Chip Louie wrote: > I think most of the confusion is coming from people using the term "shift." > When using the term "shift" in relationship to exposure, Canon's > documentation (what little there is of it anyway), generally uses the term > to describe altering the one or both exposure settings while retaining the > same EV. . . . > But really it's not so much a "shift" as an adjustment in the value of the > CoC you want.
Thomas Bantel replied: > Well, it's both :-) The CoC size change is a side effect of the applied > program shift. I'm not sure if Canon allowed this intentionally in their > lesser (non pro) bodies, although it is a useful thing. I'd be mighty surprised if varying the CoC was the intent (how many users even know what it is?), but isn't it reasonable to allow the user to select among aperture/shutter combinations just as can be done in program mode? There may be reasons other than CoC to select a smaller aperture. Long before the Canon/Nikon wars (or even this thread ...), there were endless debates about merits of aperture priority vs. shutter priority, overlooking that, in most cases, they were essentially the same: Don't like the shutter speed selected by aperture-priority camera? Change the aperture to get a more palatable shutter speed. With the incorporation of "shift" into program mode, P became much like A or T, except that the camera selected a default A/T combination that supposedly "optimized" DoF vs. minimizing motion blur for particular lighting conditions, favoring the latter at low light levels The "Shift" (or whatever you want to call it) in DEP mode with the EOS 5 and a few others simply extended the flexibility available in A, T, or P to DEP mode, except that, once again, the camera simply used different criteria to select the default A/T combination. Perhaps the confusion arises from forgetting that a user "shifts" the program rather than the exposure; DEP mode simply uses a different program than P mode ... > Generations of photographers could do without it :-) Yes and no. It's been common practice from the beginning for view camera users to close down an extra stop as insurance against inaccuracies when determining sharpness on the groundglass (it's dark at f/22); had camera users have always had the option to determine DoF using the lens scales and close down an extra stop for insurance. With the minimally useful DoF scales on most AF lenses, DEP is the only alternative. To an extent, the high-end EOS bodies offer less flexibility than was available to past generations of photographers. Nikon don't offer this capability at all ... I'm always annoyed by technological "improvements" (in this case, AF) that eliminate a useful feature that had been available previously. > What kind of annoys me is, that it just doesn't work to it's full potential > the way it is implemented in the pro bodies. . . . > But to *show* they can do better and then not to do so intentionally(?) > means asking for trouble and critique. ;-) We agree. But the idea is so obvious that it might have invited criticism even if Canon HADN'T shown they could do better. Jeff Conrad * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
