From: ASAAR on
On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:59:16 -0700, G.T. wrote:

> 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.

From: Alan Browne on
G.T. wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:

>> 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?

Exactly what I was getting at...

>
>>
>>> 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.

Ah.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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.
From: Alan Browne on
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:59:16 -0700, G.T. wrote:
>
>
>>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



--
-- 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.
From: HEMI-Powered on
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?
>>
>> S(hutter) makes more sense, but maybe T(ime) was the
>> intent.
>
> 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.

--
HP, aka Jerry
From: Alan Browne on
HEMI-Powered wrote:
> 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?
>>>
>>> S(hutter) makes more sense, but maybe T(ime) was the
>>> intent.
>>
>>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.

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

--
-- 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.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Samsung GX-10 - wow!
Next: Flash stuck in hot shoe