 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2007"P" mode and "Av" mode..whats the difference on a Canon 400d?
As per title, what is the difference between these 2 shooting modes? According to the manual, both allow you to define or set your own aperture whilst the camera sets a shuuter speed to deliver a correct exposure...if thats the case, then why are there 2 modes ro do almost the same thing? Thanks!!  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > As per title, what is the difference between these 2 shooting modes? > According to the manual, both allow you to define or set your own aperture > whilst the camera sets a shuuter speed to deliver a correct exposure...if > thats the case, then why are there 2 modes ro do almost the same thing? "P" mode makes an initial selection for you of both aperture and speed (based on metered light, ISO setting, max lens aperture and Canon's particular P algorithm) and then lets you "program shift" as desired in either aperture or speed. "Av" locks the exposure speed according to your chosen aperture (and ISO setting). You vary the aperture only. On top of both of the above is the exposure-compensation that you enter to offset for the metering. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >> As per title, what is the difference between these 2 shooting >> modes? According to the manual, both allow you to define or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > On top of both of the above is the exposure-compensation that > you enter to offset for the metering. I added Tv because it is a natural adjunct to the OP's overall question. You correctly amplified my remarks by noting that ISO modifies how all 3 modes will compute, and the camera's AE can be overridden to at least +/- 2 stops. I don't do that much, but isn't that EV? SignatureHP, aka Jerry > Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration > of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I added Tv because it is a natural adjunct to the OP's overall > question. You correctly amplified my remarks by noting that ISO eh? I answered first, so you're the one amplifying... ;-) > modifies how all 3 modes will compute, and the camera's AE can be > overridden to at least +/- 2 stops. I don't do that much, but isn't > that EV? I didn't mention Tv as I thought the OP could make that leap of connection by himself... In the Canon world EV seems to be what everyone else calls "exposure compensation". In the real world EV is "Exposure Value" which is basically aperture & speed for ISO 100. (eg: Sunny-16 is EV 15 regardless of actual aperture and speed combo to achieve it). Your post correctly pointed out that P sets the shutter speed (or should) to reduce camera shake as well as the other factors I mentioned. Every time I use a Canon camera I am frustrated by its exposure system and it takes me many minutes to adjust. Minolta and Nikon is straight nuts and bolts terminology and usage. Pentax too IIRC. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration >> of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Pentax now also has two more modes on the K10D, Sv and TAv. >> Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration >> of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > basically aperture & speed for ISO 100. (eg: Sunny-16 is EV 15 > regardless of actual aperture and speed combo to achieve it). Actually, on a Rebel XT the button is labeled Av+-. And the manual describes it as the Av/Exposure Compensation button. In manual mode it is used to change aperture, and in other modes it's used to change EC. I don't see EV mentioned anywhere. Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky >>> Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration >>> of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > describes it as the Av/Exposure Compensation button. In manual mode it > is used to change aperture, and in other modes it's used to change EC. If you have and Av mode then it should mean that and having another button labeled "Av+/-" seems like poor UI to me. I may have made an error above, but the point remains that Canon have one of the strangest exposure nomenclatures. Minolta had it just right: A,S,M,P and exp-comp for both available light and flash. What more does one need? (Drop the "P" and I'd be just as happy). > I don't see EV mentioned anywhere. HEMI wrote: ""modifies how all 3 modes will compute, and the camera's AE can be overridden to at least +/- 2 stops. I don't do that much, but isn't that EV?"" Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>> Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration >>>> of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > If you have and Av mode then it should mean that and having another > button labeled "Av+/-" seems like poor UI to me. I completely agree. > I may have made an error above, but the point remains that Canon have > one of the strangest exposure nomenclatures. Minolta had it just right: > A,S,M,P and exp-comp for both available light and flash. What more does > one need? (Drop the "P" and I'd be just as happy). I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T instead of S anyway? >> I don't see EV mentioned anywhere. > > HEMI wrote: > ""modifies how all 3 modes will compute, and the camera's AE can be > overridden to at least +/- 2 stops. I don't do that much, but isn't > that EV?"" Can't speak for HEMI but I was just talking about the manual. Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky > I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T instead of > S anyway? aperture value, time value > I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T instead of > S anyway? S(hutter) makes more sense, but maybe T(ime) was the intent. >>I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T instead of >>S anyway? > > S(hutter) makes more sense, but maybe T(ime) was the intent. Probably. That's what I mean about Canon's offbeat exposure nomenclature... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >>>I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T >>>instead of S anyway? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Probably. That's what I mean about Canon's offbeat exposure > nomenclature... I agree it doesn't make sense, but why argue with reality? Just go with the flow, pick the setting that does the job for you, and just ignore Canon's nomenclature. But, again, Alan, it is when I think I'm getting smarter than the camera and switch off P to T or A that I tend to get worse results. My Rebel XT does a damn fine job of setting a good compromise shutter and aperture with P, so why risk failure. The ONLY time I switch to Av is when I KNOW I'll have a DOF problem. e.g., suppose I am shooting a car in the foreground and there's a building or foliage in the background I also want in focus. I MAY switch to Av and go to f/11 or f/16 and even up the ISO from 100 to 200. But, those situations are rare for me. SignatureHP, aka Jerry > Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration > of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > focus. I MAY switch to Av and go to f/11 or f/16 and even up the > ISO from 100 to 200. But, those situations are rare for me. In using Av / Tv you really need to understand the meter of the camera. What area it's covering and what is the relative reflectance of the part being metered. From there using exposure compensation comes in. OTOH, P is likewise affected, but it probably weights strongly to the overall scene as a starting point so whatever errors get biased out fairly well in "average" scenes. In Av/Tv start with scene evaluative metering (whatever mode in the camera meters all over the scene) and then work towards more spot metered areas using exposure compensation. Look up all the meter offset values (ashphalt is 0, grass is -1, skin (palm of hand) is +1, yellow is +1, red is 0, etc. .. use a gray card as a target and then build your own table of what EC's to use.... Use the histogram.. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >> I agree it doesn't make sense, but why argue with reality? >> Just go with the flow, pick the setting that does the job for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > part being metered. From there using exposure compensation > comes in. Yes, e.g., the 3 available modes of metering light. In my case, I almost always use Evaluative. > OTOH, P is likewise affected, but it probably weights strongly > to the overall scene as a starting point so whatever errors [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gray card as a target and then build your own table of what > EC's to use.... Use the histogram.. I would probably agree, Alan, if I had the faintest clue what you're talking about! <grin> Well, I have some clue ... But, as you've been following along in my comments in this and other threads, getting an absolutely, precisely accurate exposure isn't really an issue for my car pictures - usually. The bigger problem is uneven exposure and dynamic range problems that are really difficult to easily fix. e.g. suppose it is daylight, I am in P mode on Evaluative, I do an AF lock and allow the camera to simultaneously do the AE lock. Rare for me to need to pick a different sample point for AE, which is so common is flash situations. At car shows, the hoods are almost always up because the judges need to see that and because the owners like to show off their hard work. When the car is reasonably well exposed and there are no serious backlight problems, the engine will be almost black. And, the interior will also be quite dark, but not as dark as the engine. To fix that. I tweak the entire scene in PSP 9 using the usual techniques, then do individual selections on area(s) that are either too bright or too dark and adjust them until I have a good compromise. The main reason I have never taken the time to develop custom WB and exposure settings, as you describe, and/or using an image already in memory as the base point, is that from car to car to car, the problems vary too much to try to diddle around with multiple custom settings. And, even with the LCD set all the way to bright, in daylight, it is virtually impossible for me to read the menus unless I crouch down in a shadow on the car, not to mention that there seldom is enough time to be all that careful. If that makes me a fool in the eyes of some folks, so be it. I think I've clarified my position enough that it isn't what other folks think is "right" or "wrong", what the camera books say, or what teachers in a photography class say - although I do place weight on those things - it only matters what the photographer thinks is important and right, for them. SignatureHP, aka Jerry > Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration > of the matter at hand: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I would probably agree, Alan, if I had the faintest clue what > you're talking about! <grin> Well, I have some clue ... But, as It's very simple: 18% grey is about the middle of the exposure range. All the relfective parts of the image lie on each side of that. Near white is about two stops above (add +2 compensation as the meter thinks that white is 18% grey). Dark clothes lie at about -2 to -2.5 so set -2 to -2.5 (the meter thinks that dark stuff is 18% grey, so it tries to open it up to make the dark stuff grey ... you adjust -2.5 to compensate). Run the exercise for a bunch of colors v. a grey card reference and you'll see what I mean. Or with digital, use its built in "white" card. Put a white card in the scene and shoot a test shot. Look at the histo. If it shows info all the way to the right without overflowing (creating a sharp spike at the right), then you're bang on. Underexpose that same scene by two stops (the white turns grey) and the histo will be blank from the right to about the middle... > you've been following along in my comments in this and other > threads, getting an absolutely, precisely accurate exposure isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different sample point for AE, which is so common is flash > situations. At car shows, the hoods are almost always up because We've gone over this before ... you can't get 10 Lbs of sh.t into a 5 Lb bag. The first thing to do is to control the lighting. If you're shooting digital outdoors in mid day with strong shaddows there is NO WAY a digital image can fit in all the detail. Use flll flash to lighten up the shaddows, but shoot for the daylight. Or use negative film and overexpose it a little. You'll get tons of detail. (Portra 160 VC would be a good choice exposed at 100). > the judges need to see that and because the owners like to show > off their hard work. When the car is reasonably well exposed and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the menus unless I crouch down in a shadow on the car, not to > mention that there seldom is enough time to be all that careful. Here is where Manual shooting can save your day. Once you figure, for a scene, what the exposure should be, set the aperture and speed manaully. This will give you shot to shot consistency without the meter making errors based on each new scene. The point is: the light is constant, so should be the exposure. Fill flash will need to vary due to distance. > If that makes me a fool in the eyes of some folks, so be it. I > think I've clarified my position enough that it isn't what other > folks think is "right" or "wrong", what the camera books say, or > what teachers in a photography class say - although I do place > weight on those things - it only matters what the photographer > thinks is important and right, for them. That's not the point at all. By using P (ot Tv or Av) you're letting the camera evaluate the exposure from shot to shot. But in a given scene with available light you can find one exposure value that will give you consistency for every frame. In manual mode your camera probably has a button you can hold while changing aperture that will make the reciprocal change in speed (or v-v). For a mid sunny day at ISO 100, if you set f/8 @ 1/500 and the flash at -1.5 (for fill light when needed) I would bet you'll get very good results and a lot more consistency shot to shot. (adjust the shutter speed with something matt white in the scene to fill the histo to the right without overflow). If shooting the "open shade" side of the car, then you will need more exposure (by about 1.5 stops, but sunlit parts will blow out) and you may want to set the color temp higher (8,000 - 10,000 K). (If you shoot RAW then you can do this on importing the images into the computer). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >> I would probably agree, Alan, if I had the faintest clue what >> you're talking about! <grin> Well, I have some clue ... But, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it up to make the dark stuff grey ... you adjust -2.5 to > compensate). You're forcing me to try to remember my Photography 101 from 40 years ago! <grin> > Run the exercise for a bunch of colors v. a grey card > reference and you'll see what I mean. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > grey) and the histo will be blank from the right to about the > middle... Please excuse my denseness here, Alan, but what question are you answering? I can follow the quotes that you're commenting on how to put more science and less seat-of-the-pants into the decision which exposure mode to use and how best to use them wrt building custom WB and EV settings. Beyond that, I'm not following you. Maybe you're replying in general and not to my particular set of strange problems ... >> you've been following along in my comments in this and other >> threads, getting an absolutely, precisely accurate exposure [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the detail. Use flll flash to lighten up the shaddows, but > shoot for the daylight. 10 pounds of sh.t into a 5 pound bag is what used to be called a "blivet". I understand your point, which is that it is patently impossible to get anywhere near 100% correct exposures across the entire dynamic range of a pathological case like my example. As for me, I am not really complaining, I know how to "fix" the dark engines and interiors, I was simply pointing out that it isn't always possible to "do it right the first time". > Or use negative film and overexpose it a little. You'll get > tons of detail. (Portra 160 VC would be a good choice exposed > at 100). I think my film days are long gone, and not coming back. But, if you've followed my general theses wrt car photography, I am NOT all that concerned with 100% correct results on each and every photo. I am a documentary photographer interested in the car, and less so the technical quality of the image. Other people feel differently, and that is their right. >> The main reason I have never taken the time to develop custom >> WB and exposure settings, as you describe, and/or using an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The point is: the light is constant, so should be the > exposure. First, the light is not constant; it varies throughout the day, sometimes literally in minutes if clouds are moving. Second, the degree to which an engine or interior is in the shade is highly dependent on where the car is wrt the sun. e.g., the Walter P. Chrysler Museum where the CEMA show will be held on June 9, faces exactly E-W, which means that I shoot one series of photos with one set of views in the AM and another set in the PM. As the sun rises, peaks at around noon, then begins to sink, lighting changes dramatically, as does its temperature as well as how much the car is actually lit. With the number of cars I would like to shoot - can't always do what I like, but I try - there simply isn't time to take the "correct" approach, and using full manual is problematical for many people, including me. If done well, it may save the day as you describe. Done not so well and the images will be total junk. So, again, P mode is the best all around compromise for me for the average car show in daylight. > Fill flash will need to vary due to distance. Haven't been too successful making fill flash do what it is intended to do. I need to do more practicing at home before the big shows start. >> If that makes me a fool in the eyes of some folks, so be it. >> I think I've clarified my position enough that it isn't what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - 10,000 K). (If you shoot RAW then you can do this on > importing the images into the computer). I appreciate you many good pieces of advice,Alan. I'm sorry that I won't be able to follow you direction however, for the reasons I have stated. There is a continuum between two extremes where one is lesser quanitity but much higher quality, and the other is quantity enough to try to at least get SOME image on a really large number of cars, but sacrificing quality to the point where it may get pretty dismal at times. Forget me, and just think of the general cases I describe. Each photographer has to decide where in the continuum they want to be, or can be, and adjust their technique(s) accordingly. There are times when I think I might be better off giving up my DSLR and going back to a "snapshot camera", i.e., a small P & S. It annoys me that I cannot take advantage of better methodologies, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Have a great holiday! SignatureHP, aka Jerry << Snipped bits out >> > Have a great holiday! Thanks; I will. Finals of NCAA D-1 lacrosse start in an hour or so. Jerry- Alan has given a splendid discourse on it, while I've previously suggested you use manual, in a very few words. It's not so difficult as you seem to make out. In any event, it looks like you have had your mind made up some years ago on this, and naught's going to change it. Happy shooting! Signaturejohn mcwilliams John McWilliams offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: > << Snipped bits out >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In any event, it looks like you have had your mind made up > some years ago on this, and naught's going to change it. It isn't that my mind is made up, although it is, it is more that I just don't see the benefits of doing it "right" vs. the effort. That is not in any way an insult to Alan or anybody, just how I feel. I use examples of my personal experiences to illustrate my realist and pragmatist approach to everything in my life, including photography, cars, PCs, etc. People on this and rec.photo.digital apparently confuse my comments as complaints, they are not, or requests for help in solving my problems, which they also are not. I pretty much gave up asking for specific help because my philosophy of doing things is incompatible with people's recommendations, which inevitably leads to bad blood. I don't want to see that, so I'm just "taking an even strain." As to RTFM, I have, but it is like most manuals, poorly written and indended to be a reference manual, not a tutorial. If you believe manuals are easy to glean information from, I am happy for you. I find it extremely difficult and thus extremely frustrating. In conclusion, again, I do NOT want to insult anyone or diss them by appeearing to ignore their advice. Responders to all OPs in this NG tend to be more experienced and much more interested in superior results than I am. That's fine by me. I wish that people would cut me a little slack and allow me to feel the way I do, if I am happy and satisfied with my results. Now, if I could improve my percentage of first-time good images, I surely would - but it has to be with a good eye on the cost-benefit curves. There are just so many other things in life more important to me than photography of any subject that I have to prioritize my time, and that leaves out learning the more esoteric aspects of digital. However, I DO keep a folder of what people say, whether to me or in general, that I can always print if I want to try my hand at improving. Let me comment on one aspect of this and rec.photo.digital. OPs that are newbies of one sort of another more often than not put a couple of paragraphs in that do not have nearly enough detail for anyone to respond intelligently. When the thread goes toward the highly technical, high quality end, I suspect that the OP doesn't want to look stupid, so they simply don't come back in. It has been said that beauty is in the eye of the behold, and I would submit that so is image quality and print quality. Thanks for your comments. SignatureHP, aka Jerry <A lot of good points that I've snipped> > I appreciate you many good pieces of advice,Alan. I'm sorry that > I won't be able to follow you direction however, for the reasons [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cannot take advantage of better methodologies, but that's the way > the cookie crumbles. I think that you're trying to get too much quantity into your quality. I took a couple hours to photograph a friends Benz a few years ago. Very nice results, but nowhere near pro-photog quality... If it's a "collection of photos of every damned car ever presented at a rally" then that's what you will get. But few high Q shots... > Have a great holiday! You too. ( Cerberus give holidays? ) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: > <A lot of good points that I've snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I think that you're trying to get too much quantity into your > quality. Alan, again, I thank you for your thoughts. If I demeaned or isulted you at any time, I apologize; it certainly wasn't intentional. All I can say is that we each do what we think best. My daughter and her fiance were over yesterday. They just got back from Mackinac Island. She has an older Kodak 4 mp P & S, he has a new Canon something or other that cost him about $400 at Costco. She just prints at 4 x 6 and doesn't give a rip about quality. He intends to shoot at the full 7 mp because doncha know, that's how you get better pictures. Neither are completely right nor completely wrong. But, their views ARE completely different, certainly very different than mine and even more different than yours. He likes all the neat features like IS multiple images sizes and qualities and all sorts of manual modes but has zero knowledge of photography at all. It'll be interesting to see what happens when he starts experimenting! > I took a couple hours to photograph a friends Benz a few years > ago. Very nice results, but nowhere near pro-photog quality... > > If it's a "collection of photos of every damned car ever > presented at a rally" then that's what you will get. But few > high Q shots... Life is one big compromise and is also frequently a zero sum game, so you are correct. >> Have a great holiday! > > You too. ( Cerberus give holidays? ) Don't know about Cerberes! I'm retired so on one big "holiday". The Cerberes deal hasn't gone through yet, it will proably be fall before all the approvals are secured. Nobody knows, obviously, what they plan. Being that I wasn't in a union, I wouldn't be surprised if they chipped away at my pension and healthcare. SignatureHP, aka Jerry >> If you have and Av mode then it should mean that and having another >> button labeled "Av+/-" seems like poor UI to me. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't know why Canon has to do the Av, Tv thing, and why T instead of > S anyway? Exactly what I was getting at... >>> I don't see EV mentioned anywhere. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can't speak for HEMI but I was just talking about the manual. Ah. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. the_niner_nation offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: > As per title, what is the difference between these 2 shooting > modes? According to the manual, both allow you to define or > set your own aperture whilst the camera sets a shuuter speed > to deliver a correct exposure...if thats the case, then why > are there 2 modes ro do almost the same thing? P generally meaning "programmed auto", attempts to reach a best compromise between shutter speed and aperture so that you don't get camera shake from a too low shutter speed nor too shallow DOF due to a too wide aperture. But, it is a compromise. Av means "aperture priority" which assumes you know that you know the correct aperture for the effect you want, e.g., really broad or really shallow DOF, and it adjusts shutter speed to create a correct exposure. Tv means "shutter priority", which assumes you know what effect you want from shutter speed, e.g., some blur to show motion or absolute stop-action, and it adjusts aperture accordingly. To use Av and Tv effectively, you have to keep a close eye on the shutter and aperture shown in the viewfinder to ensure that it will be "correct" for what you want to achieve. It REALLY helps if you have a good founding in the principles of photography so that you can reasonably estimate the shutter speed or aperture to any given effect you want to achieve. Could they be combined? Yes, but it is simpler to think in terms of what you want to control and let the camera do the math on the other setting. A true combination does exist - P. I find with my Rebel XT that when I try to out-think the camera with Av, I usually blow it, so about the only time I use it is when I have a specific DOF effect I want to achieve. I don't shoot things that move, so I've never tried Tv. All things considered, I think the Rebel does a damn fine job of balancing shutter and aperture on P. SignatureHP, aka Jerry > As per title, what is the difference between these 2 shooting modes? > According to the manual, both allow you to define or set your own aperture > whilst the camera sets a shuuter speed to deliver a correct exposure...if > thats the case, then why are there 2 modes ro do almost the same thing? > > Thanks!! Hello. Has anyone said that, in your 400D handbook, there may be a table showing what each mode offers? This certainly is the case with my 350D handbook. Regards, Ian. |
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.