I don't know Canon from Campbell's soup, but metering is highly situational. I'm a Nikon user and have been truly impressed with the system's "matrix" or evaluative metering system. It does more than I can understand to overcome backlighting or any situation with lots of bright background or animals in deep shadows.
As time permits I'll generally meter in several different modes (spot, matrix and incident) for a broader evaluation of what's going on, but it's rare day when the matrix metering fails to come close to either spot or incident.
BTW- By "incident" I mean a hand held meter. It's a holdover or crossover from over 20 years of commercial shooting, but I still rely (many "modern" photographers insist too much so) on what an incident meter tells me in many situations.
That's just an old habit and not a plug for buying your own incident meter. The example helps make the point that I believe most problems arise when photographers are unfamiliar with the fine points (and especially the limits) of their gear and rely too much on any single source of information.
Without wanting to sound sarcastic (because that is not where this is coming from), but why are you asking? That will help us understand your metering questions and address answers to them.
At all but the highest end bodies, Canon and Nikon metering is probably about on par with each other. You certainly won't (or shouldn't) be making a purchasing decision based on the metering abilities of the camera body.
I use Canon's evaluative metering almost all the time. If you believe everything on the internet about that metering mode, it should be just about impossible to get anything right with it, much deal with any tricky lighting situation. In reality, it is a user issue, not a camera issue. When I get blown exposures, it is because I was not paying attention to the scene. It wasn't my camera's fault. I was my fault.
And that is the point of this post. The camera's metering is only as good as the user behind the camera. Most metering patterns on most cameras try to get back to the 18% grey. It is the photographer's responsibility to make sure that the scene really does average to that, and then make adjustments accordingly. Even an overly worshipped spot meter won't help you here - you still need to recognize the middle tone in the scene and meter off of that, or if the scene doesn't have one, know how to adjust for it.
Case in point: A few weeks ago, I was shooting a dirty white statue in direct light, but surrounded by dark, shadowed forest. Canon's evaluative metering gave me an exposure of let's say 1/60 sec at f8. But here is the problem - the statue occupied maybe 5% of the scene and it was the primary subject. That metering value came from averaging a lot of dark areas with a tiny bit of white areas, with the end result that the dark areas were properly exposed and the white statue completely blown out. The camera's meter was dead on and it did everything exactly correctly.
I had to realize that was going to happen. I reduced the exposure by 1.5 stops which brought the whites down to barely within the range of the sensor, so there were no blown highlights. This also brought the dark regions back down to dark regions, which is where I wanted them to be.
A check of the histogram after the fact revealed that this was the correct decision.
Without understanding the camera metering and what would occur, I would have gone home and wondered why the statue would one big blinkie.
Even in this situation, a spot meter would not have directly helped. I had the metering choices of dark shadows, and dropping the exposure get the statue right, metering off of the statue and increasing exposure a bit since it was white, or metering off of new vegetation in the light which was still maybe 1/2 - 2/3 stops lighter than midtone, and wet.
Back to the second question - for wildlife in general, pick one metering mode and learn how to use it, without thinking about it. For birds in flight, you are dealing with usually dark birds against a light sky. The statue example above, except in reverse, applies. I'd also look at learning fill flash and using a Better Beamer so you can bring the tonality of the underside of a bird up and keep blues in the sky.
Posted by Peter Conway on June 21, 2010 at 8:26 PM
Dan,
I certainly was not trying to stir up any kind of Canon/Nikon war. I have been using Canon bodies for a long time and for whatever reason have always used center weighted metering. I do dial in ev adjustments based on the situation and my experience.
My question was prompted when a member mentioned a strong preference for matrix metering (he is a Nikon user). I am curious as to what others have found gives them the best results on a consistent basis and why. The Canon/Nikon question relates to whether Canon has "matrix" metering by another name.
I am not basing any purchasing decision on the answers, I am heavily invested in Canon lenses and therefor will stay with Canon.
I have never really seen the issue discussed here, and I thought that was the point of the forums, to share experience and further education.
Hi Peter,
The Canon equivalent of matrix metering is evaluative metering. I use it most of the time, especially when I'm working in aperture priority (which is most of the time). I think in general it does a very good job but I will often dial in compensation based upon the lighting conditions and subjects I'm shooting. With experience you get to know when you will need to dial in adjustments. If I'm using manual mode I will now often use spot metering to read the exposure and set the correct manual exposure. This is how my friend Ken Archer reads most of his exposures by picking a neutral toned spot (for example green grass) and then adjusting for how the subject compares with that spot.
In my opinion center weighted is not the best for many images because many times you want to compose your subject outside the center of the image. One purpose I think it works quite well for is flight photography because with flight photography you are often using the center autofocus point and the bird takes up the area that the metering is reading. I then end up cropping the image for composition.
No problem. Without a context to place the question in and knowing that there are a lot more people reading this, I tend to over-write. Too many years teaching.
In the end, the real key is in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of whatever gear you decide to use and how to compensate for it. Your question doesn't have an obvious answer and what works for me may not work for you.
Peter, you have very simple questions with can be addressed with very simple answers. For almost all photography I set the camera to aperture priority. For avian, I use single point autofocus, matrix metering - in this camera the autofocus and matrix metering mode are tied together, so that whatever is in the focus sensor will get priority. If I were using my D200, this would not apply and I would have to manually adjust exposure for the circumstances more often.
For other wildlife, I generally keep the same setup. On occasion I will use a spot meter, evaluating and adjusting as required. For example, a great white egret against foliage in dark shade. Single point will come close, but will still overexpose the bird. Spot metering will nail the exposure for the bird, but you will have to add in 1 to 1.5 stops to bring the value of the bird to proper white without blowing highlights.This is no different than if you were using a hand-held spot meter, which is what I used almost exclusively for the better part of 30 yrs of non-digital photography. Old habits die hard I suppose.
I don't have an answer for the Canon way of doing things, but a good friend who uses a combination of different bodies from a 50D to a 1Ds says that Canon has similar metering capabilities. His results clearly reflect this.
Guess I'm the oddball in this one. I shoot almost exclusively using my spot meter and in the manual mode. This is regardless of what Canon body I'm using.
With consistent light I then don't have to worry about continual adjustments as wildlife subject moves across changing backgrounds such as I'd have to do where the camera was setting the exposure in whatever metering mode set. I establish my exposure settings by spotting on a known target and then as long as the light remains the same on the subject, I'm free of other adjustments. Over time and with experience I've learned to adjust and by how much when the light changes or the subject moves, for example into shade. The key point I think is to be "OK" with taking a "bad" exposure as long as you learn from it, adjust and then nail the rest.
I think this one is by and large "brand irrelevant". I bleed Canon but I'm sure Nikon, Olympus, Sony and others meter quite well. To me, the addition of a "true" spot meter is one of the big benefits of having a high end DSLR and it's too bad so many bodies only have a "partial" spot.
Adding my 2 cents (value less than a plug nickel!)
Using Nikon D700 mostly in Aperture Mode for the images I take. Use Matrix metering mostly. Generally, this nails my shot. However, there are always times, as noted above, where the scene fools the camera. Usually, I know in advance that this will happen. I still take the shot and see how it came out in the LCD. I then switch to manual mode and make my adjustments accordingly. May take a couple of adjustments before I like the image.
I try to keep things simple. I usually do not have much time to get my images due to many factors. Keeping it simple allows me to remember fewer things and make adjustments quickly.
Works for me, may not for you!
Troup
Posted by Peter Conway on June 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Thanks everyone, since I have been using "my method" for several years and have learned to become comfortable with it I think it makes the most sense just to continue.
It seems reading the scene for oneself and dialing in the proper compensation is universal no matter which method is used.
It seems reading the scene for oneself and dialing in the proper compensation is universal no matter which method is used.
Bingo!!!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on June 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM
It seems reading the scene for oneself and dialing in the proper compensation is universal no matter which method is used.
Yep - that's it exactly!
Posted by Rodney Ninow on June 25, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Even though I shot slides for years and years before going digital, where exposure had to be nailed, for digital, I just shoot raw and make sure I have no blinkies. Of course, I get as close as possible, and many times no adjustment is needed to the raw as far as exposure goes, I still have that latitude as if I was shooting color negative film.
I guess for jpeg shooters, this is important, but I would never shoot anything important as a jpeg.
Discussion
12 repliesIs there a significant difference between Canon and Nikon on metering capabilities?
thanks in advance
Peter
As time permits I'll generally meter in several different modes (spot, matrix and incident) for a broader evaluation of what's going on, but it's rare day when the matrix metering fails to come close to either spot or incident.
BTW- By "incident" I mean a hand held meter. It's a holdover or crossover from over 20 years of commercial shooting, but I still rely (many "modern" photographers insist too much so) on what an incident meter tells me in many situations.
That's just an old habit and not a plug for buying your own incident meter. The example helps make the point that I believe most problems arise when photographers are unfamiliar with the fine points (and especially the limits) of their gear and rely too much on any single source of information.
At all but the highest end bodies, Canon and Nikon metering is probably about on par with each other. You certainly won't (or shouldn't) be making a purchasing decision based on the metering abilities of the camera body.
I use Canon's evaluative metering almost all the time. If you believe everything on the internet about that metering mode, it should be just about impossible to get anything right with it, much deal with any tricky lighting situation. In reality, it is a user issue, not a camera issue. When I get blown exposures, it is because I was not paying attention to the scene. It wasn't my camera's fault. I was my fault.
And that is the point of this post. The camera's metering is only as good as the user behind the camera. Most metering patterns on most cameras try to get back to the 18% grey. It is the photographer's responsibility to make sure that the scene really does average to that, and then make adjustments accordingly. Even an overly worshipped spot meter won't help you here - you still need to recognize the middle tone in the scene and meter off of that, or if the scene doesn't have one, know how to adjust for it.
Case in point: A few weeks ago, I was shooting a dirty white statue in direct light, but surrounded by dark, shadowed forest. Canon's evaluative metering gave me an exposure of let's say 1/60 sec at f8. But here is the problem - the statue occupied maybe 5% of the scene and it was the primary subject. That metering value came from averaging a lot of dark areas with a tiny bit of white areas, with the end result that the dark areas were properly exposed and the white statue completely blown out. The camera's meter was dead on and it did everything exactly correctly.
I had to realize that was going to happen. I reduced the exposure by 1.5 stops which brought the whites down to barely within the range of the sensor, so there were no blown highlights. This also brought the dark regions back down to dark regions, which is where I wanted them to be.
A check of the histogram after the fact revealed that this was the correct decision.
Without understanding the camera metering and what would occur, I would have gone home and wondered why the statue would one big blinkie.
Even in this situation, a spot meter would not have directly helped. I had the metering choices of dark shadows, and dropping the exposure get the statue right, metering off of the statue and increasing exposure a bit since it was white, or metering off of new vegetation in the light which was still maybe 1/2 - 2/3 stops lighter than midtone, and wet.
Back to the second question - for wildlife in general, pick one metering mode and learn how to use it, without thinking about it. For birds in flight, you are dealing with usually dark birds against a light sky. The statue example above, except in reverse, applies. I'd also look at learning fill flash and using a Better Beamer so you can bring the tonality of the underside of a bird up and keep blues in the sky.
I certainly was not trying to stir up any kind of Canon/Nikon war. I have been using Canon bodies for a long time and for whatever reason have always used center weighted metering. I do dial in ev adjustments based on the situation and my experience.
My question was prompted when a member mentioned a strong preference for matrix metering (he is a Nikon user). I am curious as to what others have found gives them the best results on a consistent basis and why. The Canon/Nikon question relates to whether Canon has "matrix" metering by another name.
I am not basing any purchasing decision on the answers, I am heavily invested in Canon lenses and therefor will stay with Canon.
I have never really seen the issue discussed here, and I thought that was the point of the forums, to share experience and further education.
Peter
The Canon equivalent of matrix metering is evaluative metering. I use it most of the time, especially when I'm working in aperture priority (which is most of the time). I think in general it does a very good job but I will often dial in compensation based upon the lighting conditions and subjects I'm shooting. With experience you get to know when you will need to dial in adjustments. If I'm using manual mode I will now often use spot metering to read the exposure and set the correct manual exposure. This is how my friend Ken Archer reads most of his exposures by picking a neutral toned spot (for example green grass) and then adjusting for how the subject compares with that spot.
In my opinion center weighted is not the best for many images because many times you want to compose your subject outside the center of the image. One purpose I think it works quite well for is flight photography because with flight photography you are often using the center autofocus point and the bird takes up the area that the metering is reading. I then end up cropping the image for composition.
No problem. Without a context to place the question in and knowing that there are a lot more people reading this, I tend to over-write. Too many years teaching.
In the end, the real key is in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of whatever gear you decide to use and how to compensate for it. Your question doesn't have an obvious answer and what works for me may not work for you.
For other wildlife, I generally keep the same setup. On occasion I will use a spot meter, evaluating and adjusting as required. For example, a great white egret against foliage in dark shade. Single point will come close, but will still overexpose the bird. Spot metering will nail the exposure for the bird, but you will have to add in 1 to 1.5 stops to bring the value of the bird to proper white without blowing highlights.This is no different than if you were using a hand-held spot meter, which is what I used almost exclusively for the better part of 30 yrs of non-digital photography. Old habits die hard I suppose.
I don't have an answer for the Canon way of doing things, but a good friend who uses a combination of different bodies from a 50D to a 1Ds says that Canon has similar metering capabilities. His results clearly reflect this.
With consistent light I then don't have to worry about continual adjustments as wildlife subject moves across changing backgrounds such as I'd have to do where the camera was setting the exposure in whatever metering mode set. I establish my exposure settings by spotting on a known target and then as long as the light remains the same on the subject, I'm free of other adjustments. Over time and with experience I've learned to adjust and by how much when the light changes or the subject moves, for example into shade. The key point I think is to be "OK" with taking a "bad" exposure as long as you learn from it, adjust and then nail the rest.
I think this one is by and large "brand irrelevant". I bleed Canon but I'm sure Nikon, Olympus, Sony and others meter quite well. To me, the addition of a "true" spot meter is one of the big benefits of having a high end DSLR and it's too bad so many bodies only have a "partial" spot.
JR
Using Nikon D700 mostly in Aperture Mode for the images I take. Use Matrix metering mostly. Generally, this nails my shot. However, there are always times, as noted above, where the scene fools the camera. Usually, I know in advance that this will happen. I still take the shot and see how it came out in the LCD. I then switch to manual mode and make my adjustments accordingly. May take a couple of adjustments before I like the image.
I try to keep things simple. I usually do not have much time to get my images due to many factors. Keeping it simple allows me to remember fewer things and make adjustments quickly.
Works for me, may not for you!
Troup
It seems reading the scene for oneself and dialing in the proper compensation is universal no matter which method is used.
Peter
Bingo!!!
Yep - that's it exactly!
I guess for jpeg shooters, this is important, but I would never shoot anything important as a jpeg.