay mode (the one that flips up the mirror and waits .4s
    before firing the shutter). I find it works surprisingly well to allow
    one to get longer exposures than would otherwise be possible. Might
    not work so well with VR, though, I don't know.
     
    acl, Dec 29, 2007
    #39
  20. That is what I said, but certain people here seem to think that is not the
    case.
    You shouldn't need it if you have used a DSLR and know how to determine the
    settings for both the compostion and exposure you are after.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 29, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.