Who needs more than +/- 2.0 EV?

[Robert Deutsch]

For the umteenth time, I'm reading as a "Con" in the conclusion of a review (the Canon Rebel XS in this case) "Limited Exposure Compensation Range (+ - 2.0EV).

Do people need more than + - 2.0EV? I don't. I can remember only one occasion when I used +2.0: it was a strongly backlit portrait, and I could have achieved the same effect by using spot metering or tilting the camera down and locking the exposure. I don't think I've ever used negative exposure compensation in excess of -1EV. And, in almost all of these cases, there's an easy workaround of locking the exposure to an object that gives you the exposure you want. (With DSLRs, it doesn't have to be the object you're focusing on.)

I just don't see this as a significant limitation. Anyone else?

Bob

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Now that is a serious limitation to many.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[Richard Butler]

Now that is a serious limitation to many.

I think 'some' would be more accurate than 'many.' But, oh look, there it is at the top of the cons list and again in the conclusion text.

The pros and cons are some of the factors that we think people might want to consider when deciding whether to buy a camera. They are not equally weighted or added up at any point in the rating process.

Some of the team consider an EV comp range of + - 2 to be a drawback and there are other competing products offering greater flexibility over EV comp, so it's worth mentioning. If you don't consider it to be relevant to you, you don't have to factor it in to your buying decision.

Richard - DPReview

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Now that is a serious limitation to many.

I think 'some' would be more accurate than 'many.' But, oh look,
there it is at the top of the cons list and again in the conclusion
text.

The pros and cons are some of the factors that we think people might
want to consider when deciding whether to buy a camera. They are not
equally weighted or added up at any point in the rating process.

Some of the team consider an EV comp range of + - 2 to be a drawback
and there are other competing products offering greater flexibility
over EV comp, so it's worth mentioning. If you don't consider it to
be relevant to you, you don't have to factor it in to your buying
decision.

Maybe you should tell that to Lars..

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page31.asp

I see no cons for the Sony A200 + - 2 exp compensation.

Course the D60 has 5 stops...

But no AF motor (or AEB)..rather depends where you look...to find weak points.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[Ken_5D]

the HDR shooters are always looking for more..
HDR techniques are not being used more in high end real estate photography

The D60 has no auto bracketing and can't AF many Nikon AF lenses and no Live vie no grip option and it got a better overall rating than the Canon too.

The data is pretty consistent but the commentary and conclusions have never been normalized between reviews, even when it was just Phil and Simon,

--
Ken_ 5D
(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the 5D yet hmm?)
See my stuff at http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
Read the detailed reviews at http://www.dpreview.com
Then read great Sony user info at: http://www.photoclubalpha.com

 

[Prognathous]

By dpreview.com standards, + - 2.0 is a con, while lack of in-body IS isn't. Anyone wants to guess why? ;-)

Prog.

 

[Diopter]

Agreed, Exposure bracketing can be used any time to collect extend amount of data. Landscape or forensic photography are obvious examples.
To my knowledge, most cameras allow E-bracketing within + -2 EV.
Most scenes with snow need +2EV, reproduction of text - the same.
Overhead of + -5EV may be useful for wherever spot metering is not an option.
AE bracketing on non-dslr boxes is faster and simpler.
(-)

 

[Robert Loblaw]

Do people need more than + - 2.0EV? I don't.

I just don't see this as a significant limitation. Anyone else?

The + - 2 EV limitation for exposure compensation is a highly inconvenient limitation for me. Since I only shoot RAW with digital SLRs, I often find myself making exposures as bright as possible without clipping the highlights. Later I may pull the exposure back down during RAW conversion to achieve the aesthetic "look" I originally wanted. This has the effect of maximizing the dynamic range, the tonality, as well as minimizing noise:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

To push exposure as far to the right as possible, I need to ensure that the brightest part of the scene is represented near (but not at) the far right edge of the histogram. I've been using manual exposures to achieve this, but a spot meter with + - 3 EV exposure compensation would've made things much more convenient.

Here's the most convenient process: Use the spot meter to meter off the brightest part of the scene --- usually, a bright sky or a white shirt. If your EC is set to +3 EV, the camera will then expose the scene in a way that puts the brighest part of the scene right at the +3 EV mark of the histogram. That's very close to (but not past) the far right of the histogram. Depending on the uniformity of light in whatever I spot metered, I'd probably shift between +3 EV and +2.3 EV as needed. But the maximum +2.0 EV on most Canon dSLRs is just too low for my needs.

 

[Ken_5D]

By dpreview.com standards, + - 2.0 is a con, while lack of in-body IS
isn't. Anyone wants to guess why? ;-)

Prog.

Sorry don't agree on this.. I think it is fair to list in body IS as a Pro.

But I would not call "not having it" a negative, that has been the Status Quo for years .. and those systems have lens stabilization which while it offers less choice also has a couple of pluses on its own.

Con would be a system with no stabilization available ....

--
Ken_ 5D
(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the 5D yet hmm?)
See my stuff at http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
Read the detailed reviews at http://www.dpreview.com
Then read great Sony user info at: http://www.photoclubalpha.com

 

[BJN]

I often compensate by more than 2 stops but manual mode lets you shift as far as you like.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT

 

[Prognathous]

Sorry don't agree on this.. I think it is fair to list in body IS as a Pro...

I think it is fair to list + - 3.0 as a Pro

But I would not call "not having it" a negative, that has been the Status Quo for years .. and those systems have manual exposure for those who need more than + - 2.0 which while it offers less convenience also has a couple of pluses on its own.

Con would be a system with no + - available ....

Prog.

 

[Albert de Bruijn]

Do people need more than + - 2.0EV? I don't.
I just don't see this as a significant limitation. Anyone else?

I do.

I frequently shoot for HDR and find the + - 2 limit on my camera a real pain in the butt. Yes, I can manually adjust exposure, but when the camera is set to 1/3 increments, it takes quite a lot of turns of the dial to reach 3 or 4 full stops (twice). Of course, this while trying to minimize camera shake between shots.
So, yes, a significant limitation indeed.

--
Albert

Gear: 5D, 30D, EF17-40L, EF24-105L IS, EF100-400L IS, SIGMA 10-20EX, Manfrotto 3021PRO, Induro CX213
http://www.albertdebruijn.com (now with free Lightroom presets)
http://albertdebruijn.zenfolio.com

 

[Ken_5D]

Sorry don't agree on this.. I think it is fair to list in body IS as a Pro...

I think it is fair to list + - 3.0 as a Pro

But I would not call "not having it" a negative, that has been the
Status Quo for years .. and those systems have manual exposure for
those who need more than + - 2.0 which while it offers less
convenience also has a couple of pluses on its own.

Con would be a system with no + - available ....

Prog.

I could deal with that too... no arguments there..
--
Ken_ 5D
(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the 5D yet hmm?)
See my stuff at http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
Read the detailed reviews at http://www.dpreview.com
Then read great Sony user info at: http://www.photoclubalpha.com

 

[Robert Deutsch]

I don't do HDR, and in normal (non-HDR) shooting, I find + -2.0 to be more than enough. It would be easy for camera manufacturers to include much greater EV in their cameras; the fact that most of them don't tells me that they've determined that this feature is generally not needed. There is also a potential disadvantage to having greater degrees of EV easily available: if you make an extreme exposure compensation because a specific lighting situation warrants it, and then forget to set it back to 0 compensation, you end up with some overexposed or underexposed images, and the greater the degree of un-needed compensation, the more difficult it is to fix later in PP. Now, you might say, this won't happen if you know what you're doing, and if you've never accidentally left on some exposure compensation that was not needed, congratulations. Given that the Rebel XS is an entry-level DSLR, it's more likely to be purchased by less experienced photographers, who are more likely to run into problems with EV mis-adjustments. And, of course, the fully manual mode allows you to set whatever exposure compensation you wish.

Bob

 

[John Sheehy]

Do people need more than + - 2.0EV?

Sure. You can't, for example, expose to the right with the EC control when shooting RAW with the Canon XTi, and the subject is mostly the brightest white. RAW saturation is 4 stops above metered middle grey, so +2 EC will leave 2 stops of unused headroom in the green channel, and 3 in the red!

I don't. I can remember only
one occasion when I used +2.0: it was a strongly backlit portrait,
and I could have achieved the same effect by using spot metering or
tilting the camera down and locking the exposure. I don't think I've
ever used negative exposure compensation in excess of -1EV.

Negative doesn't need as much range, IMO, but I've still used as low as -2 on occasion; usually when there are small light sources in a mostly-dark scene.

--
John

 

[John Sheehy]

I often compensate by more than 2 stops but manual mode lets you
shift as far as you like.

Unless your subject doesn't move or change, it may make you take too long to get it right.

--
John

 

[natureman]

For the umteenth time, I'm reading as a "Con" in the conclusion of a
review (the Canon Rebel XS in this case) "Limited Exposure
Compensation Range (+ - 2.0EV).

Do people need more than + - 2.0EV? I don't. I can remember only
one occasion when I used +2.0: it was a strongly backlit portrait,
and I could have achieved the same effect by using spot metering or
tilting the camera down and locking the exposure. I don't think I've
ever used negative exposure compensation in excess of -1EV. And, in
almost all of these cases, there's an easy workaround of locking the
exposure to an object that gives you the exposure you want. (With
DSLRs, it doesn't have to be the object you're focusing on.)

I just don't see this as a significant limitation. Anyone else?

Bob

I don't see it as any limitation at all, since I always use manual settings. Even if I were to need exposure compensation, I can't imagine needing more than + - 2.0EV.

 

[dvdgd]

I own the EOS 40D and shoot a lot of HDR and find auto bracketing + - 2 a real limitation.

I would prefer more options in this area. I have found that if i set the bracket to - or +2 then go to auto bracketing i can get it to +4 or -4 depending on where i am but i am still limited to just 3 shots each time.

I want more control on bracketing + - 4 or even 5 and the ability in auto to bracket mroe than just 3 shots.

 

[eyespy]

There is also a potential disadvantage to having greater degrees of
EV easily available: if you make an extreme exposure compensation because
a specific lighting situation warrants it, and then forget to set it back
to 0 compensation, you end up with some overexposed or underexposed images,
and the greater the degree of un-needed compensation, the more difficult it
is to fix later in PP.

Probably one of the most inane arguments I've ever heared.

With that kind thinking Camera makers should do away with all manual overrides incase the stupid photographer makes a stupid mistake:

Manual focus - "DOH! I took a quick shot but it was out of focus - forgot I'd changed to MF mode."

White Balance - "DOH! My pic came out all yellow - forgot I'd left the WB on daylight."

ISO - "DOH! The pic is all noisy - forgot to change to iso 100."

--
http://www.pbase.com/eyespy

If it moves shoot it ;-)
eyespy.

 

[Robert Deutsch]

There is also a potential disadvantage to having greater degrees of
EV easily available: if you make an extreme exposure compensation because
a specific lighting situation warrants it, and then forget to set it back
to 0 compensation, you end up with some overexposed or underexposed images,
and the greater the degree of un-needed compensation, the more difficult it
is to fix later in PP.

Probably one of the most inane arguments I've ever heared.

You don't get out much, do you?

With that kind thinking Camera makers should do away with all manual
overrides incase the stupid photographer makes a stupid mistake:

Manual focus - "DOH! I took a quick shot but it was out of focus -
forgot I'd changed to MF mode."

White Balance - "DOH! My pic came out all yellow - forgot I'd left
the WB on daylight."

ISO - "DOH! The pic is all noisy - forgot to change to iso 100."

In fact, as camera store staff and customer service people of camera manufacturers know, the most frequent complaints about cameras involve operator error, not camera malfunction. There is no limit to what people can get wrong, and, while giving knowledgeable people the flexibility to change settings, the manufacturer also has to anticipate the settings people commonly screw up, and try to prevent it. You may be one of those perfect people who NEVER make mistakes, but you're a member of a small club.

Bob