Am I going crazy, or are they finally giving us a true Auto-ISO in M with exposure compensation?!?!?
That's a pleasant surprise!
That's a pleasant surprise!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?One factor is the fact that the smaller flange distance allows smaller lenses only for wider angle lenses. (This is the "in a nutshell" of a very long explanation; for an example look at the 35L and a 35mm f/1.4 for Leica M-Mount; the difference in size is due to the 35L having to "compensate" for the larger flange distance of the EOS mount; I'm no expert on the field but I remember reading something about having to complicate wide-angle lens design once the focal length goes below the sensor diagonal (or some value that is a linear function of the sensor size)).
At least it sounds like they gave it an honest try before reverting to the zoo...Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild. Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning.Interesting you say that, for I've had that exact experience. In the Adelaide Zoo about 10-15 years ago, walking around with a bunch of kids as part of some school-holiday daycamp thingy (something my then-gf roped me in to help with).
You can't generalise ETTR in that way, whether and by how much it overexposes or underexposes depends on what the autoexposure does (since that's the frame of reference in this case) and on the concrete scene (the maximum difference between the "average" and maximum brightness).The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor.
No, the point of ETTR is to avoid blown highlights while not losing detail in shadows. It might mean less light hitting the sensor, if average metering was going to blow important highlights.
In digital photography, exposing to the right (ETTR) is the technique of increasing the exposure of an image in order to collect the maximum amount of light and thus get the optimum performance out of the digital image sensor.
+1. It's all about getting as much light as you can without clipping the highlights while reducing the shadows. It's equivalent to an overexposure of around 1/3 EV.
This could be taken a step further by purchasing multiple copies, like now, but posting the review for the WORST out of the bunch! Or start reviewing one copy, and then see what the worst one that a reader of your's got is!+1000!Klaus at Photozone and I have shown several times that if one copy does not appear as it should we took another copy to test, I tested 4 Canon 24-70 before I got one good example and showed the test results and so did also Klaus .If I were reviewing a lens and I got a crap copy, I'd review the crap copy and give it a harsh negative review. The fact of the matter is that a glowing of a review where three out of four copies are junk does not accurately reflect what a person is going to get when they buy one, statistically speaking. If these manufacturers want to get good reviews, they should have better quality control. This isn't rocket science. They could trivially attach every lens to a test rig, measure it, and verify that it is within spec like pretty much every other professional hardware manufacturer does. The fact that they obviously do not do this speaks volumes about their product quality, and I firmly believe that the reviews should reflect that lack of concern.
All brands have problems with the uniformity and quality, also Nikon
Anecdotally, I just don't see people using point & shoot cameras anymore. I see either smart phones or bridge/DSLR cameras.And, it appears, many iPads and other tablets, seems like more than p/s cameras...
The trouble is that many people use this philosophy of not bringing a compass on to a mountain too seriously. In the UK there have been numerous call outs to the (voluntary) mountain rescue teams to rescue them because the battery in their phone has run dry. The trouble is that redundancy might be apparent, but that doesn't mean it's real.Battery life is a very real problem with modern smartphones, you get all the features, but not for very long!
But presumably it would still work with 3rd-party extenders?If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III. Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.Hopefully, it'll take them at all. Lots of people are clamoring for a rotating zoom like the 70-300L. What if that plus a compact design means the lens loses extender compatibility?? Why would they do that? Consider...all along the 'barrier' was 400/420mm. If you wanted longer and still wanted AF, you shelled out the big bucks for a 1-series body or a supertele. So now that they've put f/8 AF in a 5-series, perhaps they'll take away a 'cheap' 560mm f/8 IS option with good IQ. Not really trying to be the voice of doom, here, but we all know that Canon giveth and Canon taketh away (AFMA on the 60D, anyone?).
First, I'd be thankful -- lots of folks would love to have a 5D2 and $2K!!That's a nice answer.