J. C. O'Connell wrote: > MY replies in ***** under each box below: > > ======================================================================= > JCO wrote: > Subject: RE: Need Advice: value of an *istD outfit > > > >> YOU read this once : I was talking about AVOIDING >> the need for exposure compensation so >> you wouldnt need to do that , i.e. the meters/exposures >> would match exactly without any exposure >> compensation on one or the other, just a one >> time tweek in a customs setting or menu or >> something similar to allow adjustment of the metering sensitivity. >> > > It matters not, you get to the same place either way. > > > **************************************************** > NO, It DOES matter, its not as good to have to set the > exposure compensation off zero on one or more bodies as it is to have > all your bodies matched for metering sensitivity > with all of them set to zero exp. compensation for > reasons I already posted in earlier email. Its much > better to have the cameras in question just > plain "matched up" with all on ZERO exp comp. > **************************************************** > > ======================================================================= > >> Regarding self-containment. Film cameras >> are self contained too, they dont need >> a specific film to get the correct exposure, >> they have ISO standards for exposure and you >> CAN adjust the meter sensitivity on a lot >> of SLRS so they meet an exposure standard >> that has nothing to do with the film, only >> the film speed is needed. And you can match >> them WITHOUT any exposure compensation needed >> on one or the other. >> > > Are you saying that a film camera is so self contained that it can take > pictures without film? > > If you look at how exposure compensation works, you will find that ISO > settings generally are limited by exposure compensation, and vice versa. > DSLR cameras are rather more limited this way because the base iso is > fixed while film cameras do not have a base iso > > William Robb > ======================================================================== > = > ************************************************************************ > *********** > No, I am not saying film camera can take pictures without film. > Who said that? I am saying **with regards to the metering sensitivity**, > there is no difference between film cameras and digital cameras > and its better to have all your cameras matched with regards > to metering sensitivity. > > > Secondly, what I am talking about is the overall metering sensitivity > of the camera, film or otherwise. Its no different than exposure > compenstation except you get the right exposure with the exposure > compensation on ZERO which is the proper way to set it up and > match your cameras. > JCO > ************************************************************************ > ***** >
That's an interesting point. With film you always could determine an EI and use that to compensate for meter/film sensitivity(assuming you ddn't have a low-end camera with only DX coding). Wih digital you can't. A custom function that allows you to set an exposure bias (or even better, EI's for each ISO setting) would be very interesting and would allow you to tune the metering for how you work or engineering choices you disagree with (Like underexposure designed to protect JPEG highlights) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
