 |
| The cameras in question |
A few weeks ago, I came across the May 1994 Popular Photography issue where they had a brilliant idea. They compared the matrix metering of 17 AF SLRs to see how they were performing. I thought - why don't I do something similar myself and see what comes out of it?
Instead of 17, I chose the 7 most used AF SLRs I have. Most of them I have them for years and I have shot countless rolls with them. I know they all work well and as a matter of fact, I have been very happy with them. But how different results produce when you compare one to another? So, here is what I did.
The test.
Instead of using 7 films for it, I thought I would use the cameras to take a reading and then transfer it to a DSLR (Canon EOS 10D). Then recompose to make sure it fits exactly the frame as it was when the reading was taken (walk back and forth a bit). The main problem I encountered revolved around the fast changing light that morning, some of the pictures I took on the nearby field shows different light between shots. Even though light changed, I still used the meter reading from the film camera although in a couple of cases, the more even light meant a less challenging picture for the camera in question. I also tried to take a combination of landscape and portrait format to check any differences between cameras with hydrolic switch (I.e F5, F4, 700si, EOS5) and ones without. I also kept all AF points on and placed them on programme only.
So here are the 5 scenarios
First scenario - landscape.
A
tree landscape. Sky and ground on a 50%-50% ratio during metering. With
the exception of the Nikon F4, all results were very good. I think the
Nikon F5 struck the best balance in terms of details (tree, sky and
ground) and the F801s did well too. The dynax 700si was very similar to
the F801s and so was the EOS5 and F90x albeit slightly underexposed.
Slightly under exposed was the reading from the F70 too. The nikon F4
overexposed by 1.5 stops!
Second scenario - outdoor portrait.
Here we had a problem - the light started changing fast. The EOS5 had an easy job to do compared to the F70 or Dynax 700si (as it became cloudy) which overexposed the bright clothes. The F90x and the F801s did both well. The Nikon F4 completely overexposed the scene (such a disappointment). The Nikon F5 did the best job - look at that, details on the cloths, sky and ground.
Third scenario - high contrast portrait.
This was challenging for all cameras as the contrast exceeded the exposure latitude to expose correctly for both edges of the frame. I just wanted to see how the cameras interpreted it.
The F5, F4 and F90x gave exactly the same reading which I like the most. The EOS5 and the Dynax 700si gave very similar reading which is also very pleasing. The F801s underexposed a bit and the F70 overexposed a bit.
Fourth scenario - Indoor portrait No2
A more even light with bright background. A bit more difficult to pick up real winners here as exposures are in general very close to each other. My personal favourite came from the Nikon F4 very closely followed by the F5. The EOS5 and the F70 also did a good job. The F801s, the F90x and the Dynax 700si exposed more on the side of overexposure.
Fifth scenario - backlight.
Here things are also open to interpretation. My idea of great exposure is "details everywhere in the picture". The F5 seems to have done it well followed by the F801s. The EOS5 and the F70 did well too. The dynax 700si slightly overexposed and the F90x slightly underexposed. Unfortunately the F4 overexposed again.
So, how did the cameras actually perform?
Nikon F5
The Nikon F5 was probably the most consistent. Somehow it knows which is the main subject and adjusts accordingly. The pictures show the most details in both highlights and dark areas of the picture.
I am one of those minority of complainers who do not like the 3D colour matrix when shooting b&w though - at times of great contrast, the F5 has the tendency to underexpose in order to expose accurately what it thinks is the main colour (especially when there is plenty of yellow in the picture). This has made me to switch to the centre weighted mode for b&w films in summer. But in this test it has done great.
 |
| Ilford HP5+ in HC110 Nikon F5 |
Nikon F4
I felt somehow disappointed with the way the F4 did in this test. Actually, the F4's tendency to overexpose was well documented in the photographic press (see screenshot below). This camera has been serviced and when I point it to an evenly lit white wall, it gives the same reading as the F5. So it doesn't need calibration, it has to do with how it calculates exposure.
My view is that the F4 swings between taking too little into account the peripheral zones to taking them too much into account. The overall tendency was towards overexposure - that explains why the Nikon F4 remains my favourite camera when shooting b&w film. In practice, I never had any issues with it.
 |
| Nikon F4 / Foma400 in HC110 |
Nikon F90x
The Nikon F90x is another camera that I hold in high
esteem and in this test did ok. Overall, I think it has the tendency to
slight under-exposure when faced with bright light sources in peripheral
zones.
 |
| Nikon F90x - Ilford Pan400 in HC110 |
Nikon F801s
The Nikon F801s did better than I expected. For a camera that was criticised for its meter performance I think it did very well. Exposure wise it has a tendency to slight overexposure, somewhere between the F4 and the F90x. Backlight seems to fool it easier than the F90x/F70. Another one to consider for b&w film.
 |
| Nikon F801s - Kodak Tmax400 in HC110 |
Nikon F70
One thing I can say about the F70 is that it definitely doesn't have the same meter as the F90x. When compared to the F90x, the F70 has a tendency towards slight overexposure, very similar to the F801s. Overall it is a very good meter.
 |
| Nikon F70 - Ilford HP5+ in HC110 |
Minolta 700si
I have always admired the 700si for the great exposures it achieved the last 5 years I own it. In this test did well too although I was hoping to do even better. The camera chose open apertures for subjects in close distance and had a slight tendency towards overexposure than underexpose. Overall I think it did well.
 |
| Minolta Dynax 700si - Ilford Pan400 |
Canon EOS5
I have this camera since 1997 or 1998 so I know it inside out. It turned a very respectable performance although (like the F90x and the Dynax 700si) it never gave an exposure that I would consider "best". Again, your milage might vary.
 |
| Canon EOS-5 / ilford Pan400 in HC110 |
Summary
Well, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose. I am pretty sure that trying to guess which camera took which picture would be a hard task due to how similar all results are. With the exception of the Nikon F4 all results are excellent.
Yes, there are some differences but whether they are enough to choose a winner, it is open further discussion. I like the Nikon F5 the most out of this bunch but just a bit.
Comments
Post a Comment