the lack there-of Auto-ISO in "M" mode on the 5dMkIII,thus being "M" mode you pick everything even...wait for it the ISO...
btw this is Canon related.
btw this is a fun post hence..
And besides, what exactly is harmful in having a choice?
Whether the topic should "die" I dunno, as I don't own a 5D3, so I'm stuck with the 5D2's compeltely disfunctional AutoISO
what's killing me lately is this attitude where people feel like they're required to buy some new product, and said product doesn't meet their "needs"
like this endless drone of "this isn't worth it because company xyz should really be doing a better job producing [insert completely unrelated technical topic here]"
if people don't think a new product is worth their time or money they DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT. duh.
Photography is a systems commitment. People who use Canon have invested in Canon system; cameras, lenses, flashes, etc.. If Canon does not produce something that as Canon user needs, it is not a simple thing for the users to switch.
digitalbug30d wrote:
i just dont get the hub-bub over this issue,maybe I suck ...lol
Think of Auto-ISO in M as basically a combination of A and S modes, combined.
Supposed one is shooting sports and you want to simultaneously ensure
1) Adequate DOF so you want to stay stopped down some and
2) Adequate SS to freeze action and
3) The lighting/metering is non-constant.
Using only A mode, the "normal" Auto-ISO logic may not give you a fast-enough SS to be helpful (let's say it calculates 1/Focal length and you're shooting with a 300 2.8, but you want 1/500s)
Using only S mode, the camera is going to open up the aperture before it starts raising ISO in auto-ISO, but if you wanted to stay stopped down for any reason (maybe you're shooting a dog competition and you want more DOF than what 300mm 2.8 gives) then you're screwed in this mode too.
Auto-ISO in "M" solves all of this...same with Exposure compensation in "M" mode.
Let's say in this same doggy competition, you're shooting a variety of breeds, some are snow-white and then you turn and start shooting a chocolate lab. Auto-ISO in "M", combined with exposure compensation, is an extremely elegant solution.
Yes, some topics like below should be banned already
- 100-400 or 70-200 with tc?
- 5d3, so what is good there for extra $1k?
- jpgs or raw?
- where is 3D/cheap FF body?
- D800 .....
- 85mm what is better in F1.2L in compare to Sigma for double cost?
Breitling65 wrote:
Yes, some topics like below should be banned already
- 100-400 or 70-200 with tc?
I haven't been on here in over 3+ years, this one still gets discussed? What's even more interesting was I saw someone post how a 1DMK2 has inadequate resolution...
thats a tough one I liked the Original "Star Wars" trilogy the one before Lucas raped it....always liked "Star Trek" over all a better show and movies...ha ha
digitalbug30d wrote:
i just dont get the hub-bub over this issue,maybe I suck ...lol
You don't get it. You can use auto ISO in M mode, but it won't allow for anything other than standard exposure ie if you use a set ISO and set an exposure 1 stop over standard and then switch to auto ISO it'll immediately choose and ISO 1 stop faster to push your exposure back to standard. Insanity.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You don't get it. You can use auto ISO in M mode, but it won't allow for anything other than standard exposure ie if you use a set ISO and set an exposure 1 stop over standard and then switch to auto ISO it'll immediately choose and ISO 1 stop faster to push your exposure back to standard. Insanity.
That's because the whole concept of 'auto' and 'manual' don't go together. You can't tell the camera to vary the ISO speed automatically, then expect it to hold the ISO speed invariant while you change the aperture or shutter speed, as if it somehow should magically know what you want.
You'd have to have some form of exposure compensation setting, but for ISO speed. As there is no physical way to apply exposure compensation in manual mode (the QCD is taken), exactly how would you tell the camera to "compensate" the ISO speed setting? Canon would have to add an entirely new exposure compensation mechanism to its camera bodies for this, similar to FEC.
I'm not convinced it's a worthwhile effort, with all the ways photographers already have to make exposures... but maybe I'm just too old school.
