 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2008What the reviewers don't view...
It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do you really get a really good "buying advise"? I don't think so. The 40D Canon I had, seemed OK at first. Trouble started when I tried to make pictures with any kind of sunlight: the WB was all over the place and the difference between some shots with the same light, aperture and subject, sometimes differ as much as one stop! Here's a picture of the south bank of the river: http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon1.JPG Here's another, exactly the same place and time, just 3 secs apart: http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon2.JPG Now you would think, that the second picture is lighter, because the camera is more turned to the sun.... BEEP! It's actually turned away from the sun. But all smart people already understood that, since the picture is of the south bank ;-) The exposure increased form 1/400 to 1/250. Close to 1 stop, and the sky is washed out, including some masts on top of the hill. Case in point: not one review shows this, because they all use the studio set-up. So you'll just have to take a camera out for a spin, before you decide which is good and which is not. This one clearly is not.  SignatureFocus > It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do > you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > which is good and which is not. > This one clearly is not. PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. >> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >> you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) > The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. Not when you use evaluative metering. Centre weighed or spot: yes, understandable. Not good, but understandable ;-) I uploaded straight out of DPP, no change. Just reload. I think now it's even worse. SignatureFocus > PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) > The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. There's something stranger than just that going on here. The aspect between the two pix is different, and not from just having the centre point on a slightly different spot. They are clearly not taken from exactly the same place. One of the pix seems squished somehow - try overlaying any one point on one of the pix onto the same point on the other and you will see what I mean. The amount of angular change of position might accont for this. Strange. Steve >> PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) >> The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Steve The OP wrote that the pix were taken in the same light. Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had come through fully. >>> PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) >>> The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had come > through fully. Nope. Not a cloud in the sky. look at where there's a space between the houses. Right above there's a bush with shadow. looks the same in both pics, but of course less bright. Same at the front of the ship. There's a little reflection from the top and a little lower. Same in both. SignatureFocus >>>> PS CS3 left the full EXIF in a bitbucket :-) >>>> The center points of the picture is different, that may be the culprit. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pics, but of course less bright. Same at the front of the ship. There's a > little reflection from the top and a little lower. Same in both. The light on the building and boats is clearly different, look at the highlights and shadows. Exposure can't create that. >>> The OP wrote that the pix were taken in the same light. >>> Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The light on the building and boats is clearly different, look at the > highlights and shadows. Exposure can't create that. Now let's estimate the amount of movement. The two boats do not show movement. The have about the same distance in both pictures. They are fairly close together and look moored. So I assume that they do not move. Behind the right boat an extra car is visible in one of the picture. (Two cars between the boat and the red car in one picture, only one and a part on the other). The difference in distance is about 3 meters extra. A very rough estimate is the the relative distance from the cars to the boat and from the boat to the observer is about 5 times as much. (This is a very crude estimate). If the cars have not moved and the boot has not moved and the distance between the cars and the boat is about 1/5 of the distance between the cars and the camera, the camera must have moved about 15 meters. According to the exif data the pictures are taken 3 seconds from eachother. This would give a speed of 15 meters for 3 seconds. or 5 meter a second. that's 3600/1000*5 = 18 km/hour. Quite some speed to take pictures in. Maybe during the measuring the camera was pointed and something different in on of the pictures. From the pictures I do see the movement at a lot of places, so it's not only the boats that show the movement. But's it's difficult to estimate the relative distances, with the boat and cars, the distances can be estimated (very roughly), that's why I have used those. But there is movement from my calculation even movement at some speed. So the pictures must have been taken in 'Haste', then consistent results should not be expected. Maybe the OP can clearyfy what realy happend. I detend movement, I estimate speed (roughly). But might be completely wrong in estimating the distances. (and therefore the speed). Ben >>>> The OP wrote that the pix were taken in the same light. >>>> Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > estimate speed (roughly). But might be completely wrong in estimating the > distances. (and therefore the speed). Ahum, very accurate Sherlock! As I don't have floating shoes, it might be evident I took the shots from a ship. And likely the speed is correct. Still doesn't come close to explain the difference. Your turn, Sherlock! SignatureFocus >>>>> The OP wrote that the pix were taken in the same light. >>>>> Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > As I don't have floating shoes, it might be evident I took the shots from > a ship. Why not from the opposite shore ? The pictures do not reveal that. The hight you are on is about the same as the shore where the cars are standing. If you stand close enough to the edge and with a 85 mm you do not even have to be close, you do not get any 'shore' line of your side. > And likely the speed is correct. > Still doesn't come close to explain the difference. > Your turn, Sherlock! From the pictures I can not see from what or were the pictures where taken. My first assumption was that they where taken from the opposite on the shore. The two pictures do not reveal that. The speed indicates for me something faster that walking. Could be a bike, a car or something else. Floating shoes did not come to my mind, but yes a ship would be able to do 18 km/hour. One of the pictures is not as wel sharp as the other, (movement or not focused correctly), so one possibility would be that moving the camera around you could take pictures of almost the same scene but measuring something else. (I have made pictures where the exifs shows the same focal length, but the pictures show completely zoomed in and completely zoomed out, so working fast enough, it can be that the measurement (exif) does not correspond with the pictures. Because of the movement this is not exactly a repeateble experiment). But if in general the camera does produce pictures where the results are not consistent there is a problem because you can not anticipate enough as a fotographer. Total consistency can not be expected. But if you can reproduce this difference (it's less than a stop), with a more stable situation (tripod) and a fixed framing. I would say that the variation of 2/3's of a stop is a bit to much for a decent camera. Can't exactly see were the sun is in the pictures, could be that you might benefit from a good sunshade (on the lens or external). If the sun is hitting the lens directly or by a reflexion (possible on a ship) this might be the cause. The reflexion could even be happening during the metering and not effect the picture. So again reproducing this with a more fixed setting, would indicate that the camera is wrong. So from the shown pictures I can not say that the camera made the difference, this could wel be but the pictures are not enough proof for this. So the difference is not explained, but because of the circumstances (unstable), the conclusion that it must be the camera, is not correct. Yes it could be the camera, but these pictures on their own are not conclusive. I hope for you that you can not reproduce this and thereby proof that this was just a fluke. Otherwise you have to accept this or change your camera. ben >>>>>> The OP wrote that the pix were taken in the same light. >>>>>> Looks to me the first was in hazy light and in the second the sun had [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > ben I already changed to a Sony A350 that doesn't have this problem with the same time of day, same ship and same shore. You can look at the other pictures in the posting below. Should be more then evident, there's something wrong. But I don't really care anymore: the Sony is very good at metering and rarely gets it wrong. It reminds me very much of the Nikon D300, as far as metering goes. You're right about the fact that they can't be expected to be dead on always. But 95% would be nice ;-) SignatureFocus > It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do > you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > which is good and which is not. > This one clearly is not. Buy a clue! The light is clearly different, it appears the sun broke out from the clouds. The studio is the best place to test and compare cameras as natural daylight is too variable and unreliable >It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >is good and which is not. >This one clearly is not. Just curious. Is the camera set up for auto exposure bracketing? Shooting in Aperture Priority with a 1-stop AEP will give you the results you got. TR >>It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >>you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Shooting in Aperture Priority with a 1-stop AEP will give you the > results you got. LOL! I think I would remember going thru the menu and putting it on AEB. Besides, then I would have 3 different ones. Maybe it's SEB: Surprise Exposure Bracketing ;-) SignatureFocus >>> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >>> you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Maybe it's SEB: Surprise Exposure Bracketing ;-) Not true. If the drive setting is at one shot you will move through the brackets one at a time. Signaturethepixelfreak >>>> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, >>>> but do [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Not true. If the drive setting is at one shot you will move through the > brackets one at a time. Ha, that is a really good point. I must remember that!! I wonder how many times that has happened? Steve >>>It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >>>you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>the place and the difference between some shots with the same light, >>>aperture and subject, sometimes differ as much as one stop! <snip> >> Just curious. Is the camera set up for auto exposure bracketing? >> Shooting in Aperture Priority with a 1-stop AEP will give you the >> results you got. > >LOL! I think I would remember going thru the menu and putting it on AEB. I think I would remember, too. But on more than one occasion I've set the AEB and forgot to reset when it was no longer needed. It isn't as as bad as forgetting to reset exposure compensation, which doesn't reset on my camera when it's turned off, but it can still make a mess of things. >Besides, then I would have 3 different ones. Not necessarily. If the drive is set to one shot, you have to press the release to move through the brackets. You could have taken two of the three shots in the bracket. TR >>>>It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but >>>>do [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the release to move through the brackets. You could have taken two of > the three shots in the bracket. OK, to be absolutely clear about it. I KNOW it wasn't in bracketing, because I NEVER use bracketing. Clear enough? SignatureFocus > OK, to be absolutely clear about it. I KNOW it wasn't in bracketing, because > I NEVER use bracketing. > Clear enough? I've used the 40D and all the latest slew of released DSLRs except the 1Ds MkIII. Focus is reporting something which happens when the focus point shifts in matrix metering. Focus may decide it is on a dark area, or a light area, which happen both to be at a distant point (like cliffs/sea). Depending on which focus sensor is locked on, even if the focus does not change, the exposure can change. In my experience, especially with the Canon 400D, the result can be extreme. It is as if the camera is using a spot metering from the selected point. The 40D is not as extreme in effect and nor is the 450D. The Sony/Minolta system is more like a gentle bias, it does still affect the exposure but is weights it rather than changes it. Also, the Sony AF module is less volatile in trying to find the right focus point, and sticks more stubbornly to the obvious central spot. The Nikon D300 and D3, when put into 51-zone or 15-zone modes, are also prone to unexpected changes in exposure as a subjecty moves across the field of view, depending on how well the tracking works. If you want consistent exposurem, don't use matrix/evaluative/multizone metering as small changes in composition can make big changes in exposure. David I took another look at different pictures the same time and guess what? It's WAY OFF! Much more difference in scene, but the values are the same: http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon3.JPG http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon4.JPG Here less difference in scene, but one at 1/500 sec and f7.1, the other 1/500 and f8 http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon5.JPG http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon6.JPG Here much more difference, but the same values: http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon7.JPG http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon8.JPG All in all, I think the problem is, that Canon (or at least the sample of the 40D that I had) hates direct sunlight. Other pictures of the same place at early evening before sundown are OK. I checked similar pictures I took with the Nikon D40 and D300 and the Sony A350, but they don't have any problems like this. Maybe it's time to put a big sticker on the box: "KEEP OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT" SignatureFocus Interesting thread. Regardless of the technical explanation, it would be annoying to encounter these fluctuations. I suppose this could be a vote for Manual Mode, but... it would be nice if the auto-metering modes worked as well as possible too. > Here much more difference, but the same values: > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon7.JPG > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon8.JPG These examples seem to corroborate David Kilpatrick's post (partially quoted below). > Focus is reporting something which happens when the focus point shifts in > matrix metering. In the examples above (shiny water reflections) it is very likly that David's explanation would be emphasized. One shot focused on a less reflective spot and one on a more reflective spot. -Frank Frankster wrote,on my timestamp of 24/05/2008 12:04 AM: >> Focus is reporting something which happens when the focus point shifts >> in matrix metering. > > In the examples above (shiny water reflections) it is very likly that > David's explanation would be emphasized. One shot focused on a less > reflective spot and one on a more reflective spot. Nikon's focusing/metering does that as well. It's most annoying, too... > Frankster wrote,on my timestamp of 24/05/2008 12:04 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nikon's focusing/metering does that as well. > It's most annoying, too... Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr than the latest electronic circuitry. Take Care, Dudley > Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr than > the latest electronic circuitry. Problem is that you need a very advanced lightmeter to determine when the 16 sunny works better than the latest electronic circuitry. Because if you you this rule in most situations the electronic circuitry will do a better job than the sunny 1 rule. > Take Care, > Dudley >> Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr than >> the latest electronic circuitry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you this rule in most situations the electronic circuitry will do a better > job than the sunny 1 rule. ??? I've never had much problem with the rule. Still, if you aren't happy with the results your camera's meter is giving you, try the rule. It's amazing how often it works. Besides, if your camera is in manual mode, and if you take a picture with a digital camera, and if you check your histogram / blink mechanizm, and if you don't like the results, just adjust the speed or aperture accordingly. The results of the next pic will probably be more satisfactory than relying on a matrixed metering system that seems to randomly pick points to meter. Take Care, Dudley >>> Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr than >>> the latest electronic circuitry. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > satisfactory than relying on a matrixed metering system that seems to > randomly pick points to meter. I am using a D70 now for several years. First year I bought it just before a holiday, memory was still expensive in those days so bought 1 Gb flash card and borrowed another 0.5 Gb flash memory. Offcourse did some experimenting with the camera during my vacation, but because of memory limitations did not do to much double takes. Worked years with slides then years with negatives and now digital I am very content with the matrix metering of the D70. Even with my experience I trust the matrix metering better than my own judgement in most cases and must say I am very content with the results. The sunny 16 rule has never done it for me (I live on the 52 degrees north) and the sunny 16 rule behaves different depending on the latitude you are on. The mediterenian has a lot more light during sunny spots that the latitude I live on. So I think that the electronic circuitry outperforms the sunny 16 rule almost all of the time. (This also goes for the few point and shoots I have used as wel). So if nothing else is available I would use the sunny 16, but use the electronic circuitry when it's available. And sometimes using the histogram to adjust. (It's only a single histogram, so avoiding clipping using the histogram is not totaly proof. Clipping can still occure in one off the colors even when the histogram shows no clipping). ben (Not a strong believer in the sunny 16 rule.) > Take Care, > Dudley >>>> Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr >>>> than the latest electronic circuitry. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > using the histogram is not totaly proof. Clipping can still occure in one > off the colors even when the histogram shows no clipping). I've never had much trouble with my cameras' meters, either. But, this thread was started by an OP who didn't like the results a particular camera was producing. My response was, if you aren't happy with the results you are getting from your camera in certain lighting situations, you can always fall back on the sunny 16 rule -- especially with a digital camera. Obviously, if your camera produces bad results all of the time, getting a new camera is the way to go. A fair sized chunk of the camera's cost covers the light meter. And, if the meter doesn't work, the camera is a bad deal. But, if there is a quirk in the meter that only raises its head ocaissionally, there are old standbys like the sunny 16 to help. Now, if you live in an area that has somewhat different lighting, and if the sunny 16 consistently gives over or under exposures, I tend to think it should be easy to modify the rule accordingly. If the rule says to use f/16 in bright sunny skys with ISO 100and a shutter speed of 1/125 - 160, but the pictures look too light, adjust one of the settings accordingly. The sun's intensity won't change much from day to day. Nor should your camera's light capturing ability. I used the rule mainly with older film cameras. Since I developed my own film, I could adjust the darkroom processing of a print based on the density of the negative. The sunny 16 rule would give me a negative with a usable density. Sometimes it might be a bit light, sometimes a bit dark. But in 95% of the images I shot, I could print a nice pic from a shot the rule had exposed. Given the versatility of digital images and Photoshop, I would think that the rule would be just as applicable for those people who aren't happy with the results their camera is producing in those limited number of instances when their meter is tricked. Obviously, if your camera's meter is doing a good job, you will have no reason to fall back on the old standard. Take Care, Dudley > I've never had much trouble with my cameras' meters, either. But, this > thread was started by an OP who didn't like the results a particular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your camera in certain lighting situations, you can always fall back on > the sunny 16 rule -- especially with a digital camera. The difference between the pictures of the OP's camera wast 2/3 of a stop. Although this is not consistent, it should be consistent enough to give you usable results. The sunny 16 rule won't be more consistent. Ben I thought the sunny 16 rule was use f/16, and the shutterspeet equal to the ISO. The dark picture of the OP was 5.6 1/400 at ISO 100. The lighter picture of the OP was 5.6 1/250 at ISO 100. Sunny 16 1/100 at ISO 100. (OR 5.6 would make 800) even darker than the dark picture of the OP. My opinion was that the lighter picture (1/250) was better then the darker (1/400) So the sunny 16 rule (1/100 at 100 ISO) would not have improved the picture. Your sunny 16 rule (1/125 at 100 ISO) would have made the picture still some darker. >> I've never had much trouble with my cameras' meters, either. But, this >> thread was started by an OP who didn't like the results a particular [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you > usable results. The sunny 16 rule won't be more consistent. Inconsistancy is the OP's problem, not the 2/3 stop underexposure. If the camera always under or over exposed by 2/3 stop, then thee exposure compensation feature could be used to adjust for it. This is the case with my A720; the camera consistently over-exposes by 2/3 stop. Accordingly, since I know this is going to happen, I dial down my compensation by that amount and I consistently get good results under almost any lighting configuration. With the scenario described by the OP, a number of pictures could be taken of the same scene, with some being exposed properly and some being slightly off. I agree with you that 2/3 stop isn't that big of a deal, so the pic should be salvageable. But, if a photographer wants to get the best image to start with, then that variance might be sufficient to cause problems. Hence, my point: If your camera acts iradically in some lighting situations due to metering problems, then you can fall back on a manual mode for more accurate results, or should I say more predictable results. When you are in a matrixed metering mode, you are at the mercy of the camera's electronics. And, if the camera's circuitry is either triggered by a fast changing highlight, as is the case with shimmering water, or simply picking the wrong segments to base calculations on, you are basically going to get random results. However, if you fall back on the sunny 16, or some other rule of thumb that puts you into manual mode, then your results will be much more predictable. You take a picture based on your rule of thumb. If the result you view in your LCD is off, then you can adjust your manual settings, and, if the lighting hasn't changed significantly, which it shouldn't have on a bright sunny day, then your next picture should be better. At worst, you shouldn't have to take more than a couple of test pictures before you get what you want. To say that this approach doesn't work is to say that photography was not possible prior to modern light meters, and that would be a totally ludicrous stance to adopt given that old-timers used to use this method without the advantage of instant feedback. Even with a week or two wait before viewing final prints, the rule made it possible for innumerable photogs to get good pictures. I can't help it if you never took the time to learn how to analyze a given scene for proper exposure. Good Luck, Dudley > However, if you fall back on the sunny 16, or some other rule of thumb that > puts you into manual mode, then your results will be much more predictable. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have to take more than a couple of test pictures before you get what you > want. Far better to take a spot reading of a roughly 18% neutral area, and then lock exposure or set manual exposure. That's what I do, before checking the resultant pic and histogram on a digital, if possible. If you don't have time for any of that, you're better off sticking with the camera's auto exposure, plus any predetermined constant compensation factor IMO. I haven't used the sunny 16 rule for decades. Only really useful when your metering is stuffed, or non existent AFAIC. MrT. > When you are in a matrixed metering mode, you are at the mercy of the > camera's electronics. And if you don't like that and have trouble figuring out how to switch to 'average' metering, RTFM. -Wolfgang >> When you are in a matrixed metering mode, you are at the mercy of the >> camera's electronics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Wolfgang Yeah, average metering would be an option as well, so would center-weighted (one of my favourite modes). I never said I didn't like it. In, fact, I am quite impressed with the advancements camera manufacturers have made with segmented light analysis. My current camera of choice, the Canon Powershot A720 really does a good job of calculating a useable f/stop in the really crazy situations I force it into. Especially when you consider the incredibly screwed up perspective I judge my shots from. But, in a situation where there are quickly changing specular / shimmering highlights, etc, if the matrix gets tricked, there's a good chance that other metering modes could be fooled as well. Hence, the manual mode rule of thumb is just another fall-back procedure that could give a different, yet equally good image, as one produced with the aid of electronics -- as long as the photographer knows how to use it and is patient enough to bracket appropriately. It's really too bad some of you aren't more adventurous. Manual mode shooting can be very rewarding. But, to each there own. Take Care, Dudley Dudley, may I congratulate you on your patience and very good explanation. I would have given up long ago, given someone doesn't appear to take advice very well.... > ... > Inconsistancy is the OP's problem... > > If your camera acts iradically in some lighting situations due to metering > problems, then you can fall back on a manual mode for more accurate results, > or should I say more predictable results. > > When you are in a matrixed metering mode, you are at the mercy of the > camera's electronics. And, if the camera's circuitry is either triggered by > a fast changing highlight, as is the case with shimmering water... Exactly!! I note Focus posted two links (which WW has correctly pointed out were obviously NOT taken within 'seconds' of each other) showing *precisely* that situation - shot over rough water with reflections and patchy sunlit areas... what a surprise he got different results... sigh. It is much easier to blame a camera than learn something or, heaven forbid, admit that you don't know everything... That's why I avoid Mr Focus. It's pretty clear when someone wants nothing but praise. > I can't help it if you never took the time to learn how to > analyze a given scene for proper exposure. Grin. On the mark, Dudley! > Dudley, may I congratulate you on your patience and very good explanation. > I would have given up long ago, given someone doesn't appear to take [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Exactly!! I note Focus posted two links (which WW has correctly pointed > out were obviously NOT taken within 'seconds' of each other) Right. They were taken within 0.10 of a second. Do you really think I got nothing better to do then make some false claims, forge EXIF data, etc. ? >showing *precisely* that situation - shot over rough water with reflections >and patchy sunlit areas... what a surprise he got different results... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > forbid, admit that you don't know everything... That's why I avoid Mr > Focus. It's pretty clear when someone wants nothing but praise. Please! Get a clue what the f**k you're talking about! That stupid box can't even measure the light as good as a 100,- P&S? What is there possible to defend? IT'S a piece of sh.t! Read DPReview about the smaller brother: the 450D: SAME problem! Over exposes in high contrast areas: EXACTLY what I said, except they forgot the inconsistency, but DPReview has always been a Canon fan. Oh, and focus problems are included in the price also! But that's an old story... SignatureFocus > > Dudley, may I congratulate you on your patience and very good explanation. > > I would have given up long ago, given someone doesn't appear to take [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > -- > Focus Here's what FOCUS said on May 4 2008 7:38 am, on "Ferrari butchered by Sony A350" > Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a lot > to learn. Things change, hey, Focus? But yes, it's *always* the camera. (O: On 26 mei, 23:33, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > (O: How dare you!!! Focus is the top dog in nl.foto!! He's a proffesional photographer!! And he has a masters degree in photography. >> Dudley, may I congratulate you on your patience and very good >> explanation. I would have given up long ago, given someone doesn't appear [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Oh, and focus problems are included in the price also! > But that's an old story... Hey, if any of you disgruntled Canon users want to dump your gear, send it to me! I'd love to see what I could do with it... I can't dispute the over-exposed metering, since my A720 does it as well. But, I've taken notes, adjusted my approach, and I've gotten some good results with it. I'm guessing I could do the same with the more expensive models as well... Good Luck, Dudley > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message >> out were obviously NOT taken within 'seconds' of each other) > Right. They were taken within 0.10 of a second. > Do you really think I got nothing better to do then make some false claims, > forge EXIF data, etc. ? You have shown that you often try the path of least resistance and jedi-truths (it's true --- if you look from a very specific position. Like "the scenery moves, the ship is motionless".). So yes, I don't put faking EXIF data beyond you. Nor do I believe you'd be unable to turn down the exposure slider in your software --- for one pic. The world has seen many people force facts to their story and silence disbelievers and doubters. >> It is much easier to blame a camera than learn something or, heaven >> forbid, admit that you don't know everything... That's why I avoid Mr >> Focus. It's pretty clear when someone wants nothing but praise. > Please! Get a clue what the f**k you're talking about! Please go learn how to use your camera. > That stupid box can't even measure the light as good as a 100,- P&S? Nope, it does it much better. It just doesn't do as _you_ think it should --- which is your fault. > What is there possible to defend? IT'S a piece of sh.t! Then you will part from it for EUR 5 + P&P. It's worthless. > Read DPReview about the smaller brother: the 450D: > SAME problem! Over exposes in high contrast areas: EXACTLY what I said, > except they forgot the inconsistency, but DPReview has always been a Canon > fan. Funny you didn't know that before you bought the camera. > Oh, and focus problems are included in the price also! Yes, Focus problems are included in the price with any camera you touch. -Wolfgang > Dudley, may I congratulate you on your patience and very good explanation. > I would have given up long ago, given someone doesn't appear to take > advice very well.... I've spent a lot of time tutoring disabled individuals on how to use Windows. They have had a variety of physical and sensory limitations which needed to be overcome in order for them to make effective use of these wonderful little boxes. Sometimes, I'd have to explain a given concept or procedure in 15 or 20 different ways, keeping close attention on what the individual did after each explanation, modifying the nextt slightly in order to address how I perceived the person either misunderstood what I was saying, or simply didn't have the necessary ability to use the information effectively. Eventually, we'd find the magic combination, and they'd be off to the races. It's a great way to build patience and communications skills, and it's very rewarding too. I strongly recommend that anyone with computer experience and some extra time go to a local community college / vocational training centre and volunteer a few hours. The difference is, I guess, the individuals I tutored WANTED to learn, so they kept at it until they got it. Some posters here, either are too entrenched in the way they do things to seriously consider another approach. Or, they just like to cause headaches. I've got a lot of time to waste, so the challenge is either to run the mental cases into a corner they can't get out of, or actually show them there is another way. Besides, I often learn something in the exchange as well. Take Care, Dudley > On May 26, 7:55 am, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Grin. On the mark, Dudley! > Exactly!! I note Focus posted two links (which WW has correctly pointed > out were obviously NOT taken within 'seconds' of each other) They were not taken from the same position(!). IIRC Focus said (admitted?) later he shot from a moving ship, which, if moving at a good clip, could produce the observed shift in perspective within ~3 seconds. I did note that EXIF-data is quite trivial to fake, though, and suggested that when misleading about "the same position", everything had to be in doubt. -Wolfgang > Inconsistancy is the OP's problem, not the 2/3 stop underexposure. If the > camera always under or over exposed by 2/3 stop, then thee exposure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compensation by that amount and I consistently get good results under > almost any lighting configuration. I said there was 2/3 stop difference. And although said I liked one of the pictures better, I did not draw any conclusion on under- or overexposed. So I went into my 'database' of pictures, to see what variation there is in correct exposed pictures. Last year was on Crete, sunny all the time and I must admit that most exposures are pretty close to the sunny 16 rule. (f16 1/100 on 100iso or equivalent). (Actually from a stop under the 16 rule up to the 16 rule for most pictures). (The difference is still more than a stop between fairly similar pictures and more than 2 stops over all (sunny) pictures). But going to were I live in the Nederlands, this doesn't work anymore. Here a sunny day there is on average less light, but the variations are far greater. So the sunny 16 rule does not work anymore. I get 3 to 4 stops of variation depending on a lot of variables on sunny days. (And most days are not sunny here, so the rule can not be applied at all on those days). So I am happy that my matrix metering takes care of these types of differences. And I know that an expercienced fotographer can estimate the amount of light because of his experience in similar situations. But this is very limited, that's why most use the electronics of their camera or a handheld lightmeter. My own experience is with slides which were critical and the camera lightmeter that light varies far more than I would estimate. Between noon and not to long before sunset, we (at least I) normally do not notice that the difference in light is huge. Watching a movie in a theatre, of a dessert, I experience that as a lot of light, allthough in reality, it is a very weak light compared to the outdoor sunshine, so I can be very easely fooled, where my matrix meter can not. > With the scenario described by the OP, a number of pictures could be taken > of the same scene, with some being exposed properly and some being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problems, then you can fall back on a manual mode for more accurate > results, or should I say more predictable results. But I do not think that the camera of the OP falls into this category, yes there is variation, but even with that variation the results are only off by 1/3 of a stop. Going to manual results will be more off. (At least they would for the pictures I have taken in the past year). > When you are in a matrixed metering mode, you are at the mercy of the > camera's electronics. And, if the camera's circuitry is either triggered > by a fast changing highlight, as is the case with shimmering water, or > simply picking the wrong segments to base calculations on, you are > basically going to get random results. This is overstated (at least for the camera's I have worked with), although the metering system is fast I have never experienced fast changing settings with shimmering water, normally the matrix matering is very stable. > However, if you fall back on the sunny 16, or some other rule of thumb > that puts you into manual mode, then your results will be much more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > better. At worst, you shouldn't have to take more than a couple of test > pictures before you get what you want. Yes you can adjust, but that was not the point of the OP. If the picture is taken of something non repeatable, you would like to get the exposure right. And far all actions that can not be retaken, I depend on the matrix metering. If I have more time, I might revert to spotmetering, or just judging the histogram, or I might even use bracketing. But in time critical situations, I depend on matrix metering. > To say that this approach doesn't work is to say that photography was not > possible prior to modern light meters, and that would be a totally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photogs to get good pictures. I can't help it if you never took the time > to learn how to analyze a given scene for proper exposure. Yes it was possible. But when the lightmeters arrived the results improved. I have never worked with a serious camera without a light meter. The first lightmeters I used with were beter than no light meter. The matrix lightmeter is a huge improvement over het first build in lightmeters. For analysing a scene I use the lightmeter, because I do not trust my eyes. Without lightmeter I would not be able to produce consistent slides in the 'old' days. ben > Good Luck, > Dudley >> Inconsistancy is the OP's problem, not the 2/3 stop underexposure. If >> the camera always under or over exposed by 2/3 stop, then thee exposure [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >> Good Luck, >> Dudley Well, Ben, I only flog a dead horse for so long, so I'll just say the following: By your own admission, most of your pics are only off, at worst, a stop or two from the results the sunny 16 rule would produce. My contention all along has been that, by using the sunny 16 rule as a backup for buggy meters, only one or two test shots would have to be taken in a given situation before a good shot could predictably be taken. Your photos back me up. You seem to think I am advocating that people use the rule all of the time, which I am not. I only advocate the use of the rule if you encounter a lighting situation that messes up your meter so bad you can't get a good shot. I would tend to think that most photographers will never encounter a lighting situation so strange that their camera's meter will be useless. At worst, given a camera with a proven buggy meter, maybe 5% of the shots taken might need to fall back on the rule. The remainder could be taken with the aid of electronics. Now, if you want to continue posting messages that corroborate what I am saying, by all means, keep it up. But, eventually I reach a point where I tire of writing the same thing with only a regurgitation of the same answer as a response. So, good luck with your life, Ben, and I hope your pics all are good. Take Care, Dudley > (And most days are not sunny here, so the rule can not be applied at all on > those days). Of course it can, the "sunny f16 rule" says use f11 for bright-cloudy/slight overcast, f8 for overcast/shade, f5.6 for heavy overcast/dull etc. Only works if you have at least one stop of exposure latitude though. Even then a bit of experience helps. MrT. On May 25, 2:19 am, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com> wrote: > > Frankster wrote,on my timestamp of 24/05/2008 12:04 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sometimes, an old rule of thumb like the sunny 16 will work betterr than the > latest electronic circuitry. Quite true. Although I get better results with "sunny f11". Go figure? The other one that works quite well is to take a reading of the palm of the hand and then open up 1 stop. At least with slide film: never tried it with the D80.... > On May 25, 2:19 am, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of the palm of the hand and then open up 1 stop. > At least with slide film: never tried it with the D80.... Hey, I like that one. I'll have to give it a try. A fellow never knows when his meter might misread a situation, and it's nice to have another tool in the toolkit. Thanks, Dudley Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 27/05/2008 12:21 PM: > Hey, I like that one. I'll have to give it a try. A fellow never knows > when his meter might misread a situation, and it's nice to have another tool > in the toolkit. make sure the light is hitting the palm at same angle as it does your real subject. works a treat. > It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do > you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > is good and which is not. > This one clearly is not. You don't say anything about the lens you used. Was it a Canon lens, or a third-party job? I have seen lenses where the aperture closes down differently each time, or doesn't open fully after, upsetting the exposure measurement. Whether it was sticky blades or crappy construction wasn't clear. When the camera calculates the exposure and sends the aperture data to the lens, the aperture is expected to close down accurately - if it doesn't, you get the exposure variation you have in your shots. One further possibility is if you allow stray light into the viewfinder, it will shorten the exposure. Wearing glasses that sit some distance from the eye can be a subtle source of variable exposure, by letting light in from the side. This is an often overlooked problem when the camera is on a tripod and the VF is not covered. I think blaming the camera here is just a little premature. Colin D. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do >> you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > I think blaming the camera here is just a little premature. It was a 400.- Canon 17-85 IS lens. Hardly a piece of crap, I think, but I don't know how much Canon charges for crappy lenses ;-) The "stuck blades" theory would be something, but I don't think so. Stray light is so far fetched: I don't wear glasses and then it should be evident in other photo's with other camera's, which is not the case... Blaming the camera is the only option after ruling all others out. You do know what "trial and error" means, don't you? SignatureFocus >>> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but >>> do you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Blaming the camera is the only option after ruling all others out. > You do know what "trial and error" means, don't you? Full EXIF data could solve the mystery :-) Phil Harvey's ExifView give 230+ exif-entries on 40D CR2 files. "Measured EV" included. http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm >>>> It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but >>>> do you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > "Measured EV" included. > http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm I hardly think I want to go thru all that trouble just to make a picture work. Besides, I'm not alone in this. If you look in the Dutch group, a guy named Cor made very good bird pictures with a Sony A200. For some reason he changed to a Canon 40D and now his story is complete. In short, he wrote he had the 40D for one week and wasn't able to make ONE good shot! In that week he already had dust on the sensor, that had to be removed by the dealer, who charged him 30 euro for it. He's looked in plenty of forums and other people told him to under expose by 2 clicks and always leave the WB on "clouds". His frustration is now so big, that he's thinking of giving up photography in total. Which would be a shame, because he's very good, specially for someone that only started a few months ago. Many would not get those kind of pictures even after years. For me it's evident the 40D has some very, very serious exposure problems. The only pictures I got, that were really good, were photos taken in dark places. I'll post some, if anybody is interested. But keep it out from the sun.... BTW: I know you have the 40D, why don't you show us some pictures of a bright sunny day? And don't forget the EXIF, LOL. SignatureFocus > Besides, I'm not alone in this. If you look in the Dutch group, a guy > named Cor made very good bird pictures with a Sony A200. For some > reason he changed to a Canon 40D and now his story is complete. > In short, he wrote he had the 40D for one week and wasn't able to > make ONE good shot! No surprise here. His major miscalculation was not getting the PVC plug-in for CS3. All US users of the 40D have found the "Roger Rabbit" color pallet makes the best 16-color animations. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > All US users of the 40D have found the "Roger Rabbit" color pallet > makes the best 16-color animations. That's why they always return to Nikon: they have made their pallet, now they can lie in it --- and anyway, 12 colours is *so* *much* better than 16. -Wolfgang > BTW: I know you have the 40D, why don't you show us some pictures of a > bright sunny day? And don't forget the EXIF, LOL. Here ya go: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95592163 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582285 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95351647 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/93520480 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91573202 Perhaps your 40D didn't come with an owner's manual? On May 23, 6:00 am, "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote: > BTW: I know you have the 40D, why don't you show us some pictures of a > bright sunny day? And don't forget the EXIF, LOL. Here ya go: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95592163 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582285 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95351647 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/93520480 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91573202 Perhaps your 40D didn't come with an owner's manual? Bert isn't capable to photograph.................................not now, not in the future. He blames it on all his camera's. Lol -- www.dicasa.nl On May 23, 6:00 am, "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote: > BTW: I know you have the 40D, why don't you show us some pictures of a > bright sunny day? And don't forget the EXIF, LOL. Here ya go: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95592163 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582285 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95351647 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/93520480 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91573202 Still not one with the sun even close.. >Perhaps your 40D didn't come with an owner's manual? So where did you steal these from? SignatureFocus > Still not one with the sun even close.. They were all taken on bright sunny days. What else did you want? On May 23, 3:05 pm, "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote: >> Still not one with the sun even close.. >They were all taken on bright sunny days. What else did you want? Sunny sky in the front. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95592163 *Sky is in the back*, no detail in shadow and the white clothes are washed out. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521 *No sky* and the dog's neck hairs are washed out, so is it's left behind leg. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582285 The only one with good lighting, but again: *no sky!* http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95351647 Sun in the back again... http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/93520480 this is not even a 40D picture and the noise and detail is horrible. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91573202 Nice picture but *without sky.* Difficult concept, huh? The only pictures of you that are reasonable, are flash pictures... SignatureFocus I suspected early on that you were a troll. Troll. > I suspected early on that you were a troll. > Troll. If you don't understand anything about photography, you can always start the name calling game. All kids here do. Dica, Dicasa, Annika....you're in good company. SignatureFocus > If you don't understand anything about photography, Hear, hear..........lol. Here Focus, for you: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/ -- www.dicasa.nl > >> Still not one with the sun even close.. > >They were all taken on bright sunny days. What else did you want? > > Sunny sky in the front. That's not what you said earlier when you requested pics taken on a "bright sunny day." So you want to see photos taken INTO the sun, is that it? I usually try to avoid that for reasons that should be obvious. When I do take one into the sun I'll often use fill flash as in this one: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582293 Here's another that is close to what you are talking about: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95596213 So what is it exactly that you claim the 40D cannot do? On May 24, 6:11 pm, "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote: > >> Still not one with the sun even close.. > >They were all taken on bright sunny days. What else did you want? > > Sunny sky in the front. >So what is it exactly that you claim the 40D cannot do? It isn't the Canon Annika, its Focus himself;) > Here's a picture of the south bank of the river: > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon1.JPG > Here's another, exactly the same place and time, just 3 secs apart: > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Canon2.JPG Overlaying the 2 images shows that they were never taken from the same place --- and yes, EXIF is trivial to change. But maybe you just were shooting from a quick moving train or car. http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/300140257_bLSbk-X3.jpg As you can see, if you align the 2 images on the white-bordered area (including the masts and the outcrop), the rest stays unaligned. Also, one can easily see that the shots differ a lot in sharpness --- even downsamples as they are. > Now you would think, --- why is this "Focus"-girl telling such obvious untruths, which are so easy shown to be wrong? > that the second picture is lighter, because the camera > is more turned to the sun.... Nope. I *have* heard of cameras that adjust their exposure depending on the light coming in through the lens. Maybe Canon snuck such a feature into your camera without telling you. > But all smart people already understood that, since the picture is of the > south bank ;-) Typical north-of-Tropic of Cancer provincialism. > The exposure increased form 1/400 to 1/250. Close to 1 stop, and the sky is > washed out, including some masts on top of the hill. Yes, some idiot behind the camera did something wrong. As usual, said idiot pins it on the camera who did just as ordered --- and said idiot also lied about what he did. > Case in point: not one review shows this, because they all use the studio > set-up. > So you'll just have to take a camera out for a spin, before you decide which > is good and which is not. > This one clearly is not. Try oil colours. Or better don't --- they do not arrange themselves into a picture without a lot of manual intervention with a brush and so on. Obviously, oil colours are clearly bad. -Wolfgang >> Here's a picture of the south bank of the river: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > themselves into a picture without a lot of manual intervention > with a brush and so on. Obviously, oil colours are clearly bad. Go suck a bus, jack a.s.. >>> Here's a picture of the south bank of the river: >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Go suck a bus, jack a.s.. > It's warm and cozy in the perfectly lit studios of most reviewers, but do > you really get a really good "buying advise"? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > is good and which is not. > This one clearly is not. Don't any of you know that the camera exposure does not matter! Exposure is called Photoshop. Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.