----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: A random snapshot
> Mr. O"Connell: > > I could give more serious consideration to your point of view if you > could try to be a little less arrogant. Whee, I missed that one. For the record, my initial metering was done several stops down, not sure how many, the last picture I took was in daylight though, so I expect f/8 or 11. Also for the record, that picture wasn't meant to prove or disprove anything. It's something that caught my eye, and I photographed it, nothing more, nothing less. That it happened while JC was shooting his mouth of (so to speak) was purely coincidental. The meter reading worked fine, and gave me an indicated shutter speed that I felt was within the range that I would expect for the light condition, but was too slow even for my steady hand, so I opened the lens wide and got 1/100 second. What this means to me is that in my shooting conditions, the stop down metering of the istD is capable of satisfying my needs. I had mentioned this in a previous post, but some arguementative soul must not have managed to understand it. Any technical consideration in photography requires compromise. I believe the istD meter is good to around EV-1 or thereabouts, and naturally, any metering done that falls below that light level is going to result in either an exposure inaccuracy or a non responsive meter. This EV value represents a very dim subject, one which most likely will be approached with a relatively wide aperture for pragmatic reasons, if for nothing else. Digital SLRs in general aren't really on their best behaviour for extended exposure times, and my shooting strategy is to try to keep exposure times faster than when noise reduction kicks in anyway. In very dim conditions, it is, of course, possible to meter wide open, stop down to the shooting aperture and then manually adjust the shutter speed to compensate. Not the most convenient, but it is not a shooting condition that is likely to come up very often either. This discussion also presumes that the only lens available for the shot in a pre A lens. So, if you are in a fairly dark situation, and need a small f/stop, and don't have an appropriate A series or newer lens, then you might have to do a bit of fiddling. Thats a lot of ifs ands or buts before the photographer is inconvenienced, and is not likely going to be a problem very often. So, John, hows my grasp of the situation? William Robb > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >It must suck to be vision impaired, he > >states "wide open" right in the post. > >I read it right the first time, you didn't. > > > >His "proof" example only proves he doesn't > >"get it". His total lack of understanding is one thing > >but for him to imply my comments were incorrect when > >he doesn't even understand them let alone prove > >them wrong isnt very impressive I must say. > > > > > > >
