 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / December 2005What exposure mode do you shoot in.
I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always come back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in manual with spot meter, I really haven't tried alot of different modes but latley my exposures have been off and I'm just wondering with all the new technolgy and thinking about getting a D2x, what seems to work for wildlife photgraphy. I mostly shoot a 500 f4 manuel focus. seems like a waste to get a D2x then shoot all manual. Tahnks Gary Nature & Wildlife Photography of Gary & Debbie Langley http://www.gllangley.com >I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always come >back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in manual with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Gary & Debbie Langley >http://www.gllangley.com It seems to me a bad idea to use a camera with an infinite number of possibilities and limit yourself to "modes". If your used to shooting in manual, you will probably continue to do so. Of course, I have no choice but shoot "manual" with my old F 1. I have never thought of myself as "handicapped" with such equipment. F1 > I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always come > back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in manual with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photgraphy. I mostly shoot a 500 f4 manuel focus. seems like a waste to get > a D2x then shoot all manual. The 10D is my first camera in my career that has automatic functions. I use mostly Tv and then change the f/stop if I don't agree with it. Didn't think I'd like auto-focus, but I really do in most cases. > I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always come > back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in manual with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Gary & Debbie Langley > http://www.gllangley.com I use aperture priority mode most of the time. I select aperture to control depth of field, the camera sets exposure, but I also use exposure compensation and ISO as needed to control the recording of the image. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com >> I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always >> come back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Roger > Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com Most of the later Nikon's (N75, N90, F100, D50, D70) have a program-mode which can be varied with the "command dial" to any equivalent exposure just by twirling it. I spend most of the time in P-mode but look at every exposure and modify it as necessary. I find that most of the time I can't stay in either S- or A-modes because the things I'm shooting are so varied. Norm > Most of the later Nikon's (N75, N90, F100, D50, D70) have a program-mode > which can be varied with the "command dial" to any equivalent exposure [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Norm Norm, I do not understand. In aperture or shutter priority modes, one has complete control of the settings: you choose the exact aperture or shutter, and the camera choose the other. You then use the compensation dial to modify the cameras "best exposure." In P mode, the camera chooses the aperture and shutter based on some pre-programmed table. You have compensation control, but only over a very narrow range compared to all apertures and shutter speeds, and the compensation modifies both aperture and shutter according to a formula for which you do not have control. So aperture or shutter priority modes have the most flexibility, unequaled by any other mode, and only surpassed by full manual. At least this is the way it is on canon film and dslrs. Roger >> Most of the later Nikon's (N75, N90, F100, D50, D70) have a program-mode >> which can be varied with the "command dial" to any equivalent exposure [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Roger Roger -- sorry to be so late in responding but life doesn't always follow the plans we make. Anyway: 1. In P-mode with both film and digital Nikon SLRs and even my EVF camera, I can choose any equivalent exposure (shutter speed/aperture combination) the camera allows which gives me complete control over motion-stopping and depth of field. I also apply exposure compensation (+/-) on top of this to correct for situations in which the light fools the meter. 2. Since most of the time now I'm shooting as a "tourist" with no correlation of subject or lighting from one shot to the next, I can't decide in advance whether A or S would be more appropriate for my "next" shot. 3. If I get into a situation in which there's a high degree of similarity between shooting conditions from one frame to the next, I'll most likely switch to either "A" or "S" as appropriate -- e.g. "S" when shooting from a moving car or playing grandchildren and "A" when walking around a flower garden. 4. With 50+ years of experience, I've learned to be very conscious of the settings the camera chooses for *each* shot (assuming it's not an unexpected grab-shot) and I think I never press the shutter release without looking at both the speed and the aperture first. At least by keeping the camera in P-mode, I'm guaranteed that I'll get something reasonable when I don't have time to do anything else. 5. I'd estimate that only about 1/3 of the pictures I take are actually at the first P-mode setting and that I change the exposure to something equivalent the rest of the time, at least for the first exposure on a digital -- then I look at the LCD and determine if exposure compensation is also required, though sometimes I'll just go that way for the first shot as well based on prior experience and prior results. 6. When I use MF & LF cameras, I always work at the equivalent of M-mode since none of my larger-than-35mm cameras has even an internal meter. Do I recommend that everyone shoot the way I do. Hell, NO! But after decades of shooting in a large variety of situations on three continents, I've found that the older I get the more selective I am about what I shoot and I can take the time to modify each exposure to suit the shot. That said, I feel that P-mode gets me "close" and I feel comfortable using that as a starting point. Norm >1. In P-mode with both film and digital Nikon SLRs and even my EVF camera, >I can choose any equivalent exposure (shutter speed/aperture combination) >the camera allows which gives me complete control over motion-stopping and >depth of field. I also apply exposure compensation (+/-) on top of this to >correct for situations in which the light fools the meter. That doesn't make sense. In Program Mode the camera chooses both speed and aperture, and you have *no* control at all. If you apply exposure compensation, the *camera* decides whether to change speed, aperture, or both. You have *no* control over that choice. That is as opposed to either Shutter or Aperture Priority Mode, where you *do* have control, because you can preset one or the other and the camera (either automatically or in response to changes in the exposure compensation settings) changes the other. Or, of course, Manual Mode where you set everything. >2. Since most of the time now I'm shooting as a "tourist" with no >correlation of subject or lighting from one shot to the next, I can't decide >in advance whether A or S would be more appropriate for my "next" shot. Which is exactly what Program Mode is for, and you let the camera totally decide everything. >3. If I get into a situation in which there's a high degree of similarity >between shooting conditions from one frame to the next, I'll most likely >switch to either "A" or "S" as appropriate -- e.g. "S" when shooting from a >moving car or playing grandchildren and "A" when walking around a flower >garden. I don't see the correlation to "a high degree of similarity". What you meant, I think, is that in situations where you want more flexibility because the required exposure does not fit into the "average" situation where the Program Mode will be correct, you switch to one or the other of the more flexible modes. >4. With 50+ years of experience, I've learned to be very conscious of the >settings the camera chooses for *each* shot (assuming it's not an unexpected Then why would you ever want to use Program Mode? >grab-shot) and I think I never press the shutter release without looking at >both the speed and the aperture first. At least by keeping the camera in >P-mode, I'm guaranteed that I'll get something reasonable when I don't have >time to do anything else. Why bother looking if you aren't inclined to make adjustments and instead are looking for "guaranteed ... reasonable"? >5. I'd estimate that only about 1/3 of the pictures I take are actually at >the first P-mode setting and that I change the exposure to something >equivalent the rest of the time, at least for the first exposure on a >digital -- then I look at the LCD and determine if exposure compensation is >also required, though sometimes I'll just go that way for the first shot as >well based on prior experience and prior results. That certainly is reasonable. But it doesn't match your description above! In practice *this* (using Program Mode) is exactly what you want to do when there is a series of very similar shots to be made. You don't need flexibility... >6. When I use MF & LF cameras, I always work at the equivalent of M-mode >since none of my larger-than-35mm cameras has even an internal meter. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >said, I feel that P-mode gets me "close" and I feel comfortable using that >as a starting point. That sounds very reasonable, and is essentially what I do most of the time too. Program Mode gets me close, and shows me what I'm working with. But more often than not, one look at what it is and I know that I want either Aperture, Shutter, or Manual mode instead of Program Mode. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>1. In P-mode with both film and digital Nikon SLRs and even my EVF >>camera, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > change speed, aperture, or both. You have *no* control over > that choice. Floyd. With Nikon N75, N90, F100, and D70 SLR's in P-mode, the so-called "command-dial" is used to cycle through all possible equivalent exposures (shutter-speed/lens aperture combinations). My Nikon 5400 EVF has a similar capability. I have as much control as I choose to exercise. > That is as opposed to either Shutter or Aperture Priority Mode, > where you *do* have control, because you can preset one or the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which is exactly what Program Mode is for, and you let the > camera totally decide everything. No. See answer to #1. >>3. If I get into a situation in which there's a high degree of similarity >>between shooting conditions from one frame to the next, I'll most likely [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correct, you switch to one or the other of the more flexible > modes. When I'm walking around, say Venice or New York and taking pictures of things ranging from buildings to store window displays, there's no way to predict in advance whether I'll want a S- or A-priority for the next exposure in advance. When I'm walking around a botanical garden or an alpine pasture, I pretty well know that each successive shot is very likely going to be the same kind of subject and that I'll need the same basic mode -- and probably want to preset a most-likely aperture as well. Similarly, when I'm traveling by train or car through the Colorado/New Mexico countryside, I know in advance that just about every shot will need a S-priority to brevent blur caused by the motion of the vehicle. >>4. With 50+ years of experience, I've learned to be very conscious of the >>settings the camera chooses for *each* shot (assuming it's not an >>unexpected > > Then why would you ever want to use Program Mode? I want to use P-Mode becuase it generally gets me "close" to the speed/aperture combination I want. Not always, but generally close. >>grab-shot) and I think I never press the shutter release without looking >>at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why bother looking if you aren't inclined to make adjustments > and instead are looking for "guaranteed ... reasonable"? Huh? >>5. I'd estimate that only about 1/3 of the pictures I take are actually >>at [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> 1. In P-mode with both film and digital Nikon SLRs and even >>> my EVF camera, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >(shutter-speed/lens aperture combinations). My Nikon 5400 EVF has a similar >capability. I have as much control as I choose to exercise. Okay. My bad... that is very different from the Nikons that I'm familiar with. ... >>>3. If I get into a situation in which there's a high degree of similarity >>>between shooting conditions from one frame to the next, I'll most likely [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >going to be the same kind of subject and that I'll need the same basic >mode -- and probably want to preset a most-likely aperture as well. That's my point exactly. It is not a "high degree of similarity" in the images, or even in the settings, but rather in what kind of additional flexibility you'll need. >>>Do I recommend that everyone shoot the way I do. Hell, NO! But after >>>decades of shooting in a large variety of situations on three continents, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> is and I know that I want either Aperture, Shutter, or Manual >> mode instead of Program Mode. Our differences are on how to choose wording that draws an image in the readers mind of what we are doing; and not so much that the image itself is any different, just the words. I certainly do *not* mean to be critical of your photographic methods, nor of your results. I probably should have made that more obvious in the previous article. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >I want to use P-Mode becuase it generally gets me "close" to the >speed/aperture combination I want. Not always, but generally close. I've recently tried P-Mode again with my newest Canon DSLR after not using it since I first tried out my Sony F707 in early 2002, and I was rather impressed with the choices it made (compared to my expectations). What I've been wishing for, for a while now, are user-programmable modes, where you supply a list of Av, Tv, and ISO combinations for absolute EV levels. If you find yourself making the same decisons in the same situations all the time, the process can be easily automated this way. I find myself, in general, choosing Tv mode when light is low, and Av when light is high, to avoid camera-motion blur, and diffraction, respectively. A user-programmable mode would allow me to have hybrid modes, with transition points of my own choosing. At the low-light, Tv end, I could allow exposure to drop by a stop or two when the highest ISO has been called upon, before opening the lens all the way up, and this could alternatively be based upon the actual lens used, as anything present in EXIF data on a digital is known to the camera. Also, the specifics of the lens could be used to control minimum shutter speed, as well. I don't know if the camera knows about image stabilization in lens-based IS systems, but that would be useful, too, in "non-action" user modes. It might take a while to work out your modes, but with a little work, you could make the camera do pretty much what you would be doing anyway, if you had time to think about it, but there isn't always time. In many wildlife situations, a tenth of a second is an epoch.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I want to use P-Mode becuase it generally gets me "close" to the >>speed/aperture combination I want. Not always, but generally close. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > modes, where you supply a list of Av, Tv, and ISO combinations for > absolute EV levels. [BIG SNIP] Using P-Mode in the newer Nikon cameras, the camera's choice of shutter speed is definitely biased by the focal length of the lens (or zoom setting). That already removes some really pressing need for user customization. Perhaps if the camera's "brain" also used input from the focus subsystem on the motion of the "subject", it might go a long way toward making a really intelligent choice of shutter speed -- but that's too much to ask for in today's market where the cost of things like the CPUs and their associated memory and communications channels are a not insignificant percentage of the total manufacturing cost of a digital camera. I don't think that a really intelligent automated choice of F/stop can be made because it's probably going to be impossible for any reasonable image analysis software that could run in an embedded processor in a camera is able to distinguish between a portrait of a person for which shallow D-o-F is usually desirable from a photograph of a similarly sized mechanical product or large botanical where much larger D-o-F is preferred. These comments are based on my decades of experience in the computer field as both a hardware and software engineer, not just on my preferences as a photographer. Sure, in, say, 20 years we'll probably have 100 GHz embedded CPUs with terabytes of program memory that will analyze everything the camera is pointed at and make a really intelligent selection of exposure parameters. But certainly not in the next 5-10 years. For that, we'll still need the old Mark 1 Grey Matter to make the "right choices" (more properly, to chose the best compromise). Norm Wildlife is best in aperture priority. Set it on wide open and you get the fastest shutter speed available to stop action. The limited DOF blurs the background. If the subject is not moving and you want more DOF, just stop down a little. Spot metering won't work well, because you often don't want the subject smack in the middle of the frame. Or can you set exposure and reframe, or set the spot to off-center? Difficult for moving subjects. -- - Alan Justice > I started out with a Nikon FA and I tried the program modes and always come > back to manual mode. when I got a F4s I basicaly just shoot in manual with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Gary & Debbie Langley > http://www.gllangley.com >Wildlife is best in aperture priority. You must shoot wildlife in bright light. I shoot wildlife at ISO 1600, and still get heavy under-exposure with the lens wide-open in Tv mode, set to the slowest hand-holdable shutter speed, even with IS. Had I set the camera to Av mode, I would have unusably blurred images. I only use Av mode when I am trying to avoid diffraction limitations and sharp sensor dust in bright light. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Wildlife is best in aperture priority. > >You must shoot wildlife in bright light. I shoot wildlife at ISO 1600, >and still get heavy under-exposure with the lens wide-open in Tv mode, >set to the slowest hand-holdable shutter speed, even with IS. Again, shooting in modes can only lead to problems. It does not allow you to situate the anmals, birds, fish , bugs or whatever, where you want in the frame and meter, focus and shoot without agravation. I can get a meter reading off the elk, moose or whatever and my information is set, I set the camera according to what I want to do and forget about the rest leaving me to pay more attention to exposing film and capturing moments how I see fit and when I see fit. BTW, You don't need bright light to shoot wildlife. I can shoot in the shade or after hours no problem. I use a flash frequently, even in daylight. One must learn to be versatile when shooting wildlife, which most often show themselves realy and late in the day. Also, you don't need 1600 ISO for wildlife. I shoot no film faster than 100 ISO and I use 50 Velvia with great results on wildlife. I shoot my camera off a cut down rifle stock or I take time for a tripod if possible. Modes will only screw you up. F1 > Again, shooting in modes can only lead to problems. It does not allow you > to situate the anmals, birds, fish , bugs or whatever, where you want in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pay more attention to exposing film and capturing moments how I see fit and > when I see fit. What do you mean, you don't use a mode? Manual? Manual will lose a lot of action shots. Ever track an animal moving into the shade? You may only have a fraction of a second to get a particular action shot. Manual is too slow for action. Roger >What do you mean, you don't use a mode? Manual? >Manual will lose a lot of action shots. Ever track an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Roger Manual might not be as fast as "program" shooting but it would or rather could be more accurate. I can adjust a stop if I feel I need it as a critter walks into the shade and I can do it in a hurry. I have had the same cameras hanging around my neck for years and decades and we have a good relationship. What do you think photographers did before "modes" and "programs" and auto focus? And they took some mighty fine photos. I guess, I do what works for me and has worked for 25 years. F1 >Manual might not be as fast as "program" shooting but it would or rather >could be more accurate. I can adjust a stop if I feel I need it as a >critter walks into the shade and I can do it in a hurry. I can adjust a stop of EC if the light balance in the image changes, too. Really, though, you replied to me when I was writing in a context of insufficient light, where there was always too little light for a proper exposure at ISO 1600. I mentioned this as a situation in which Av mode is fairly useless, and Tv is better. I did not say that manual couldn't be better in some circumstances. I use manual frequently, when the lighting is constant. I was out in the snow the other day, under an over-cast sky and I had the camera set to manual, and made fine adjustments as it got closer to dusk. The sky and the ground were nearly identical in intensity that day. No matter how much of the scene was the lake's surface; no matter how much was sky, snow, or tree bark, all the exposures were the same; the sky was just shy of clipping the RAW data. >I have had the same >cameras hanging around my neck for years and decades and we have a good >relationship. What do you think photographers did before "modes" and >"programs" and auto focus? And they took some mighty fine photos. Yes, but who knows how many "mighty finer" pictures they could have taken with different approaches or different equipment! >I guess, I do what works for me and has worked for 25 years. There is almost always a better way. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I guess, I do what works for me and has worked for 25 years. > >There is almost always a better way. > > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Look at my user name: Canon F1. This is the kind of equipment I use and have used for years. I like it that way and I really don't have a choice but to shoot in "manual" as my camera knows no other "mode". I am just saying I have never felt handicapped in anyway or at any time shooting manual. I have an Elan IIE that still gets shot in manual mode when I do use it as it is habit and I find it better and more trustworthy than any programable mode. My old Canon A 1 is programable as any digital camera today other than it is manual focus and still I shoot it manual. I beleive in freedom to shoot photos as one likes. I just shoot the old equipment and I get great results. It is my way. I am not a pro photographer but I wonder what that really means. I sell some photos locally on the side. Please don't tell me there is a better way or my photos are less. If I get my web site up and running, you can look for yourself. F1 >Look at my user name: Canon F1. Hi, Canon F1. >This is the kind of equipment I use and >have used for years. I like it that way and I really don't have a choice but >to shoot in "manual" as my camera knows no other "mode". I am just saying I >have never felt handicapped in anyway or at any time shooting manual. However, you did imply that people are handicapped using "modes". >I have an Elan IIE that still gets shot in manual mode when I do use it as it >is habit and I find it better and more trustworthy than any programable mode. >My old Canon A 1 is programable as any digital camera today other than it is >manual focus and still I shoot it manual. >I beleive in freedom to shoot photos as one likes. Me too. >I just shoot the old >equipment and I get great results. It is my way. That's nice. >I am not a pro >photographer but I wonder what that really means. "Pro" means, to me, an occupation, with some time in. It tells me nothing about a person's specific knowledge or skills, just that they probably have a good working subset. >I sell some photos locally >on the side. >Please don't tell me there is a better way or my photos are less. You're reading connotations into my statements that are not intended. I was not demeaning your work. You could be one of the most interesting photographers in the world, and still have relatively counter-productive attitudes or methods. There is always room for improvement, as there is no ceiling. >If I get >my web site up and running, you can look for yourself. I won't see all the shots that were never taken, though, because you didn't have time to adjust the settings, or because your film wasn't sensitive enough. You always see the edited story of other people's photography. Because someone has a substantial body of good work, it does *not* mean that this happened *because* of their specific methods or philosophies (although it may be an influence in exactly what their output specifically is). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >However, you did imply that people are handicapped using "modes". No, I guess, I am a bit on the defense as of late as many seem to attack film and my old manual equipment, in forums and in the local photo crowds I hang around. I argue that I am not handicapped and even beleive I am not possibly misled by shooting in program or mode. >There is always room for improvement, as there is >no ceiling. True, however as a photo hobbiest, I remain "uninspired" by the newest technology. >I won't see all the shots that were never taken, though, because you >didn't have time to adjust the settings, or because your film wasn't >sensitive enough. Yes but what you will see is right from the scanner, unaltered or otherwise enhanced. One of the selling points I have and my clients, modest crowd that they are, love the fact that I shoot film and the enlarged print is wet finished and unaltered. Thx for all the posts, I suppose I might get a bit ornery at times. I mean not to attack and I apologize for my behavior but it seems that the newest and greatest technologies, seem to make people forget the basics and I think that is a mistake. F1 >>However, you did imply that people are handicapped using "modes". > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > True, however as a photo hobbiest, I remain "uninspired" by the newest > technology. Have you actually used a 1D Mark II or 1Ds Mark II? Very impressive. >>I won't see all the shots that were never taken, though, because you >>didn't have time to adjust the settings, or because your film wasn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they are, love the fact that I shoot film and the enlarged print is wet > finished and unaltered. In comparison to film, which have been developed (contrast, saturation, etc is dependent on film type and development), straight from the camera with digital is not only possible, it has *LESS* processing in comparison. And the raw file provides good evidence against alteration. > Thx for all the posts, I suppose I might get a bit ornery at times. I mean > not to attack and I apologize for my behavior but it seems that the newest > and greatest technologies, seem to make people forget the basics and I think > that is a mistake. OK. Unfortunately, it is too easy to get impersonal in these newsgroups. We just got a little defensive when you said "Modes will only screw you up." Roger > Manual might not be as fast as "program" shooting but it would or rather > could be more accurate. I can adjust a stop if I feel I need it as a > critter walks into the shade and I can do it in a hurry. All the canon cameras I use (dslrs as well as 35mm film) have exposure compensation dials, so it is a small fraction of a second to do compensation in aperture and shutter priority modes. So you have complete control of the system. For example, in aperture priority mode. you choose the aperture, the camera reads the light and sets the shutter, and you can over ride with the exposure compensation dial--all in a fraction of a second. In many situations, in my experience, you can dial in compensation, e.g. meter -1/3 stop, and that will work even as light conditions change, thus you concentrate on the subject, not on your meter. Example: fading light near sunset: the subject and exposure compensation is constant, but light is dropping. In manual mode, you would need to constantly adjust exposure, but in aperture priority mode, you just shoot as desired. In my experience this situation is more common than the need to use manual mode. I do use manual mode, but perhaps only 10% of the time. > I have had the same > cameras hanging around my neck for years and decades and we have a good > relationship. What do you think photographers did before "modes" and > "programs" and auto focus? And they took some mighty fine photos. > > I guess, I do what works for me and has worked for 25 years. Yes. My 25-year old cameras don't meter very well compared to modern cameras. Even my 15-year old cameras don't. Modern systems are very impressive. Roger >> >Yes. My 25-year old cameras don't meter very well compared to >modern cameras. Even my 15-year old cameras don't. Modern >systems are very impressive. > >Roger That is debatable. F1 >>>>Yes. My 25-year old cameras don't meter very well compared to >>modern cameras. Even my 15-year old cameras don't. Modern [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > F1 Since you use an F1, perhaps you have high standards. So when comparing to modern cameras, do it with the pro line. I found my canon D60 and 10D were about as good (at metering) as elans and other consumer film cameras. But now I use a 1D Mark II and the metering is outstanding in comparison to those consumer models. Also, I still use totally manual cameras: 4x5 view cameras. Roger >Since you use an F1, perhaps you have high standards. >So when comparing to modern cameras, do it with the pro line. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Roger I have played around with some of the early EOS's ie: EOS 1 and EOS 3 and found them to be less of a camera and less reliable and accurate than the late model F 1's they replaced. I think this is why I went back to the F1 and other shooters have grasped the new high end digitals. The F1 is a manual camera and one has to think about it (no modes) and one has to add an expensive drive to action shots. My late F1 is one of the last years they produced and the accuracy of the meter is fantastic, even by todays standards. You could not trade me a half dozen EOS 3's for my F1 AE. I still have so much fun and great success with it, I have never saw a reason to upgrade to digital. I don't mind film and I don't mind waiting for Fuji to send my slides. If I ever upgraded to a digital, I would have to spend thousands for the camera that I feel would replace my F1. I don't have thousands to spend and buying a lesser camera, Even the Canon 20 D is not a replacement in my book for my F1 and I think I would be down grading a big step, hense my steadfast in staying shooting F1's. My old F1 is well brassed. I have found a few NEW in Box F1's on Ebay for around 1100 bucks. This is more than the sold for in the late 80's but I would rather spend the 10000 bucks or more for another F1 new in box than any digital camera produced. And I have such a large collection of quality glass for FD mount cameras, I and just content to stay the course. F1 > This is more than the sold for in the late 80's but I would rather > spend the 10000 bucks or more for another F1 new in box than any > digital camera produced. And I have such a large collection of > quality glass for FD mount cameras, I and just content to stay the > course. Out of curiosity, what do you feel are the significant advantages of a F1 over a 1DSMkII? SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > Again, shooting in modes can only lead to problems. It does not allow you > to situate the anmals, birds, fish , bugs or whatever, where you want in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > F1 I don't think anyone is suggesting that you park the camera at f8 for the whole day. ;) When shooting anything other than long exposures, my T-90 (much better than the lowly F1! :) ) lives on Av and multi-spot settings. Take a spot reading or three, add any exposure compensation, and, after due consideration, select the aperture I want. If the resultant shutter speed is livable, I'm done. How on earth is this going to screw me up? While I can see that someone using a stand-alone light meter might find full manual just as fast, manual makes little sense (IMO) when using flexible AV or TV TTL metering. With older cameras that won't 'transfer' exposure data when changing f-stops or shutter speed, I can see how AV or TV might be more trouble. Perhaps this is what you're chomping at(?) If I had to shoot in manual mode, I'm sure I could get quite good at transcribing the meter's f/shutter recipe to a version I prefer (specific stop or speed). But why bother when the camera can do it all with the twirl of a knob? (It would make a nice mental excersise, but would also be a bit of a distraction.) -Greg > John P Sheehy writes ... > >I shoot wildlife at ISO 1600, and still get heavy under-exposure >with the lens wide-open in Tv mode, set to the slowest >hand-holdable shutter speed, even with IS I took around 12,000 images of wildlife last year and probably 11,900 were shot at ISO 200-320 with just a few at 800, typically birds in flight late in the day. Never at 1600. Can you show us some of the types of shots you take where 1600 is required? How slow is your lens? >Had I set the camera to Av mode, I would have unusably blurred images. I don't understand this comment. "with the lens wide-open in Tv mode" gives you the same exposure as using Av mode with the lens set wide open. >You must shoot wildlife in bright light They certainly look better in good light, but even in low contrast overcast light (like say five days of rain in Alaska photographing brown bears) I never felt I needed ISO 1600. Bill >> John P Sheehy writes ... >>I shoot wildlife at ISO 1600, and still get heavy under-exposure >>with the lens wide-open in Tv mode, set to the slowest >>hand-holdable shutter speed, even with IS >I took around 12,000 images of wildlife last year and probably 11,900 >were shot at ISO 200-320 with just a few at 800, typically birds in >flight late in the day. Never at 1600. Can you show us some of the >types of shots you take where 1600 is required? How slow is your lens? Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust me? >>Had I set the camera to Av mode, I would have unusably blurred images. >I don't understand this comment. "with the lens wide-open in Tv mode" >gives you the same exposure as using Av mode with the lens set wide >open. I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode will result in some under-exposure. Manual mode will result in either, depending upon your settings. >>You must shoot wildlife in bright light >They certainly look better in good light, but even in low contrast >overcast light (like say five days of rain in Alaska photographing >brown bears) I never felt I needed ISO 1600. That's because you decided to do wildlife photography in relatively high light. When I do that, I am more likely to do Av or manual. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< SNIP >>I took around 12,000 images of wildlife last year and probably >>11,900 were shot at ISO 200-320 with just a few at 800, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust me? The "issue" may be that you shoot for optimal image quality, I also attempt to do that (if situation permits, which it often doesn't), but Bill might sometimes need to shoot at less than optimal image quality (but he may get the (technically slightly inferior, but usable) shots). I surely know that I've wasted a few shots when aiming for technical quality (but then when everything fell into place, WOW!). IMHO it is a good thing to strive for the best, but at times second best is adequate. The choice for compromise is however often set by chance :-( . This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200): <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/CarimaCrisatata.jpg> The exotic bird (red-legged Carcerima, if I got that right) was shot in a zoo behind wire netting and it kept coming closer and closer to me. I quickly exchanged my long lens for my 100mm Macro, and held it flush to the fence to get it out of the focus plane. I pressed the shutter, and again, as the bird walked towards my lens, while tracking it on AI servo focus. At the closest point, as I was aiming the focus point at the eye, it turned it's head exactly in line with the focus plane, and click, I got it. Nostril at 100% zoom: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/nostril.jpg> No time to check exposure much during the 47 second event ... (although I had set exposure to EV+2/3 earlier). In Raw processing I pulled the exposure by 1/3rd of a stop. Bart Bart Sorry for the typo in the URL, here is its Nostril at 100% zoom: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Nostril.jpg> Bart > Bart writes ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(but he may get the (technically slightly inferior, but usable) >shots). Are you sure you have the names right? Bill (me) is the one shooting at lower ISO in brighter light, John is the one shooting ISO 1600 in dim light ... I'm sure I get higher image quality in good light at low ISO than I do at high ISOs up to 1600 due to noise. >This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200 If you are really agreeing with Sheehy that 1600 is better then why did you shoot this at ISO 200, which is more my speed? Great detail in the bird, btw :) Bill >> Bart writes ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are you sure you have the names right? Yes, my message was in response to John's contribution, I left some of your comments for context. > Bill (me) is the one shooting at lower ISO in brighter light, John > is the > one shooting ISO 1600 in dim light ... I'm sure I get higher image > quality > in good light at low ISO than I do at high ISOs up to 1600 due to > noise. Ah, the confusion may also be because of part of what John didn't elaborate on, or took for known territory. John, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, tends to boost the ISO setting because the result of that is better than underexposing (e.g. to reduce motion artifacts, maximizing exposure while avoiding clipping, and hitting the sweet spot of diffraction limiting aperture) and pushing with post-processing, and I'd agree on the technical merrits. Setting on-camera ISO higher will amplify the analog signal, pushing will magnify quantization errors and photon shot noise. However, it should 'only' be considered when underexposure lurks around the corner. However, as you seem to do, I tend to rather choose a wider aperture or reduce shutterspeed with a generally lower ISO to avoid amplifier noise. Obviously the choice of parameters still needs to ensure correct exposure, i.e. expose for the highlights, and avoid camera shake. >>This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200 > > If you are really agreeing with Sheehy that 1600 is better then why > did > you shoot this at ISO 200, which is more my speed? See above, I agree with John if under exposure is imminent it's better to boost on-camera ISO, in other cases you and I agree that lower ISO is better (assuming a slightly less than 'best' aperture is still acceptable, and camera shake is a minor issue). > Great detail in the bird, btw :) Thanks, but the bird did cooperate ;-) by moving in close (12 inches? to the front of the lens hood), and it briefly 'posed' for optimal use of the shallow DOF. Printing at A3 (~17x23 inches) with Qimage still gives *very* sharp output (that practically ensures 'limitless' possibilities) but at such magnification the shallow DOF is more apparent. Bart > Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust me? No, but I am curious as to what conditions require such speed. For example, in a dense, dark jungle, trying to do action? It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I would like to learn more. Roger You seem to not understand how the different modes work. In aperture priority (Av), you decide on aperture value (e.g., f4) and the camera's meter sets shutter speed (e.g., 1/100). If you switch to shutter priority (Tv) and set the time value to 1/100, the camera's meter sets the aperture to f4. And if you shoot in manual mode and set aperture to f4, the camera will tell you it is properly exposed if you then set speed to 1/100. The exposure is exactly the same using the same metering mode and exposure compensation, regardless of mode. If you dial in 1/2 stop underexposure in each case, the exposure would still be the same, regardless of mode. The advantage of one mode over another is a function of the shooting situation. For example, if I want maximum dof for a scenic, I set the shutter speed (Tv) to the slowest allowed by the situation (based on hand-held camera movement, or subject movement) and let the camera set aperture. When I want to stop action of wildlife, I use Av mode and set it all the way open, so the camera selects the fastest speed available. And I can always dial in some exposure compensation based on my knowledge of the situation and experience with the metering mode. - Alan Justice <snip> > I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in > under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> John P Sheehy wrote ... >> >>I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in >>under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. >>Tv mode will result in some under-exposure. >Alan Justice replied ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to f4. ... The exposure is exactly the same using the same metering >mode and exposure compensation, regardless of mode. Alan, I thought the same thing as you but now I see what John meant ... if you do not set the CF to override the exposure then in Av mode the shutter speed will slow down all the way to 30 sec (or whatever the longest shutter speed is) and then underexpose. In Tv mode if this CF isn't set then it will keep the same shutter speed and once you hit the widest aperture (say f/4 in your example) then it keeps the same shutter speed and will underexpose. If you had the CF set for over-ride (which I think most of us do) it would over-ride the Tv setting and lower the shutter speed. Basically John is saying he prefers to keep a certain shutter speed and risk underexposure instead of setting the CF and having the shutter speed go slower and risk blur. It's easier to do this in Tv mode than in Av mode since in Av mode the shutter can go down to 30 sec. Bill >> Bill H wrote ... >> Can you show us some of the >> types of shots you take where 1600 is required? > John P Sheehy replied ... > >Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust >me? I'll keep an open mind ... it's just that what you describe is so at odds with my experience that I'd like to see what I'm missing. Maybe there are types of shots I should be trying that require iso 1600, or maybe they look about like what I'd expect in such low light with high noise levels and I wouldn't care about shooting such images but if you have some I'd like to see them. >I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in >under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode >will result in some under-exposure. OK, I see what you're doing now ... I have the custom function set that will over-ride the shutter speed when it hits max aperture, which keeps the exposure accurate but lowers the shutter speed. You have this off (if you even have it as a CF option on your camera), which will keep the set shutter speed but underexpose. Got it now ... Bill > Gary writes ... > >I'm just wondering with all the new technolgy and thinking >about getting a D2x, what seems to work for wildlife photgraphy. Most wildlife pros I know use aperture priority mode (with ability to dial in compensation with the thumb as needed), some use manual mode. I usually use Av with the lens set wide open, stopping down if circumstances allow it, but also have Tv (shutter priority) set to 1/30th sec so I can just switch to Tv to set up a pan or blur faster than I could change the aperture. As for metering, pretty much everyone I know meters with Evaluative (Canon terminology, not sure of Nikon's) or Spot, if they have time and the experience to pick out a mid-tone or know how much to compensate (spot off the snow and go + 1.5 - 2 for example). The problem with Evaluative mode metering is knowing when to compensate, typically underexposing a bit if part of the image is white, so spot metering is more accuarte if done right, but always slower so a problem if the light is changing rapidly. If you're comfortable with manual exposure mode and spot metering then I'd say stick with it for most situations. That's what guys like John Shaw do. Bill |
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.