CGrindahl wrote:
Wow George, thanks! How the hell did that happen? Looking in Lightroom the photos I still have say 1 and a third stops, and yes that is the setting on the camera... but I've NEVER set the exposure compensation dial on the camera and it requires depressing a button before you can turn the knob. I'm completely confused about how that could have happened. I wonder if when I was trying to get the macro mechanism to work I inadvertently pressed the button and nudged the dial. That is about the only explanation that makes sense to me... So in truth it IS USER ERROR...
I've never quite understood the need for using exposure compensation with modern digital cameras that have so much latitude in handling both low and high light conditions. If somebody cares to give me an education on the subject I'd welcome it... And thanks again George. Tomorrow is another day and I'll take your lens for another walk around the neighborhood. Oops! Its forecast we'll have rain tomorrow. One of these days I'll take it for a walk... ...Show more →
Curtis it is very useful in taking pictures of birds in flight to get the deatil of the feathers etc against a bright background. Even using spot metering the tendency is to underexpose the subject.
pbraymond wrote:
Curtis, the five shots that you shared from your walk seems to be pretty good output for a 2 mile walk so that latitude did make a difference. B&W does have a knack for salvaging shots as well. I think it means you need to buy a copy of the 35-200 and get used to the macro mode so you never make that mistake again.
CGrindahl wrote:
Wow George, thanks! How the hell did that happen? Looking in Lightroom the photos I still have say 1 and a third stops, and yes that is the setting on the camera... but I've NEVER set the exposure compensation dial on the camera and it requires depressing a button before you can turn the knob. I'm completely confused about how that could have happened. I wonder if when I was trying to get the macro mechanism to work I inadvertently pressed the button and nudged the dial. That is about the only explanation that makes sense to me... So in truth it IS USER ERROR...
I've never quite understood the need for using exposure compensation with modern digital cameras that have so much latitude in handling both low and high light conditions. If somebody cares to give me an education on the subject I'd welcome it... And thanks again George. Tomorrow is another day and I'll take your lens for another walk around the neighborhood. Oops! Its forecast we'll have rain tomorrow. One of these days I'll take it for a walk... ...Show more →
I like your post work with the B&W's, they have a special look to them.
As for the exposure compensation...George beat me to it.
As I understand it, correcting EC in camera does a better job then adjusting in post when it comes to noise in the shadows. I adjust EC two different ways in camera. The first is to simply turn my EC dial, located right above my thumb on top of my X-T2, easy peasy. The second way is since I am a back button focus shooter, my shutter button is set to exposure only and not focus. Which means I can use spot metering and move my camera around the scene to set the exposure to my liking. Then, once I'm satisfied with my exposure, push the shutter button down halfway (which locks in exposure) while I adjust the composition and then click. Using MF makes the whole job even easier especially with focus peaking. But even using AF lenses, all I then have to do is press whatever button I have assigned as my focus and fire away!
I know I've shared this view from my back porch several times, but this morning's light seemed especially nice. A friend of mine stated yesterday how nice and clean the atmosphere was due to less vehicle emissions, I have to agree. X-T2 and 50-135mm.
leighton w wrote:
I know I've shared this view from my back porch several times, but this morning's light seemed especially nice. A friend of mine stated yesterday how nice and clean the atmosphere was due to less vehicle emissions, I have to agree. X-T2 and 50-135mm.
saph wrote:
Kristian, great photo of your mini-me! The 50 f2's not so shabby, it did well in the photos.
Thanks! The 50/2.0 ai performs quite good when stopped down to 2.8 and further. But at 2.0 not well at all actually. I like the bokeh fully open though. I really gotta get the 50/1.8 ais once again which performs a lot better at 1.8 than than the 50/2.0 at 2.0.
Anyone shooting a 400 F3.5 EDIF Ais lens on a digital body ? Does it live up to its film body performance ? , i believe that somewhere i saw some post that said it did not do well. Any comments / , i understand and use lots of old glass and know their shortcomings. I use a D300, Sony A7R11 and micro four thirds bodies.
Thanks
Harry Palmer
Harry, I'm thinking Rafael for sure has this lens, and maybe John Hinkey.
Kingfishphoto wrote:
Anyone shooting a 400 F3.5 EDIF Ais lens on a digital body ? Does it live up to its film body performance ? , i believe that somewhere i saw some post that said it did not do well. Any comments / , i understand and use lots of old glass and know their shortcomings. I use a D300, Sony A7R11 and micro four thirds bodies.
Thanks
Harry Palmer
Kingfishphoto wrote:
Anyone shooting a 400 F3.5 EDIF Ais lens on a digital body ? Does it live up to its film body performance ? , i believe that somewhere i saw some post that said it did not do well. Any comments / , i understand and use lots of old glass and know their shortcomings. I use a D300, Sony A7R11 and micro four thirds bodies.
Thanks
Harry Palmer
Love this view. I miss that picture you took of the sheep in the foggy morning light too. It was like a painting.
leighton w wrote:
I know I've shared this view from my back porch several times, but this morning's light seemed especially nice. A friend of mine stated yesterday how nice and clean the atmosphere was due to less vehicle emissions, I have to agree. X-T2 and 50-135mm.
