ddb@mrvax.DEC (05/06/85)
The term "match-needle" was applied to cameras where you matched a needle against a single index mark long before there WERE cameras that displayed, for example, a shutter speed scale in the viewfinder with a green bar indicating the "recommended" exposure. I suppose this newfangled innovation could legitemately be called match-needle, but it ain't what the term originally meant. -- David Dyer-Bennet -- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/07/85)
> The term "match-needle" was applied to cameras where you matched a needle > against a single index mark long before there WERE cameras that displayed, > for example, a shutter speed scale in the viewfinder with a green bar > indicating the "recommended" exposure. I suppose this newfangled innovation > could legitemately be called match-needle, but it ain't what the term > originally meant. > I always thought it was originally applied to the center the needle on the bullseye paddle that some camera used because the correct exposure position on the meter varied. I don't know what moved the bullseye. I never had one of these. My old PENTAX took the film speed into account and you always cenetered the needle rather than trying to match it. -Ron
briand@tekig1.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (05/10/85)
> > The term "match-needle" was applied to cameras where you matched a needle > > against a single index mark long before there WERE cameras that displayed, > > > I always thought it was originally applied to the center the needle on > the bullseye paddle that some camera used because the correct exposure *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** Allright you young pups, let an oldtimer tell you how it REALLY WAS, back when we walked to school 12 miles in the snow. . . I still use a Minolta SRT-101, a mid 60-s model. It was pretty advanced in its day, it had a built-in meter. And stop-down preview. Wow. Anyway, you see in the viewfinder two needles, on the right side. One has a target ring on its end, and its position is governed by three factors, the current film speed setting, the current f-stop, and the current shutter speed. The other needle, with the same axis of rotation, is position determined by the light reading of the meter. To expose, one simply turns the f-ring until the needles line up (lay one atop the other). If your shutter speed is out of range, you won't be able to do that. This is called "shutter priority." Alternatively, you could turn the shutter speed dial until the needles match, wherein this would be called "aperture priority." The latter is (was?) less common usage. In the SRT-101, you were given visual indication of the current shutter speed setting. In the SRT-102 you got visual viewfinder indication of dia- phragm setting as well, through a periscope-like optical path to allow you to directly see the appropriate part of the f-ring! Why do I not get an auto-exposure camera with all the goodies? Because I can find only a few justifications for using such a small format as 35mm, namely portability and speed of handling. After all, that's why photojournalists made the 35mm an acceptable tool to pros - until then it was a toy. Anyway, with that in mind, I think I would actually be slower in reacting to a system where I need to figure whether to set the damn thing into aperture or shutter priority, where I have to learn all those silly controls, etc. etc. In other words, I still use my ancient camera because it still does the job better for me than the new stuff, which would get in my way. You'd be amazed how fast you can align two needles (no leds, no gizmos, no nuttin), and it's all very automatic for me - if I want an "auto exposure", I simply match the needles. If I want to adjust, I can see about how much I am adjusting. Or match, then count clicks off to precisely measure my adjustment. I'll go up against any automatic in terms of reaction time, and I don't even use the thing that much. Of course, if you pre-setup your automatic for the "proper" mode of the given situation, you'll be ahead, but then I don't have that overhead. Think about it before you buy your next auto-whiz-gizmo, then think about how the camera makers push these extra features for THEIR benefit - not yours. Then think about how hard it is to find a camera that does ONLY what the SRT- 101 did. Then think about how much you are paying for that auto-gee-whiz. Markets CAN be manipulated, guys. -Brian Diehm Tektonix, Inc. (which has NO official opinion regarding 35mm photography. . .)
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (05/12/85)
In article <1909@tekig1.UUCP> briand@tekig1.UUCP (Brian Diehm) writes: > > I still use a Minolta SRT-101, a mid 60-s model. It was pretty advanced >in its day, it had a built-in meter. And stop-down preview. Wow. > I'll go up against any automatic in terms of reaction time, and I don't >even use the thing that much. Of course, if you pre-setup your automatic for >the "proper" mode of the given situation, you'll be ahead, but then I don't >have that overhead. > > Think about it before you buy your next auto-whiz-gizmo, then think about >how the camera makers push these extra features for THEIR benefit - not yours. >Then think about how hard it is to find a camera that does ONLY what the SRT- >101 did. Then think about how much you are paying for that auto-gee-whiz. >Markets CAN be manipulated, guys. > I'd like to make a partial defense of current-day photographic equipment. I do own a SRT-101; it was my first 35mm camera. And my only one until a year or two ago. Then I bought a Minolta X-570 body, and the SRT-101 is now mostly retired. Why do I use the newer body in preference to the old? Flexibility. If I decide I want auto-exposure (because I don't think I'll have time to set it manually, or manual setting isn't necessary) then I have that. I still have both aperture and shutter speed visible in the finder, so I can adjust the combination in use. On the other hand, if I have the time and inclination to use manual metering (and I do, probably 50% of the time) then I have "match-diode" metering, with the set shutter speed indicated by a flashing LED and the metered shutter speed indicated by a steady one. It DOES take longer to match the diodes than the purely mechanical needles of the SRT-101. But I have the aperture visible in the finder, which isn't available in the 101. And the LEDs are visible in dim light, which the needles are not. And the silicon cell meter in the X-570 works in dimmer light than the CdS cell of the 101, and does not suffer from slow readings in dim light or "blinding" effects of the CdS cell. And when it comes to electronic flash, the X-570 does off-the-film flash exposure control with an appropriately-coupled flash. Within its limits (it's automatic, so you get the camera's idea of a correct exposure, not yours) it is wonderful. How long does it take for you to set a flash exposure using a manual flash, where the procedure is focus, read distance scale on lens, read calculator dial on flash, set aperture? And ordinary automatic flashes, with their limited range of automatic aperture settings and sensor coverage that is independent of the lens in use, are less capable of good results. Now, I have no use for "program" cameras, and am not interested in a multi-mode automatic that doesn't work with my old lenses. But these are my own preferences, and I don't think that the world needs to agree with me. And I think that I've given an example of a "modern" camera that is a real improvement on the older one, and a somewhat better value if you consider relative prices and inflation in the intervening years. By the way, are the camera makers really manipulating the market? Or are they responding to technology that will let them do what they could not before, coupled with a changing market? When the SRT-101 was designed, SLR owners were "serious" photographers, willing to master the relative complexity of these cameras for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, a reflex viewfinder, and fast handling. Now, I suspect, most are people who are less concerned with photography and just want to take higher-quality snapshots. And, of course, manufacturers will always indulge gadget freaks if they will pay for it. P.S. The lens I leave on my camera most of the time is a 28-85 f/3.5 zoom. It's slow (dim) compared to my fixed lenses, but awfully convenient. And being able to frame in the finder is something that I just can't do with the fixed lenses in the same way.
howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (05/22/85)
> > The term "match-needle" was applied to cameras where you matched a needle > > against a single index mark long before there WERE cameras that displayed, > > for example, a shutter speed scale in the viewfinder with a green bar > > indicating the "recommended" exposure. I suppose this newfangled innovation > > could legitemately be called match-needle, but it ain't what the term > > originally meant. > > > I always thought it was originally applied to the center the needle on > the bullseye paddle that some camera used because the correct exposure > position on the meter varied. I don't know what moved the bullseye. I > never had one of these. My old PENTAX took the film speed into account > and you always cenetered the needle rather than trying to match it. > The way a match-needle metering system works is as follows: The camera meter measures the incoming light with a wide-open lens. By adjusting the aperture (f-stop) the camera gets a reading of the amount of light reaching the film-plane and sets the needle accordingly. The film speed (asa) sets a relative position for the target (bulls-eye, ring, etc...), and by changing the shutter speed the target is moved. When the target is lined up with the needle, the camera now will have an exposure time that is adequate to get a pre-calibrated amount of light on the film that is required for the proper exposure of the film speed that the camera is set for. If the aperture is changed, the camera will get more or less light in thru the lens and will require a shorter or longer exposure, accordingly, to properly expose the image. Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems attunix!howard ____________________________________________________________________________ "Kodachrome, shows me the night's bright colors..." -P. Simon
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (05/23/85)
> If the aperture is changed, the camera will get more or less > light in thru the lens and will require a shorter or longer > exposure, accordingly, to properly expose the image. What you have described is a sub-set of match needle called "stop down" match needle. If the lens is coupled to the exposure meter there is no need to stop-down to take a reading unless you have filters in front of the lens and you don't know how to set the ASA dial for filter factors. BTW, on a historical note, match needle originally referred to hand- held exposure meters. SLRs are not the be-all and end-all of photography.