Re: [Leica] was "State of the Art"

["Thomas J. Donovan" <75674.3465@compuserve.com>]

Ben,

        >>All I said is the matrix metering ( F5 ) is a lot better than the
R8<<

First & foremost, I've never used an F5; however, have you ever used a R8?
In any case, I'd like to quote a couple of articles which raise a "little"
doubt about your statement; anecdotal evidence aside, which I'll cover
later.

Quotes are as follows; first, from the May (97) issue of Popular
Photography in an article reviewing the F5: A.) "Does 3D Color Matrix
correct color? Here are situations & colors that Nikon thinks need
correcting ( given in a table ) & why. Can F5 Matrix correct them? Our
tests were inconclusive."  B.) "Let's look at the 3D Color Matrix
meter first. While our lab tests revealed that the substitution of a
full-area pixelized
sensor for a traditional segmented-area system yielded far better total
picture area coverage, we can't in all honesty say that the new system
yielded a greater percentage of better-exposed pictures than we have
obtained with Nikon SLRs using segmented systems".

Final quote is from the July ( 97 ) issue of "Popular Photography" in an
article reviewing the R8:  A.) "How good is the siz-zone metering? Based on
our extensive field tests, we conclude that Leica's six zone system works
about as well as similar multi pattern systems from other leading makers".

Ben, based on these tests, one "might" conclude there are no "differences
in kind";
( between the F5's Color Matrix meter & the the R8's six zone system )
perhaps, more like a "difference in degree". IF ANY; which is all that Eric
Welch was saying!

Now when it comes to ancedotal evidence, since the burden of proof appears
to be yours; send me your F5 & I'll gladly give you my opinion ;-)!

Tom D.