So please explain what happens if you set your cameras at M and base iso 100 HTP and if the exposure time or f-stop is not changed? (have I understand you correctly) And why there are a choice of HTP in other modes as AV etc
from now and in the future, meet me with facts
When I have my camera in M mode at ISO 100 and I enable HTP, the ISO is changed to 200 and the exposure meter reading
is increased by 1 stop. The meter reading only, not the exposure. The aperture is not changed. The shutter speed is not changed. That is not theory, that is a fact
. If the aperture and shutter are not changed by enabling, the number of photons reaching the sensor is also not changed by enabling HTP, and that is also a fact
Say, for example, that with my M mode settings of 1/100 s, f/8, and ISO 100 resulted in a 1-stop underexposure based on the camera's meter. If I then enable HTP, the ISO is set to 200, and the exposure reading is centered. But the exposure is unchanged, the same number of photons would hit the sensor whether I captured the image at 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 100 without HTP or 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 200 with HTP. The same number of photons, not half the photons. So, your explanation that HTP means Half The Photons is wrong. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
I cannot set my "cameras at M and base iso 100 HTP
." Can you? I challenge you to do so - enable HTP and set ISO to 100. Show me a picture of your camera's rear LCD, like this one below, where the display in the upper right shows ISO 100
and the D+
symbol which indicates that HTP is enabled. Meet me with facts, Mikael.
I'm going to strip you naked
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds immoral and possibly illegal. I assume you're not threatening me with a physical assault of some sort, are you, Mikael? That would be a mistake. Regardless, it's a threat of some sort, and totally inappropriate.
I have reported you to the moderator- lies and falsification of my posts and data
In what way have I falsified your posts and data? Refuting your bogus claims and misunderstandings is quite different than faslifying your posts. Trying to correct your factual errors so that others who don't have your 30 years of experience aren't confused by your incorreect statements is quite different than falsifying your posts and data.
End of discussion for me in this thread
Well, we can add that to the list of things you were wrong about. I count 6 posts by you in this thread after that statement. Maybe 'end of discussion' means something different to you.
an apology can I probably not expect from a man who has committed jokes at my expense, and where he has shown great ignorance.
Yes, call me ignroant then by all means expect an apology. You've called me worse in the past. That's about as logical as your reasoning on other subjects, so no surprise there.
Please recall that this whole discussion started when you questioned a statement I made in jest. I assumed it would be obvious that if I initially stated that the 'test' conducted in the original post was, "Uninterpretable and no conclusions can be drawn," subsequently concluding that, "The D7100 has problems with color fidelity and exposure metering that occur specifically at ISO 800," was a joke. I already apologized for confusing you with that joke. You subsequently offered the following:
I admit if Im wrong show me please what you are talking about
and if not fu... of
if you still going on- i tell you to f... of
Is that how you conduct yourself in everyday life, telling people you disagree with to fuck off, and then threatening them?
Regardless, I proceeded to tell you exactly where you were wrong (one example of many, I've provided two more in this post already)...and you proceeded to not
read what I have write, I have said nothing about M
Really? You, who tells everyone else to read, don't even read your own posts, do you? You mentioned M mode in the first post that I quoted above. So, wrong one more time. I'm losing count of your factual errors and conceptual misunderstandings, Mikael.