However I recall the meter did not
> give reasonable results. I am sorry I can not recall them
> precisely but it seemed the direct sun falling on the dome
> caused
> crazy readings . . . akin to what you might expect if you
> pointed a reflected spot meter directly at the sun. This is
> not in
> accord to how I understood incident metering to work. Does
> anyone have any comment or suggestion as to what went
> wrong here?
> Terence A. Danks
You don't say whether the result was consistent over/under exposure of
your chromes or whether it was just variable.
Also, how much out? 1/2 stop, 4/3, 1 stop?
One thought, as ambient to me is THE way to take an exposure, is if
you were inadvertently pointing the cone in the general direction of
the sun rather than angled towards the lens? That would lead you to
under expose for sure.
Next is that small but real distance between you and the bird: ambient
strictly should be measured next to the object. I'm not confident
this accounts for your problem BTW unless it was hazy/misty when light
from the bird is attenuated before it reaches you.
Next: Canon "lied" about the f:number. Don't larf ... it happens to
a small degree but with TTL metering it comes out in the wash. The
time this would clobber you would be if you were using a 3rd party
teleconverter ... It is a mega issue with macro work where you
can't believe everything on the readout: big time.
Anyway: all I'm really saying is I've done loads of trials with my
Minolta 4 and find my cameras (+ grey card), reflected spot metering
of meter on grey card AND incident metering using the invercone
attachment all agree to within 1/3 stop.
Bob
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
