View Full Version : AE or not???
fleetwoodjazz
04-09-2008, 13:23
Hi,
I would like to see your opinions about Automatic Exposure on range-finder side of course. Why you want it? Similarly why you only care about fully manual rfs?
Thanks:rolleyes:
I don't care about battery independence, I just like to take control of the exposure, that's all.
PlantedTao
04-09-2008, 13:39
Well, I would not say I'm desperate for it...
but it is a handy tool and when shooting street or any fast action with the rf, I prefer the AE. For me it is one less thing to worry about and I can concentrate on composition or if shooting from the hip, it gives a pretty good exposed neg (havent got the aiming down on that one yet :) )
I have noticed that you can rely on it too much and become lazy... I have fallen into that trap before... the AE lock on the ZI is handy and can compensate for tricky lighting.
AE has it's place and it is a handy feature to have on your camera when you know when and why you want to use it.
fleetwoodjazz
04-09-2008, 13:48
I don't care about battery independence, I just like to take control of the exposure, that's all.
If I'm not mistaken, rfs with AE still give you control of the exposure right? At first I thought of the same thing but then I realised I bought a fully manual rf because I know it will serve me well for decades. As for AE rfs, I'm not so sure about the electronics inside:rolleyes:
Hey, if an M3 had AE I would use it :)
dazedgonebye
04-09-2008, 14:48
Very handy. I keep it on ae and override as necessary.
I have to admit my DSLR is almost always set to some version of AE whether shutter or aperture priority.
On the M6 bodies this is not an option - it forces me to think about the scene more.
AE is great, especially when it's easy to override it, set compensation, or turn it off. Experienced shooters can know from memory what settings to use based on conditions, but humans cannot measure light on their own. 2 interiors may feel equally bright to someone whose eyes have adjusted, but they could be a couple stops apart.
Battery dependence is pretty much a non-issue in almost all cases. The shelf life of LR44s (and the like) is extremely long and you can just attach a couple of them to your camera strap and always have a backup. It's much more likely that you'll run out of film.
On the other hand, many people prefer the feel of mechanical shutters to electronically controlled ones. It's nice to know that you could theoretically use a camera 50 years from now without having to worry about finding some obscure type of battery.
drewbarb
04-09-2008, 15:41
I find aperture priority AE to be useful at times, but more to the point, for me it's the only reason to have an in-camera meter; I wouldn't choose a metered body without it.
When I look through the camera, the only thing I want to pay attention to is the subject. By that point, the time to be making decisions about the exposure is over. I don't want blinking diodes or needles in my finder distracting me from my subject. I'll put up with that crap if it gets me AE- otherwise, I'd rather work without it. I use a hand-held meter and set my exposure before I shoot, no matter what equipment I'm using. Whether I'm selecting aperture and shutter speed or (with AE) just aperture, I prefer to do this before I shoot.
infrequent
04-09-2008, 16:07
AE rocks. seriously.
grainy_shadows
04-09-2008, 16:56
i like to use ae on my manual slrs, its just easier and more convenient for getting the shot, not wasting time on setting exposure values and missing it
I'm not sure I understand the distinction AE vs. not being battery dependent..
There are cameras out there that have no AE, heck, not even metering, and that still rely on a battery to operate (thinking along the line of the electronically timed Bronica leafshutter SLRs)..
Then what's AE? It's a pain and it's a blessing all in one go.. It's a pain because it requires compensation to get good exposure for anything that's not middle grey.. And it's a blessing because it can get you decent exposure if you're concentrating on something else like capturing action..
Isn't this more about a particular choice you have between the attractions of the alternate Bessa models (R2/3/4 A vs. R2/3/4 M)? In that case, and if you're undecided, get the AE model. Cameras that don't have autofocus and motorised film advance tend to go for very long on a single set of batteries..
don't really care, but if AE is there, I need an AE lock, button to press so I can quickly meter on the subject (or equivalent lighting nearby), while excluding extraneous highlights, and frame and shoot while holding the button. It's just habit, not better or worse than anything.
I have two cameras with AE ... Hexar and Ikon but tend not to use it a lot unless there is no real option and that situation is rare in my opinion. I far prefer to meter a scene manually and if you are out and about taking pics you can generally step out into the light take a reading then base your shooting on that reading and adjust exposure to suit where you actually are regarding shadow etc.
The AE lock button on the Ikon is a good idea but I wish they had positioned it better!
fleetwoodjazz
04-10-2008, 04:31
Isn't this more about a particular choice you have between the attractions of the alternate Bessa models (R2/3/4 A vs. R2/3/4 M)? In that case, and if you're undecided, get the AE model. Cameras that don't have autofocus and motorised film advance tend to go for very long on a single set of batteries..
Nahh, I got over that dilema long ago. I own a M6 and a Zeiss Ikon myself. As a long time user of Pentax K1000, I was skeptical about AE but ZI was really nice camera that somehow surprised me with how accurate AE can be. However, part of me still in love with guessing the exposure so I bought myself a M6 but for pratical use, ZI is more convenient.
A frien of mine is thinking about the Leica M7 and I lent him my two rfs to try out. We sat together and figured out that at current UK price for a new M7, he could actually buy one new ZI, one mint M6 and perhaps one new Bessa. Shocking to see how Leica manage to charge soooo much for AE.
Cheers:cool:
pesphoto
04-10-2008, 05:53
I have a Bessa R for when I want all manual, but I do enjoy taking out my GSN for some fast street shooting without having to worry about my camera settings so much.
alan davus
04-12-2008, 15:34
I use my Hexar RF on AE almost exclusively and find the meter to be astonishingly accurate ( allowing for the usual suspects that require exp. compensation.) My M6 ttl took a little time to learn how to use the semi spot meter accurately but then I hadn't shot manually for nearly 20 years. Bit like riding a bike, once learned never forgotten. But I love the RF on AE. At the moment I'm using a new ZM18 Distagon on both cameras metering manually and with AE.
For the life of me I can't understand why someone would use AE. Under tough conditions AE is rarely as good as a well trained eye. It always baffled me why many of my pro friends would shoot with AE...
I used to be in the non-AE camp. Then I had kids. Can't do kids without either AE, AF or sometimes both :)
I don't really care about battery independence. I can't hear worth a darn without batteries, but that's ok too. I figure AE is the main reason to have a meter in the camera. As with any other meter, one just needs to learn how to use it intelligently. :)
If I'm not mistaken, rfs with AE still give you control of the exposure right? At first I thought of the same thing but then I realised I bought a fully manual rf because I know it will serve me well for decades. As for AE rfs, I'm not so sure about the electronics inside:rolleyes:
Yes, you're right. Let me rephrase then. The manual exposure method puts me in control, on my terms. AE can give me the same control, but my starting point is a decision that has been made 50% by me and 50% by the camera. This is personal, and is in no way a diss on AE. I was using aperture exposure only until very recently, and would have said that manual exposure was a waste of time. Manual exposure has been an epiphany for me. I've seen the light!
literiter
04-13-2008, 08:17
My Nikon F3HP is my only "good" camera that has AE. I just realized that that is it. All my other stuff, Nikon F2, M4-P, M2, Hasselblad stuff, Rolleis, etc. require at least manual settings. (Yes, I have a little digital doohickybob with the whole thing, but I rarely use it.)
And, yes,..... I do like AE on occasion.
I don't miss it when I don't have it and rarely use it when I do.
I like having a meter because I know how to use it to get the results I like but as far as aperture priority goes I like the way I read the light more. (And that's just my personal taste)
A match needle meter in the finder is a convenience, but I can live without it, and often do. As for totally automatic exposure, I've never had a camera with AE that I liked. Had batteries crap out far too often over the years. Carrying spare batteries is all well and good but it is annoying to fish them out and usually awkward to change them. And the bloody things are expensive. I've gone to a back up because of dead batteries more than any other reason.
I have a freshly CLA'd OM-2 that I've forced myself to use mainly because the CLA was so expensive. Compared to my OM-1 (comparing apples to apples here) I find that I take better pictures with the OM-1. Bottom line, at least for me.
Matthew Allen
04-22-2008, 06:03
I don't really see why people would dislike AE - it doesn't actually limit you in any way except on cameras with inadequate controls. I've used fully manual, metered manual and AE (mainly aperture priority) with various bodies and in all cases I think about the exposure and adjust it according to the situation.
I'm not sure about this but perhaps the ideal setup (for negatives) would be aperture priority AE with a good spot meter. Maybe I need an OM...:rolleyes:
Matthew
All in camera meters are for reflected light, if you want incident light a meter is a must.
I use my Hexar RF on AE almost exclusively and find the meter to be astonishingly accurate ( allowing for the usual suspects that require exp. compensation.) My M6 ttl took a little time to learn how to use the semi spot meter accurately but then I hadn't shot manually for nearly 20 years. Bit like riding a bike, once learned never forgotten. But I love the RF on AE. At the moment I'm using a new ZM18 Distagon on both cameras metering manually and with AE.
Same here, I actually bought the Hexar RF for having AE. The exposure is almost always spot-on.
That ZM 18 Distagon you mention is tempting ... :)
sepiareverb
04-28-2008, 02:29
Deapending on the situation I will use it or not. Generally in town I use it, out in the woods I do not.
mabelsound
04-28-2008, 06:08
I like aperture priority. 95% of the time I just want to get a decent exposure and care mostly about composing. The other 5%, I just turn it off (or, if it's an AE-only camera, switch cameras).
For me it just kinda depends on whether I'm shooting something that will wait for me or not. What I works really well for me is light meter needle for manual metering because at no point does the camera tell me that I'm at the "perfect" exposure. This way I always have to think about the lighting in the frame. But in a perfect world we'd all bracket everything at least 3 ways, in which case as long as the meter gets us close, we should be in good shape.
I'm happy with LED "traffic light" manual metering such as you get on the CV Bessas , or auto exposure with a needle indicator and a half depression of the shutter button to hold such as you get with old Konicas. What I find inconvenient is a camera with no meter or auto exposure with no "hold".
Cheers, Robin
Chris101
05-28-2008, 11:38
Sometimes I use AE, and others I don't. I guess it depends on what camera I am using. So I went with 'Don't Care'. The smiley in that choice helped too.
I paticularly like my OM-2 in AE mode ... the camera has a very accurate meter and a large easy to see compensation dial. A quick evaluation of the scene ... quickly decide if compensation is needed and shoot. :)
usagisakana
08-23-2008, 22:47
I use a himatic without the metering, as its meter is way too innacurate. I use a handheld incident meter currently, that works for me, but it is irritating at times to constantly take readings and change settings.. as most of the time the difference between sunlight and shade varies between 2-3 stops.. and I end up with underexposed negs if I don't compensate for the shade. I am currently unsure as to whether I should save my money for a M6 or a ZI... both have meters but the ability to use AE would be handy at times.
I like the AE on my zeiss ikon, very much.
Pherdinand
08-24-2008, 02:34
I'm using a handheld, mostly in incident mode, but i would love to have a proper ttl meter in my m2 or in the big brother the fuji 6x9.
Just to check exposure once in a while.
I can't afford a newer version of these that would have such a meter. All the m7, mp etc talk is a distant gibberish for me:)
Pherdinand
08-24-2008, 02:38
On the other hand, call me a snapshooter, but i like sometimes to just load my yashica GSN and not worry about exposure at all.
I know, of course, whether i have a chance for reasonable shutter speeds with that film in that light or not, but i could not care less about the details.
And it rarely lets me down.
One thing is VERY useful just between metered manual exposure and AE.
It's the ability to point the camera at a subject without bringing it up to the eye, measure light having a reading on the top of the camera, set the camera, then take the camera to your eye, focus and shoot.
Nikon F and F2 has it,
Leica M2/3/4 with leicameter has it.
IMHO, a shame that new cameras don't offer this, although I can understand the design ugliness factor (an MP with leds on top EEEEK!!)
I use AE all the time, in fact just because my m6 does not have it I have seriously considered selling it, also because I could use the cash, but besides that, AE is very important to my style of photography.
astroman
08-24-2008, 14:46
I use aperture priority mode with my dslr when I shoot wildlife with big lens as the window of oportunity is limited in most cases.But I love using my M6 for all my other photography forces me to think about the shot a little more.
narsuitus
08-31-2008, 17:13
Some of my cameras are battery-independent manual/mechanical with no built-in light meter.
Some of my cameras are manual/mechanical cameras that only need batteries for the built-in light meter.
Some of my cameras are battery-dependent automatic/electronic that offer automatic exposure control (AE).
You ask if I need AE. My answer is no. I do not need AE when I am:
1. Shooting with flash units.
2. Using a handheld light meter
3. Using the Sunny 16 Exposure Guide
You ask if I prefer battery independence. My answer is yes. Even though I use cameras that depend on batteries and those that do not, I have a personal preference for battery independent cameras.
wontonny
08-31-2008, 19:35
No. I dont like my camera telling me what to do.
Papercut
11-17-2008, 12:15
AE for when I'm in a social situation (out with friends, etc.) and photography is not the prime motivation/purpose ... non-AE for when I'm shooting seriously on the street. So I chose "don't care" as closest fit...
oftheherd
11-17-2008, 12:30
The only rf I have with AE is the Canonet and the Olympus SP, oh, and a Petri I seldom use.
My first AE was the Fujica ST901, which has AP. I quickly learned to appreciate that very much. It was quite accurate, and I knew when it might not be so I could compensate. What I really like about it was for crime scene processing. I might have to search for a correct shutter speed with SP, but with AP I could just compose, focus, including DOF, and trip the shutter. It was the same with the Contax 139Q I had, although it would not make as long exposures. However, its otf flash was superb.
However, using my Press 23 or my folders, or anything else without a built in meter, like the Kiev, I use a light meter without feeling bad. It's just the way to do it.
When I bought my ZI was sure that I wanted a camera with AE.... and at first that was how I usually shot. But then ask i got more used to the camera, and how it meters I would start fiddling a lot with under and over compensation based on how expected the scene to meter.... and now I often find myself foregoing the AE and just setting it manually so I don't even need to bother with AE lock (it's a tricky button for me to hit since I view with my left eye), or under/over exposures. So... slowly but surely I've been migrating over to manual exposure, and as I get better at it... it really doesn't take me much longer than if I was gong to be messing with under/overexposure/AE lock anyways.
Al Kaplan
11-17-2008, 15:40
First you look at the scene, decide what the exposure should be, then set the camera. The last thing you do if time allows is make a reading with your meter. I prefer incident readings. After some practice and experience your eye, brain, and fingers make a pretty good AE. You get to the point where the meter will be within half a stop or so. I prefer using a selenium cell Weston Master V. It needs no batteries.
With any kind of built in meter your entire camera goes in the shop if the meter craps out.
If the subjects are buildings, sculptures, mountain ranges or anything stationary, i usually guess and confirm with my Weston Master IV. All else such as kids birthday parties, weddings and anything moving in and out of changing lighting conditions I prefer AE and even AF sometimes. If it's an outdoor event where light doesn't change quickly I usually take an incident reading and shoot manually (if camera doesn't have AE).
If any one is used to using an M without a meter, they would set it according to the light conditions as they move about in and out of those light conditions. It's kind of automatic response since I started RF with an M3.
I don't think there's anything to be proud about if one is using AE, because it would always be better to have the time and right instruments to set "your" ideal exposure.
However in practical life, even for someone like me who shoots predominantly B&W, there is a price to pay in terms of reaction time and hence potentially degraded image quality or images missed altogether if you don't use it.
I do use the AE always in my street shots, and whenever I feel the AE can be substantially fooled, or the light contrast becomes extreme, I try to compensate by using the AE lock and/or exposure compensation on the camera. I find that the M7 and Zeiss Ikon both have a very good system of AE lock, while the Bessas are a bit more cumbersome.
tom.w.bn
11-20-2008, 05:20
I use AE all the time, in fact just because my m6 does not have it I have seriously considered selling it, also because I could use the cash, but besides that, AE is very important to my style of photography.
I absolutely agree!
I missed some shots with my M6 because I was too slow setting the right exposure. Should sell it, but somehow I can't.
With my M8 I have AE but I can switch to manual settings if I want to.
dovevadar
11-20-2008, 06:21
AE is almost like an insult.
Im not for battery independence but AE "detach" me from my picture. Come on, touch your heart, comparing negatives you have uniquely exposed manually and those from AE mode, you surely do "feel" more for the manually exposed ones right? I don't know, I always feel that way.. .. AE exposed shots are more "robot-like" to me. I dont feel myself inside the shot since the camera is deciding 30% of how my shot will turn out.
Christmas is coming, everyone is going to hit town with their cameras, I will prefer my lighting to be "different" from other though we are shooting the same giant Christmas tree. :p
Human eye is far too sophisticated and adopts very easily to lighting conditions and therefore not to be trusted.
capitalK
11-20-2008, 06:59
I have an R2A but I really only use the AE when I'm driving. I set the lens to hyperfocal and put the camera on AE and if something happens I can grab the camera from the passenger seat and get a shot. I try to be safe about it, I've only jumped the curb once :D
Al Kaplan
11-20-2008, 11:35
If your human eye adapts too readily try using your human brain. There are industry accepted standards as to how bright offices and stores should be. Too dim and the merchandise doesn't look right. Too bright and and the electric cost goes up. One Home Depot is the same as the next and the Office Depot and Office Max will be within a fraction of a stop of one another. Offices too are lit to a standard.
The shady side of the street is about three stops darker than the sunny side but use that brain. Is the building light colored, reflecting lots of light? Or dark and not reflecting much?
Modern home kitchens are also usually lit to a standard. In the living room, which is lit by a mix of floor and table lamps with usually either 60 or 100 watt bulbs, you'll need to do more thinking. Remember "guide numbers" used with manual flash units in the bad old days? The concept works with continuous light sources as well. A face 3 feet from a table lamp that meters 1/30 at f/4 will need 1/30 at f/2 if it's six feet away.
The problem with auto exposure is that the meter has no idea of what it's reading. It doesn't know if there's a light source in the photo or it's a photo of a guy in a black suit against a dark background. You do.
dovevadar
11-20-2008, 18:54
hahaha.. well said! come on guys! driving is fun, you are in control, you determine your speed and you can crash into the car in front if you don't like the driver's face. But a cab driver wouldn't do that for you. ever. ;)
If your human eye adapts too readily try using your human brain. There are industry accepted standards as to how bright offices and stores should be. Too dim and the merchandise doesn't look right. Too bright and and the electric cost goes up. One Home Depot is the same as the next and the Office Depot and Office Max will be within a fraction of a stop of one another. Offices too are lit to a standard.
The shady side of the street is about three stops darker than the sunny side but use that brain. Is the building light colored, reflecting lots of light? Or dark and not reflecting much?
Modern home kitchens are also usually lit to a standard. In the living room, which is lit by a mix of floor and table lamps with usually either 60 or 100 watt bulbs, you'll need to do more thinking. Remember "guide numbers" used with manual flash units in the bad old days? The concept works with continuous light sources as well. A face 3 feet from a table lamp that meters 1/30 at f/4 will need 1/30 at f/2 if it's six feet away.
The problem with auto exposure is that the meter has no idea of what it's reading. It doesn't know if there's a light source in the photo or it's a photo of a guy in a black suit against a dark background. You do.
dovevadar
11-20-2008, 18:57
I didn't know one can trust the machine more than human? Do you mean you will let a robot take care of your baby? what about machine failure? I will think the human brain the the most sohispcated on earth. Nothing can replace it. who thinks im wrong?
Human eye is far too sophisticated and adopts very easily to lighting conditions and therefore not to be trusted.
tom.w.bn
11-20-2008, 23:36
If your human eye adapts too readily try using your human brain. There are industry accepted standards as to how bright offices and stores should be. Too dim and the merchandise doesn't look right. Too bright and and the electric cost goes up. One Home Depot is the same as the next and the Office Depot and Office Max will be within a fraction of a stop of one another. Offices too are lit to a standard.
The shady side of the street is about three stops darker than the sunny side but use that brain. Is the building light colored, reflecting lots of light? Or dark and not reflecting much?
Modern home kitchens are also usually lit to a standard. In the living room, which is lit by a mix of floor and table lamps with usually either 60 or 100 watt bulbs, you'll need to do more thinking. Remember "guide numbers" used with manual flash units in the bad old days? The concept works with continuous light sources as well. A face 3 feet from a table lamp that meters 1/30 at f/4 will need 1/30 at f/2 if it's six feet away.
The problem with auto exposure is that the meter has no idea of what it's reading. It doesn't know if there's a light source in the photo or it's a photo of a guy in a black suit against a dark background. You do.
Sorry, but I want to have fun with photography. If I had to memorize all the 1000+ situations with the correct exposure settings it would spoil my hobby. So I just memorize a handfull of situations where my light meter gets confused and where I have to compensate or use the AE Lock feature.
Setting the correct exposure is very important in photography but that pure technical aspect distracts me the most from looking at the scene and finding a nice composition.
dovevadar
11-21-2008, 02:21
true. you do have a point here and I think its valid. well, I guess there is no right or wrong... personal preferences again and how much of yourself do you want in your picture....
Sorry, but I have want to have fun with photography. If I had to memorize all the 1000+ situations with the correct exposure settings it would spoil my hobby. So I just memorize a handfull of situations where my light meter gets confused and where I have to compensate or use the AE Lock feature.
Setting the correct exposure is very important in photography but that pure technical aspect distracts me the most from looking at the scene and finding a nice composition.
ClaremontPhoto
11-21-2008, 02:30
I use AE all the time when I'm not using sunny f16.
But I do know when to dial in +/- exposure compensation.
Hi,
I would like to see your opinions about Automatic Exposure on range-finder side of course. Why you want it? Similarly why you only care about fully manual rfs?
Thanks:rolleyes:
Hi,
I think your phrasing or intent is very ambiguous. Thus for example I am desperate to have AE, but will never use a camera that doesnt enable me manual override, and not just manual override but fully manual alternative to AE in the same camera.
My main system camera for rangefinders are absolutely manual without any AE at all, a need I cover with different hand held meters according to the day.
Thus I can say:
a) Manual override is more important for me than AE
b) Nevertheless "I am desperate to have AE as part of my Kievs"
c) Manual override, or fully manual camera is more important for me than AE alone because I cannot trust a camera that I don't know what it is doing at some specific shots. I must have the upper manual control.
Therefore, fully manual cameras and desperation for AE are not contradictory.
You could better put the question by polling for two specific cameras like the GSN and the Konica Auto S2, both with extraordinary lens, the former not enabling to know the speed you are using, the second having both auto and fully manual.
Cheers,
Ruben
Film is too expensive I can't afford to 'guess'.
usagisakana
11-21-2008, 05:44
I ended up going for an M6 rather than an ikon. Decided I didn't need the AE. 99% of the time i'll probably use a handheld meter, it seems to work the best for me, and i no longer find setting exposure a hassle- after a week or two you soon pick up what settings are right for which environment, and adjust automatically.
ClaremontPhoto
11-21-2008, 05:48
Nh3:
There's no 'guess'.
If there's no AE, which is usually incorrect anyway, you need to estimate the light with sunny f16 or the table in the film box, or else use an exposure meter.
Film is too expensive I can't afford to 'guess'.
-doomed-
11-21-2008, 18:37
I like having the AE function on my R2A , i like that its accurate to a point .
If you dont trust what the meter says you can always override it ,i guess what im saying is that its a useful tool.
MCTuomey
11-21-2008, 19:30
18% average metering = average exposure
on average, giving the right exposure
neither bad nor good, on average
hmmm
oftheherd
11-22-2008, 03:32
I don't understand why so many here are willing to use a hand held meter but not AE in a camera. The first thing I do when I get a used camera is put a roll of film through it. If it has AE, I want to ensure the combination of shutter speeds and AE give me well exposed photos. If so, I then use it without worry unless I am shooting in a lighting situation I know is tricky. Then I compensate, perhaps even bracket.
If I use a camera without built in light meter of any sort, I use a hand held meter. I still have to be aware of tricky lighting situations. On those rare occassions when I don't have a built in meter or a hand held meter, I must use experience and my eyes. I try to keep them calibrated but I am more likely to bracket as the situation gets more and more tricky.
But I truely feel a meter will give me more consistancy. That of course is just me. Everyone gets to do it as works best for them and gives them the most enjoyment.
richard_l
11-26-2008, 12:44
The way most people just chase the meter lights (or needles, as the case may be), they might as well be using AE.
As for missing shots because one doesn't have AE, there's generally no excuse for that. Just set the camera for a generic exposure by taking an incident reading or just guessing, and click away. Exposures won't be perfect, but neither is AE, and film latitude will forgive a multitude of exposure sins. Anyhow, manual exposure doesn't slow one down any more than manual focus.
Some people probably need cameras with both AE and AF. There's nothing particularly wrong with that; it just doesn't seem like much fun, and it's generally not as accurate as the alternatives.
Richard
tom.w.bn
11-26-2008, 13:34
Some people probably need cameras with both AE and AF. There's nothing particularly wrong with that; it just doesn't seem like much fun, and it's generally not as accurate as the alternatives.
Richard
Regarding AE you might be right. Regarding AF my experience is the opposite. Sometimes I take photos at the ballet training. At a relatviely close distance (2-3m) I take photos from moving people in low light situations. Tried this with my M8 and were not able to take a correct focussed shot. Prefocussing didn't work for me. And I was too slow to focus before the shot. For that I rely on my 40D with the 2.8 zoom and Image stabilizer. The AF is very fast and very! accurate. Can't imagine a faster and even more accurate solution.
You are right with the fun factor. I use my M8 when I want to have fun or tavel light. When I really want a reapeatable result I take my much too heavy DSLR.
shadowfox
11-26-2008, 13:38
AE to me is not as satisfying or fun as the Sunny-16 system.
As long as I am shooting for myself or my family, I'll always prefer the latter.
But when the pressure is on (portraits, events, etc.) I am glad that I have AE to confirm or correct my estimations.
Let's see - IIIf one day - Hexar RF another - and places in between. Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't.
A frien of mine is thinking about the Leica M7 and I lent him my two rfs to try out. We sat together and figured out that at current UK price for a new M7, he could actually buy one new ZI, one mint M6 and perhaps one new Bessa. Shocking to see how Leica manage to charge soooo much for AE.
Cheers:cool:
Thats a very good point..
richard_l
11-26-2008, 18:09
Regarding AE you might be right. Regarding AF my experience is the opposite. Sometimes I take photos at the ballet training. At a relatviely close distance (2-3m) I take photos from moving people in low light situations. Tried this with my M8 and were not able to take a correct focussed shot. Prefocussing didn't work for me. And I was too slow to focus before the shot. For that I rely on my 40D with the 2.8 zoom and Image stabilizer. The AF is very fast and very! accurate. Can't imagine a faster and even more accurate solution.
You are right with the fun factor. I use my M8 when I want to have fun or tavel light. When I really want a reapeatable result I take my much too heavy DSLR.Prefocussing doesn't work very well at large apertures and/or close distances because of limited DoF, so yes, I agree that AF can be an advantage sometimes.
Al Kaplan
11-26-2008, 18:30
Richard, try focusing on a dancer and then moving along with that dancer to keep a constant distance between the two of you. Forget trying to chase focus by turning the lens. Your percentage of sharp shots should go way up.
One thing I've noticed about the AE function in my OM-2 is because the shutter is electronic and stepless from memory (correct me if I'm wrong) the match needle meter reads in a linear style and doesnt just flash 30 or 60 at me etc. I tend to meter with the camera set on AE so I can see what the reading bias is directly in the viewfinder between the two nearest shutter speeds. It's much better than flipping backwards and forwards between two shutter speeds manually in normal metering mode trying to work out whether you'll buy slight overexposure or slight underexposure. I have used AE on the OM a couple of times and it really is very good considering the age of the camera.
Apparently my Konica Auto Reflex, circa 1965, was the first SLR camera to be marketed with auto exposure ... the infamous 'Electric Eye' and incredibly it still works and is very accurate ... shutter priority interestingly!
Anyway all this SLR talk must be making a few of you a bit tense ... I'll go now! :p
amateriat
11-26-2008, 19:40
I think it really comes down to one's comfort level with a given methodology, and just how well you know your equipment.
I never owned a handheld meter until about four years ago. The last non-AE camera I owned was an Olympus OM-3 sometime in the early 90s. I've had in-camera meters that ranged from flat-averaged-metering dumb (pre-electro-era Yashica) to too-smart-for-its-own-good (Minolta 9xi). When I moved to the Hexar RF as my Main Axe, the ecision was partly based on the two previous cameras that I recall having the highest comfort level with in terms of metering: as mentioned in another thread recently, those cameras were the Canon F-1 and Nikon F3. Inthe former case, the camera was not in itself AE (but that didn't stop me from getting a Servo EE Finder for mine...please, don't try this), but that hard-edge square-spot meter was golden. The F3 had a CW average metering system, but it was a tight CW setup, just about as golden, IMO, as Canon's. The Hexar's metering setup comes pretty close to Nikon's. More important, I know how to work such a metering setup, without head-scratching. It less about what the "best" system or method is than what you work best with, and that takes time to sort out initially.
- Barrett
tom.w.bn
11-27-2008, 02:00
Richard, try focusing on a dancer and then moving along with that dancer to keep a constant distance between the two of you. Forget trying to chase focus by turning the lens. Your percentage of sharp shots should go way up.
It wasn't richard, it was me taking photos of dancers. Your solution could probably work when you manage to move in the right speed along with a dancer. But we have an agreement. I take a position and hold that position for a while so that I don't distract them too much. So it's a special case here.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.