In article
>I never owned a camera which offered any kind of matrix metering, mine work
>with spot and center weighted meter only. I understand that matrix metering
>has gone a long way already since the Nikon FA introduced the system, but
>there is one thing I don't understand:
>
>The modern matrix meters should be good enough to replace the older center
>weighted system totally, so why does every pro or near-pro SLR still offer
>center-weighted BESIDES a matrix metering? Are there any situations in which
>center weighted metering is superior to matrix?
The key to my answer is in the first sentence of your second paragraph.
Matrix (I call it "roll-o'-th'-dice") metering is dependent for its
accuracy on the applicability of the "fudge-factors" built into the
metering system by the designers. Who knows what happens if you meter
"X" scene "Matrixically" ;-), and there is an unusually dark or light
area in it - the resultant exposure may, or may not, be right, but the
photographer is just left guessing. With center-weighted metering, or
any other consistent pattern (ignoring color response problems), aiming
the meter at something results in a solid, useable, predictable meter
response that the photographer can combine with experience to arrive
at an exposure setting. Matrix ("r-o-t-d") metering throws that all away,
in favor of a mostly-but-not-always-reliable computerized prediction
of what may be a correct reading for similar light distribution patterns.
This is not acceptable to me, and I can easily beat the "r-o-t-d"
accuracy average in practice with manual metering (same with MF vs AF,
BTW). Auto features allow you to quit thinking when taking pictures
(without speeding up the process much, if any [sometimes it slows it]),
but the price is reduced predictability, and reduced success rate,
IM(NS)HO. As too your last question, I can't think of any situations
in which matrix metering is superior to center-weighted.....;-)
Hope This Helps