As I wrote repeatedly, I did do it on purpose. The principe is simple: point camera at subject darker than medium tone and that darker subject will be rendered as medium. I'll repeat myself again: point at a subject darker than medium tone and you get overexposure--subject is too light. No EC needed for overexposure, just an understanding of how the meter "sees" tone. It's not guesswork. It's called metering technique. Why dial in EC when you can much more quickly selectively meter lighter or darker parts of a scene?
Gochugogi wrote:
For example, below is a pixel level view of an ISO 1600 image (17-55 [email protected]) I shot with my 7D (full image below it). I overexposed and pulled it down to keep noise under control. I could have underexposed, brightened it and made it look as ugly as possible:
Yes, you can reduce high ISO noise using such a method. But an easier one is to simply dial the ISO setting back the same amount as you overexposed the image, and then use the correct exposure. Try it: ISO 1600 with EV +1 equals ISO 800 with EV +-0 regarding the noise (also in the exposure time). Or ISO 1600 with EV +-0 equals ISO 400 with EV-2 and pushed +2 stops in post processing.
In fact, this is roughly what the camera is doing as well - high ISO images get "stretched" more than low ISO images, as the sensor is the same all the time and takes the photons in exactly the same way. ISO setting affects only the reading of the sensor.
Gochugogi, thanks. I see now. I will have to experiment with that. I understand that the camera tried to expose to a neutral/medium/gray, etc... I just never tried to choose what part of the scene to expose for much. Now I see how your "thinking" goes into it, and it makes it a little easier to see how it would work out in the field. I definitely want to learn how to get more of it done in camera, instead of having to do it all in the processing.
Drayken wrote:
With all due respect, I would have agreed with you 100% of the time, until Canon released the MKIII, and I remember all the complaining and all the people saying how it was user error and such. Well, ever since then, I guess some paranoia has set in, lol. I tend to check, and recheck things. I kept my last camera for quite some time, and plan to do the same with this one, so I was just making sure.
With all due respect to you Drayken, if you are worried about an instance similar to what happened with the MkIII the answer is to wait six months, or more, after introduction. Comparing images over the internet or with your old camera will be far overwhelmed by the collective impression of buyers and reviewers accumulated over time.
WmPat, I understand that. I Couldn't pass up the 12% savings at bestbuy. Also, I HIGHLY doubt we will see a MKIII situation again, but it does play on the mind. I hadn't seen too many noise issues, it was the focusing issues posted everywhere. Well, I am not good at tracking birds, but went out and shot ducks flying low, and got more keepers that one time, than I think I have with my 20D for a LONG time. So I am good there. Remember, I have been staring at 20D files for about 5 years now. So it shocked me to see the noise on the 7D files. It just took time to get used to such huge files.
Anyways, I printed some out and besides my 7D one shutter speed faster than my father's, I cannot find anything wrong with it. If I never did these tests, and would not have posted all this, and got these responses, I may have had doubts for a long time. Now I don't. To people who say "shut up and go shoot", I say, why even read these posts then, since you already know what they are about? Anything I spend a large amount of money on, I want to know I have no defects. Whoever does not check for that, IMO, is ignorant. Did mine have a defect? I believe not, but don't crucify those of us who test to make sure. WmPat, this is NOT directed toward you or anyone on this post, just a general statement. I know, the problem is, SOO many people immediately jump on a bandwagon, and make claims, and MUCH of it is user error. I did not want to appear that way.
