>My EOS 3 is from 2000. A year ago I re-started shooting Fuji Velvia and >realised that many slides came out slight underexposed. I never had this >problem with my EOS 5. I thought I'd compare my 3 with a brand new model. >Both metered the exact same way. I then compared these readings with an EOS >1V and found out that the 1V underexposed 1/3 stop in relation to the EOS 3! >I know that velvia's true ISO rating is 40 not 50, but I had used 50 for the >shots I took. A friend of mine also bought a 3 a couple of months ago and he >too though that the 3 slightly under-exposes in relation to his old EOS. He >talked to the guy who sold it and he said it was normal. I guess this is not >a fault but the way the camera's meter is calibrated. Velvia when rated at >50 ISO has a very narrow under-exposure tolerance and it's easy to >under-expose slides with the EOS 3, I guess. If the problem really bothers >you, either leave a permanent exposure correction on the camera (not the >solution I like the most) or have the meter calibrated the way you want. >BTW, my EOS 3 consistently gives slightly under-exposed meterings, compared >to my Minolta meter ambient readings."Hugo Lopes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
This all seems like one way to rationalize a defective but expensive camera. I for one like a camera metered right on. I can make my own under or over exposures, thank you very much. "take every day as a gift, never get angry at the idiotic mass of humanity, delight in the craftsmanship of BMW and nature" Jim Davis, 2002 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
