bobn2 wrote:
No, I just wanted an ISO button. You start out saying I don't need one. I never told anyone else how to use their camera, you don't have to use an ISO button, but for me its very useful. Then you say I can use auto ISO which I can't, and don't need to preview an image after I take it, which I do. I speak only for myself.
Me too, and neither did I tell anyone else how to use their camera. The discussion on auto ISO is whether you
can not whether you
have to
No, you kept telling me your way was better and I kept telling you that it isn't in my situation .
Maximising exposure
is better, that doesn't mean that
you have to do it.
Maybe it is in some cases, but your method denies me accurate real time feedback.
I'm not sure what the 'accurate real time feedback that you have using your method, the feedback is much the same, you have the meter, you have the LCD, you have your eyes. Using Auto ISO doesn't change that.
Sure, it helps me prevent highlight clipping but if I use auto-ISO I cannot prevent that either because I cannot assess how much EV comp to apply when it can change by 3 or 4 EV very quickly.
I think this is actually coming down to a question of how you meter, not how the results of that metering is applied. Whatever you do, if you have a big range of brightness in the scene, and you meter on the part that isn't critical to you, or you rely on the camera's evaluative metering to get it right, you'll have a problem. The point is to decide of your priorities (main subject exposure, highlight preservation, shadow quality) and meter to suit. How you meter to suit depends very much on your camera.
Well, sorry for using common terminology which you don't approve of because its technically not accurate,
that's a pretty good reason for disapproving of it, because inaccurate terminology leads to misunderstandings.
but altering sensor gain does allow me to use a different exposure for the same image brightness, does it not?
No. For
some cameras changing the gain will give you less noisy shadows. Which brightness corresponds to which exposure is a question of processing.
I do know how to use a camera, I have been doing so for 35 years.
Do it another 15 years and you will have been doing it as long as I have, except by then, I'll still have 15 years on you.
That's not really the point. How much is enough to know what I am doing?
Your point, not mine. And in fact, in this area, more is sometimes less. If you've a long time film experience, didn't spend a deal of that time in the darkroom with monochrome materials, you probably got a grasp of what 'exposure' is which is not actually right and will take a long time to dispel. In my case it got dispelled because I
did spend a long time working in the monochrome darkroom, and also professionally and in education terms have the wherewithall to know what is actually going on inside a digital camera.
You do a lot of gig photography then?
I've done some, which means that the statement that I 'have never actually tried applying the methods you propose to what I am doing' is wrong. Doubtless, I don't do near the same amount as you.
If you are telling me I don't need feedback by chimping during a shoot, or that auto ISO works in my situation, it doesn't sound like you do.
Chimping is available using auto ISO. What I don't know is how you meter, or what you meter on. If you aren't metering on what is critical to you, then no technique's going to produce good results.
The fact you clearly dont race cars or motorbikes (which I did for many years and I have a close friend who builds gearboxes for McLaren) does not seem to preclude you making pronouncements on that score either does it?
How many racing drivers and riders are an authority on the technology that they race? Very few. In any case, I would doubt very much that you ever had experience at the level where the question of this kind of technology comes up. On the other hand, I do have several links with the competition car industry, enough to know that modern advanced control systems outperform human beings in most of these areas. that's why traction control, launch control and ABS have been successively introduced used, gained an advantage and been banned. Changing gear is no different. Likewise, in modern fighter aircraft design the aircraft are designed aerodynamically unstable, and automatic control systems used to do what a human pilot couldn't, keep the plane in the air.
If you did you would understand why auto-shifting would not be helpful to a driver,
You're simply wrong. A properly designed automatic gearbox will go faster than a humen taking the decisions, it will also give the driver one fewer simultaneous task. That's why it's banned (in the top level formulae) - why would it be if it offered no advantage?
--
Bob
