Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose,
>
> No, there was absolutely no "anti-Canon" thoughts in my mind when I asked.
> It was an honest inquiry.
>
Oops, wrong rants. I was referring to the non brand specific jibes at
chimpers.
> Based on your comments, I'm seeing several things that are coming to mind.
>
> 1. The Olympus E-1, specifically, and most 4/3 cameras in general, tend to
> "underexpose" the scene. Needing to further dial down the exposure
> compensation is unneeded in this lighting condition and in fact many people
> actually go the opposite direction.
>
As I know you also know, there is no substitute for knowing your
equipment and finding settings and techniques to get your desired
results. So far, with my Canons and Fujis, it's been much the same
settings for sun. But as I said, I always test any new camera for proper
settings for me.
I've assumed that makers do something similar to what was done with film
with uncoupled metering, aim for a specific image value for a defined
gray brightness. Given the differential loss of highlight vs. shadow
details in these cameras, I simply find the lower setting more useful.
As a side note, that's useful as it effectively increases the ISO settings.
> 2. Glasses and eye-distance from the viewfinder do matter. I can get the E-1
> to swing a stop in some situations just by where I have my eye or whether or
> not I have my sunglasses on.
>
Ah, I wasn't clear on what you were asking about. I wear glasses all the
time, progressives with photo adaptive tint. I'm not aware of having
missed exposures from that, although I may have. Maybe I just have a big
head? :-) Seriously, I usually wear some kind of bucket hat when
shooting in the sun. I may look silly, or not, but I'm old enough now to
get away with not caring much about that. Bill hats are impossible for
shooting portrait format, but the soft brims of buckets can be pushed or
folded out of the way.
In this case, I was wearing a hat with a particularly broad, downward
slanting brim. I have to fold the front up a bit to see above the
horizon straight ahead. I fear it looks a bit "girly", but Carol says
no. I seem to recall pics of Monet wearing a similar one one in his
garden at Giverny, although his and Carol's are blue and mine is orange.
In any case, I think the eyepiece was generally pretty well shaded.
So no, that wasn't a consideration in the EV setting.
> 3. Today's "matrix" (or whatever each brand calls it) metering is applying
> artificial intelligence to the metering and making guestimates as to the
> scene. For example, my A1 does fine in bright sunlight, unless I put a
> polarizer ... and something as simple as a polarizer can screw them up.
>
I almost never use a polarizer. And of course, the
evaluative/matrix/whatever metering on the cameras I have probably
differ from yours.
> 4. User preference. Obviously this is something that each of us applies to
> our way of shooting. However, even with the -2/3 compensation, I still
> thought Moose's images were a touch on the high side. But that's my own
> preference for a richer (darker) scene.
>
One of the several things that bug me about showing images on the web is
the difference in individual viewing experience depending on monitor and
settings. Although I calibrate my monitors, at least the
hardware/software calibration stuff I have doesn't set an absolute
brightness, but asks me to choose a settings based on my estimate of
ambient light. I assume many others are in the same boat, so the
brightness of our monitors probably differ.
I also work and view in an intentionally dim room. Carol calls it "the
Cave", and wishes I'd open the blinds and put in a larger bulb, so the
liklihood of a difference in absolute and relative monitor brightness
from others is high.
Beyond that, I was probably influenced here by fresh memory of how
bright many of the original scenes were. I've certainly been on the
other side of that, posting alternate versions of others' images that
they point out aren't true to the original subjects. I think I like
rich, deep image tonalities, but I may have strayed in an unconscious
effort to be true to the subjects?
Or perhaps my tastes are just different than yours. :-)
> 5. Manufacturing variability. I keenly recall how the Nikon F4 was all over
> the boards. John Show, for example, had almost 1.5 stops of variability among
> three of his F4 bodies.
>
Don't know about that. My Canon S110, 300D, 5D, A710 and A650 have all
been quite similar. I have no idea what part of that to attribute to
luck and what part to good QA. The Fuji F10 & F30 are also close to
identical to each other in exposure and similar to the Canons.
> 6. Exposure lock vs. live exposure. I do not have my cameras set up for
> half-press exposure lock. Others do. I discovered that when I half-press
> and recompose that more often than not my exposure is incorrect for the
> recomposed scene. If I want to lock exposure, I'll press the AEL or will
> shoot manual exposure mode. Part of my preference on this is the use of the
> OM bodies which are live exposure. Since I go back and forth between
> systems, it's better for me to use a single style of auto exposure.
>
I suppose I lock exposure more often by accident when my thumb strays
(yes, a consistent ergonomic glitch on Canon DLSRs for my hands) than on
purpose. I've never been entirely clear how the lock on my Canons works,
so If I'm doing a careful pano, I tend to go manual. For the kind of
stuff I shoot, the AE on my cameras seems to do a good job, so I don't
fret about it. In other circumstances, the EV setting wheel is right
under my thumb and the setting visible in the viewfinder, so I am more
likely to adjust that way on the 5D than any other.
>
> What all this proves is that there is no way you can just pick up a camera
> and start shooting and expect it to perform exactly as desired without
> testing, observation and analysis. What works for one person won't for
> another and what works for one camera won't for another.
>
Absopositivealutely !
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|