where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I like the way that sounds. Thank you for the good explanation. You guys need to write manuals. :)
Never paid too much attention to the AF to Meter connection details - all faster and more focused than my inept eyes so I let it do its thing.
I really could care less about video. I have no need for it and I have almost no interest in it at this point. Fairly cheap handy-cams seem to do the "idiot mode" much better than most DSLRs.
@Johnnyapple Thanks for the double Rainbow...
Now if I could what he had...
I do suspect that the metering will be more responsive (at least I should think Nikon is banking on it), so I hope they don't let us down.
Mike
What about the iTTL flash control? That should be a big improvement too with this new meter. I wonder if Nikon is just going to put this same meter in all of it's pro cameras too. Maybe this is a pro meter?
I know we're talking about metering and not AF , but I'd like to know if anyone has an opinion why the focus points are only in the center elliptical area in DSLRs and still why not spread all over.
I shoot landscapes all the time and usually have to focus almost to a point down the bottom of the frame - to get best overall focus ( that is where hyperfocal distance occurs usually ) and of course it is not possible .
I know it will also effect the metering points and add costs but still wonder why it can't be done on a $1000-5000 camera .
I'm not absolutely sure, Paperman, but I think it comes down to physics why they're close to the center. In order to get the parallax measurement, light from both sides of the lens has to get to the point you want to have a focus sensor, and on the edges of the image you don't get light from both sides of the lens, or at least not with some lenses.
This is at best over-simplified and possibly wrong, but it's the way I think about it. I only dared answer because you asked if anyone had an 'opinion' about it. ;-) I think technically you actually have to have light from both sides of the lens hitting prisms just before the sensor, each of which selectively directs light coming from one specific part of the lens to the sensor, but I think it works out to be similar to what I described before.
So to answer your question, I'm pretty sure they could have AF points further from the center for some lenses with a slightly larger image circle (PC lenses, for example). They should also definitely be able to put them as close to the bottom edge of the frame as they can to the side edge of the frame. I'll bet someone has done a cost-benefit analysis and it's not worth the extra design and production dollars because not everyone will use them or will even have lenses that would let them use them.
jonnyapple said:In order to get the parallax measurement, light from both sides of the lens has to get to the point you want to have a focus sensor,
jonnyapple - you're not assuming what I think you're assuming, are you?
http://amasci.com/miscon/lens1.html
Hahaha! My old optics professor would probably murder me. The missing info is in my next paragraph where I said there are prisms between the sensor and the (desired) focal plane. I understand image formation with a lens even if my understanding of rangefinders is a little sketchy.
So you never answered my question about whether or not you're a scientist. How do you understand/explain phase detected autofocus? I guess no matter how it works we've come a long way from having just one focus point (even the split-screen viewfinders for manual focus are based on the same principle).
Thanks Jonnyapple , for the effort at least . I'm not sure if Drab's note means it technically is possible or the exact opposite .
In any case , it looks like I will never have a focus point at the bottom of my screen . The designers are probably assuming that anyone shooting landscape on a tripod must be using manual focus.
its allright paperman, use the center to focus on you want, lock the focus, then recompose.
A very noob question here, does the point and shoots have so much better metering since they use the original sensor (10 ~ 18 mp) for the metering, or do they not? I have never heard a pns having a second sensor for metering, and if they do use the main sensor, they are bound to have metering thats way way beyond 1000 ~ 2000 px dedicated sensors?
Oh btw, a bit of introduction, I have been trolling these threads for the past 2 months and not signing up out of lazyness :D Finally though, I'm here so a barrage of questions for you guys lining up :D
I have a IXUS 95 IS pns, long for a D7000 and am 3-4 months old in the photography game.
So just wondering, has anyone tested how accurately the D7000 meters?
It's not even close to comparable to my D60 - I don't have a frame of reference for any other camera like a 90/300/700, etc...I still typically shoot in center weighted, but last weekend I was unable to get a shot of my daughter in the shade on a see saw and direct light in the scene behind her with center weighted and had to switch to matrix which got the shot. It also worked better than spot.
NikoDoby said:
Surprised that no one's really talking about this new 2,016 pixel RGB sensor . . . If this is what Nikon puts in their "prosumer" camera imagine the next generation metering on the DX00 and D4!
Yes, I was rather impressed with the sheer pixel-count of the new RGB sensor as well. On my D90, I usually shoot in spot-meter mode about 90% of the time, and only 10% of the time in matrix mode, but a smarter, 2,016-count sensor could possibly change that ratio. I think NIkon raised the ante pretty high for the D7000's feature set, and that also makes me really excited to see what's next for Nikon's FX bodies in 2011.
You must log in to post.
