Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] R9
From: Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:12:47 -0400
References: <MBBBJHIBKCKEAEOKKBPOEEJGEJAA.bdcolen@earthlink.net>

- --On Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:39 AM -0400 "B. D. Colen" 
<bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> As we both know, Rolfe, the flash metering on the Nikons, and the Canons
> as well, is far more sophisticated than simple TTL. And as to your
> complaint about not wanting the camera to tell you how to balance the
> foreground flash and background available light - all the higher-end
> cameras and flash units allow for a multitude of adjustments and
> balancing acts by the photographer.
>
> If you're happy with simple TTL flash, that's fine. But don't suggest that
> it is what it isn't.:-)

There is no question that the TTL flash metering on Nikon and Canon is 
good, but apart from applying the matrix metering algorithms versus Leica's 
averaging flash metering, what exactly are the differences in TTL 
*metering*?

As I suggested in another post, the "sophistication" that the Canon and 
Nikon flash systems get comes, IMHO, mainly from the dedicated flash and 
dedicated wireless controllers, not from the camera itself.

To clarify my metering comment, here is my point: If I go to all the 
trouble of using a sophisticated wireless multiple-TTL setup, it is because 
I want to accurately control foreground/background ratios, etc. I don't 
then want some matrix metering algorithm to *reinterpret* my intentions; 
instead I probably actually want an averaging flash metering system which 
is what Leica uses.

- --
Rolfe Tessem
rolfe@ldp.com
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: [Leica] R9)