It was dumb because you didn't think before posting. A one-line throwaway assuming a lack of basic knowledge is both rude and unhelpful. The explanation I just gave you didn't require a great mental leap, and I suspect you'd have reached it if you'd thought for a moment before replying.
"The trouble when using exposure compensation with evaluative metering is that you don’t know if the metering has already compensated for the conditions. If it has, and you dial in even more exposure compensation, then the exposure will be wrong. Equally, if you assume that the camera has got it right, but it hasn’t, then you will also have a badly exposed picture.
The solution, as with so many things photographic, is experience. After a while you will learn to recognise the types of scene which evaluative metering handles well, and those that it does not."
Or as I suggested. Have a camera with more dynamic range. Then neither I nor the meter have to be so clever.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
The DR difference is real between the two cams. I can already see the noise and banding on the building on the left. The Nikon would not produce that banding or close to that level of noise if shot at a low ISO. Here is an example I did for fun when my strobe did not fire. This was PRE d800 and was done with a d3x. I think you will get the idea. The d800 was even better. DR aside there are many other things that make a great cam. I really like both the MK III and D800 yet I find myself shooting the Canon more.
This is the very reason why I'd even consider a D800 or switching to Nikon (I've gone back and forth, but I'm so invested in Canon that'd be a bloodbath, though I've thought about a gradual switch over) - its when things don't work (like the strobe not firing during the perfect shot) - the D800 is there to save your ass. Sure, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, its good to know the D800 can act as an insurance policy like a second card slot when the first one fails.
I'm a 5D3 shooter - and don't get me wrong, I love the camera - but stuff happens, the capacitor in the flash hasn't recycled and you take a shot without the flash, the strobe misfires, etc., etc., etc.... Trying to recover those shots with the 5D3 is just a train wreck...
There is a case to be made for buying a system based purely on it's sensor's dynamic range - depending on the kind of photography you do.... The D600 and D800 have forced me to think long and hard about switching systems...
The post above is a stellar example of how to avoid facts that contradict your opinion. It's particularly helpful in politics. I wonder if Phil is a member of Parliament.
Edit: This is a response to a post dhphoto deleted as I was writing it. The gist was that metering becomes accurate with experience.
There's no such thing as 'correct' exposure, just what you would deem subjectively acceptable for a particular scene. The point of wide DR is to expand the range of acceptable values. Expand DR far enough and you don't need experience in how to adjust the metering, no more than you would need to memorize the Sunny 16 rule with modern cameras.
alexdi wrote:
Super. The best part is, this stuff is all on-point. It's not like you're taking the high ground. You're just ignoring what you don't agree with.
alexdi wrote:
no more than you would need to memorize the Sunny 16 rule with modern cameras.
You do need to memorize it (even if you find memorizing the Sunny 16 rule difficult).
Only a fool would not memorize it once they truly understood its significance. In this day and age of modern cameras, photography is still photography.
Just memorize it (you too can do it if you put a couple of weeks effort into it) and then you can work on understanding its usefulness later.
Paul Mo wrote:
Dynamic rage is not only what Nikon have. Nikon have always been the best, when Nikon F4 the first digital camera came out it was the best and then the F5 was best you can ask ken rockwell and when Canon started making cameras in 2001 you could see they were scared of Nikon.
Laugh out loud! What a good parody! Your writing there is inspired.
"Dynamic rage"! That's one to remember. Nikon F4 the first digital camera? Who knew? Apparently Ken Rockwell is a fount of wisdom.
"NIkon have always been the best"? That explains why you only post in the Canon forum.
Canon started making cameras in 2001? Wow, they sure came a long way in twelve years with so many models and such an extensive lens lineup. I suppose the FTb I used to shoot was really only a cannon.
Lots of arguing in this thread, and lots of good points too.
I venture to say that I speak for a silent majority that basically understands that Sony sensors can be pushed in the shadows more than Canon's sensors right now, but we also understand that will change in the future. I understand that, for some people, having this ability NOW is completely a must have situation. I don't judge people for what they want, nor for what they need, but rather only on how well they treat other people. I don't even care if I think they are wrong, especially if their opinion isn't affecting me. And that would just about rule out everyone's opinion, except my wife's.
Personally, wish for the day that the sensor captures the same dynamic range that I perceive with my eyes.
Additionally, on a personal note, I have come to love the Zone System for managing exposure.
And yes, I love the Sunny 16 rule too, and it only took me a week to memorize it, and maybe someday I will understand it.
dkmiles1 wrote:
There is a case to be made for buying a system based purely on it's sensor's dynamic range - depending on the kind of photography you do.... The D600 and D800 have forced me to think long and hard about switching systems...
Exactly how it should be. Each manufacturer has different strengths in their gear. It's pointless to keep lamenting the fact that Canon does not have the low ISO DR of Sony/Nikon technology. Some people on this forum have said that Canon are years behind. I admire their patience but at some point you have to see the trend and say it's time to move on.
Sunny 16 ceased relevancy about ten seconds after the arrival of the first integrated exposure meter. It's an absolute metric. When you've got a perfect electronic reading of 18% gray, all you need is enough knowledge to make relative adjustments to position the subject exposure within the available dynamic range. My point is that, much as you no longer need to know that particular exposure, a camera with wider DR could negate the need to have the experience to compensate for meter error.
The Sunny F16 Rule has now been replaced by the Sony F16 Rule. If we are to believe all that is posted about how good the Sony sensors are, then I am now able to announce it:
The Sony F16 Rule: Shoot everything at f/16 and depend on the dynamic range to fix it in post.
ggreene wrote:
Exactly how it should be. Each manufacturer has different strengths in their gear. It's pointless to keep lamenting the fact that Canon does not have the low ISO DR of Sony/Nikon technology. Some people on this forum have said that Canon are years behind. I admire their patience but at some point you have to see the trend and say it's time to move on.
Definitely.
If it's what you *need*, I definitely think you should seriously consider a switch. If I was a pro landscape photographer, I probably would have gone by now, presuming I could afford it..
A camera (system) is just a tool. Choose the right one for you. Just be aware before you switch either way ... the grass isn't completely green on the other side!
Monito wrote:
You do need to memorize it (even if you find memorizing the Sunny 16 rule difficult).
Only a fool would not memorize it once they truly understood its significance. In this day and age of modern cameras, photography is still photography.
Just memorize it (you too can do it if you put a couple of weeks effort into it) and then you can work on understanding its usefulness later.
ggreene wrote:
Exactly how it should be. Each manufacturer has different strengths in their gear. It's pointless to keep lamenting the fact that Canon does not have the low ISO DR of Sony/Nikon technology. Some people on this forum have said that Canon are years behind. I admire their patience but at some point you have to see the trend and say it's time to move on.
I believe that is the 5th time in this thread that you told people to move on to the Nikon system. Do you think just maybe we get your point and could you possibly contribute some other more meaningful information rather than being rude to people by telling them to move on.
Before the 5d3 came along and people complained about the limited focusing ability of the 5d2...did you tell them the same snippet of your great advice, to move onto Nikon?
chez, you may disagree, but sometimes it is effective and useful poking a little fun at people who think that technology is the be-all end-all for photography. But don't let me dissuade you. If you wish to forget the Sunny F16 rule, you are free to do so, regardless of how long it took you to learn it.
