This is the most recent photo I have taken. My wife said grab a snap of the last glad in the garden (end of summer). I took the photo with my Fuji XT-2. I used a non-Fuji lens and so I set the camera to Aperture Priority mode. I set the f/stop on the lens and the camera selected the shutter speed.

My exposure differs from what the camera would have selected for the JPEG by +1.3 stops (you can check the EXIF data in the photo). I used the EC function in the camera to set that variance. I knew to do that because I have tested my hardware and my exposure goal is to fully utilize the sensor in my camera. The raw file I saved does that. Obviously the camera would have exposed less.

Joe

Before proceeding, I want to declare openly that I am about to ask a question which some may interpret as unnecessarily raising controversy or attempting to troll the group or provoke some of its members. Please be assured that is absolutely not my intent, and it is my hope that we can have something resembling an intelligent discussion around the topic. There are some specific elements involved, and I don't want to shy away from those. But please do not interpret them as provocation.

The thoughts behind this discussion arose as I was getting ready to do the latest firmware update for my D850. It was released in April, but I somehow missed it until yesterday. It apparently provides for improved operation with certain lenses. And no...it does not add the "Eye Focus" capability that many have been anxiously awaiting.

So the question is this...and I haven't been able to find a delicate way to ask it...for those who treasure "Manual" photography, exactly what are the boundaries of thta method of operation? And for the purposes of this discussion, let's please set aside the question of whether "Auto ISO" is or is not part of "manual exposure." It's been discussed thoroughly elsewhere without resolution. I'm passionate around my position on that subject and realize that others are equally passionate around their own, different, position.

BUT...it seems that many (and I mean many everywhere, not just here) who would never consider following anything other than manual exposure management would also never consider anything other than automatic camera focus. And preferably automatic camera focus that can identify, lock in on, and focus on the eye of their subject, whether human or animal. Why is the manual choice preferred in the one case, but the automatic choice is lusted after in the other case?

Now just for full disclosure here. I proudly use autofocus essentially all the time, except for night sky photography and a few other cases where autofocus falls short. I was initially quite concerned when some of my newest cameras no longer had an autofocus assist light. (Trust me...I learned that it's OK.) Because of some vision problems relating either from glaucoma or occupational exposure to intense light (my doctor and I don't agree on which), I shamelessly depend on autofocus. And yes, I use Program exposure mode a lot of the time also. It's just too good and too convenient if I select the correct metering pattern, and I am pretty shameless about that also.

Why do we think there is such a disparity in the acceptance of automatic exposure vs. autofocus, especially since various forms of automatic exposure have been around longer than autofocus? I am really interested in the responses here, especially if we can keep the discussion civil and thoughtful.

Before proceeding, I want to declare openly that I am about to ask a question which some may interpret as unnecessarily raising controversy or attempting to troll the group or provoke some of its members. Please be assured that is absolutely not my intent, and it is my hope that we can have something resembling an intelligent discussion around the topic. There are some specific elements involved, and I don't want to shy away from those. But please do not interpret them as provocation.

The thoughts behind this discussion arose as I was getting ready to do the latest firmware update for my D850. It was released in April, but I somehow missed it until yesterday. It apparently provides for improved operation with certain lenses. And no...it does not add the "Eye Focus" capability that many have been anxiously awaiting.

So the question is this...and I haven't been able to find a delicate way to ask it...for those who treasure "Manual" photography, exactly what are the boundaries of thta method of operation? And for the purposes of this discussion, let's please set aside the question of whether "Auto ISO" is or is not part of "manual exposure." It's been discussed thoroughly elsewhere without resolution. I'm passionate around my position on that subject and realize that others are equally passionate around their own, different, position.

BUT...it seems that many (and I mean many everywhere, not just here) who would never consider following anything other than manual exposure management would also never consider anything other than automatic camera focus. And preferably automatic camera focus that can identify, lock in on, and focus on the eye of their subject, whether human or animal. Why is the manual choice preferred in the one case, but the automatic choice is lusted after in the other case?

Now just for full disclosure here. I proudly use autofocus essentially all the time, except for night sky photography and a few other cases where autofocus falls short. I was initially quite concerned when some of my newest cameras no longer had an autofocus assist light. (Trust me...I learned that it's OK.) Because of some vision problems relating either from glaucoma or occupational exposure to intense light (my doctor and I don't agree on which), I shamelessly depend on autofocus. And yes, I use Program exposure mode a lot of the time also. It's just too good and too convenient if I select the correct metering pattern, and I am pretty shameless about that also.

Why do we think there is such a disparity in the acceptance of automatic exposure vs. autofocus, especially since various forms of automatic exposure have been around longer than autofocus? I am really interested in the responses here, especially if we can keep the discussion civil and thoughtful.

Here is SOC. No typical PS over cooking as is so common. I shot Raw then opened and saved as a JPEG with NO manipulation outside of directly saving as a JPEG. AF allowed reaction to the butterfly that just showed up as I was walking around the flowers, Surprise Lillys, aka naked ladies.
Camera did auto metering.
AF was by the camera.
The flowers etc. when put next to the photo are the same.
I just did this less than an hour ago.
Camera meters are amazingly accurate and AF as well.

I know the difference between Matrix, Evaluative, Pattern, etc., and the other methods. I understand the point that BebuLamar is trying to make but it's just not that simple.

All of them (except for spot) look at multiple values and attempt to average them is some way or other. It's the process of averaging these multiple values and consolidate them into a single numeric result that involves some form of algorithm.

Even the simplest (spot) takes an average of the light value for a finite area in the scene. A spot is not a single point and it may not be faithfully represented by the marker on the viewing screen. And who can say whether the spot itself is center weighted or a simple average within a sharp boundary. Nikon, Pentax, etc., could say but they probably feel that we don't need to know their business.

The oldest, simple averaging, is biased by the nature of the light measuring sensor being used. In a film camera it could not just take a reading from the entire scene. It has to simulate that by accounting for the difference between the full "sensor" and the part of the scene that the light sensor sees, which may be less than the entire span of the film. What's more, a film camera's meter will give the same reading whether you use orthochromatic, panchromatic, infrared, color negative or slide film, daylight or tungsten balanced. It's as insensitive to those variations as the raw sensor is to the JPEG's white balance setting.

If you and BebuLamar want to think of this in the simplest terms, go ahead. Some of us know better.

spot, center weighted, full screen average (which you can with a Nikon by setting the center weighted circle to full screen) for a camera as well as spot, fixed angle reflected, incident with a dome and flat diffuser for a hand held meter. All those are well defined and can be tested for accuracy and I do found most meter s and cameras are accurate to at least 1/3 stop (which is a relatively wide margin of about +/-26%). However that is accurate enough and can be trusted. You do need to know what the meter measures though. And that to me is simple.