[K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on...

"Sarah Brown" <sarahlizzy.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:na4ba3-b09.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...

>
> I've not used Nikon's system, so what does it do differently that gets me
> something I'm not getting now? As it is, autoexposure seems to work, flash
> autoexposure seems to work, and I can combine them or not depending on
> what
> mode I put the camera in. I'm quite happy to believe that Nikon does
> something much better, but what you've said so far is a bit non-specific.

Sooner or later Sarah, you'll discover Tony Polson is a quoter of printed
information. When you pose such a question to him, he is unable to answer it
due to lack of practical knowledge and goes away. Sad but true.

On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent flash
control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:12:27 GMT, "ian lincoln" <dragonslayer.RemoveThis@whocares.com>
wrote:

>
>Sony manufacture carl zeiss to CZ designs and specs. CZ don't actually do
>the manufacture for them.
>
Do you have any evidence (please note that unfounded opinion or supposition is
not evidence) that what you have stated is true? Neither CZ nor Sony agree with
your conclusion, with both insisting that CZ makes the lenses in partnership
with Sony, and Sony makes the rest of the cameras. CZ's corporate information
website states that they operate an Asian facility, BTW. And Sony makes no claim
that they manufacture any lenses, whether CZ or other brands.

If you have any evidence to support your contention, please produce it.
Otherwise, most reasonable people will be forced to conclude that what you have
written is in the same vein as other demonstrably false statements of yours.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Douglas <reply DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:
>
> On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent flash
> control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.

Minolta and Pentax also have excellent flash systems. Pentax actually
won a magazine contest over Nikon for flash accuracy (sorry I can't
remember details). As a Minolta user, I found that wireless flash
wasn't very accurate especially at close range, but regular TTL was
pretty good. Also from what I heard, flash features on the K-M 7D
were not fully developed.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

Douglas wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:7alAf.15030$V.829@fed1read04...
>
>>
>> I've not heard this described anywhere until reading this post...but
>> that's exactly what I do as well.
>> -Mark
>>
> We are all agreed then? The basic functionality of a Canon EOS DSLR
> has to be ignored in order to obtain correct flash exposures.

No. You're still relying on the flash to set output levels.
All you're doing is taking control of shutter and aperture...and letting the
flash compensate for this.
This is certainly not the same as non-use of Canon's flash system.
I get very good results this way.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

In article <82a5t11rrragbco0amaevfdkgn16lg696s DeleteThis @4ax.com>, Tony Polson
<tp DeleteThis @nospam.co.uk> writes
>
>Canon still has some catching up to do. However, in the meantime,
>using M mode works well enough.
>
Tony, having seen various descriptions of the Nikon flash system in
various pages and compared it to the Canon system (as described on
various pages), I can't think of any reason why it is superior - can you
give an example?

As one example, I used to take a lot of photographs in smoke filled
rooms. In the early days when I used bulbs, I had to allow at least one
and a half stops for the atmospheric loss (in both directions). I fail
to see how the Nikon system would be superior to the Canon system (or
even the original Olympus TTL system) under such circumstances - in
fact, from what I know of the Nikon distance based system it would
require conscious manual intervention to prevent underexposure. So in
this regard, Canon and Olympus would appear to be superior.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

In article <ti6aa3-7k6.ln1.TakeThisOut@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Sarah Brown
<sarahlizzy.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes
>I
>don't understand why anyone would expect to get good results trying to use
>the flash for primary illumination while the camera is still trying to
>expose the scene using ambient light (as it will in Av and Tv mode). What am
>I missing here?
>
>Puzzled of Cambridge

Nomenclature used in alternative systems.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

In article <pLpAf.223140$V7.205310@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
<reply DeleteThis @the.group> writes
>
>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>news:7alAf.15030$V.829@fed1read04...
>
>>
>> I've not heard this described anywhere until reading this post...but
>> that's exactly what I do as well.
>> -Mark
>>
>We are all agreed then? The basic functionality of a Canon EOS DSLR has to
>be ignored in order to obtain correct flash exposures. Wonderful.
>
Cobblers - what has to be ignored is the Canon nomenclature. The
functionality is still there, but how you access it requires
familiarisation with the system. Perhaps I managed to do this better
than you because coming from a 30 year old system I was expecting to
find major changes. Well, I guess that some old fogeys aren't stuck in
the mud as much as you kids are!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy.RemoveThis@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>OK, tell me more. If I want to combine ambient exposure and flash exposure
>with the 5D, I'll select one of the autoexposure modes, select EC and FEC
>appropriately, and that pretty much does what I want. If I'm using flash as
>the main source of illumination, I actually want AE turned off, which is why
>selecting manual mode is the obvious thing to do.
>
>I've not used Nikon's system, so what does it do differently that gets me
>something I'm not getting now? As it is, autoexposure seems to work, flash
>autoexposure seems to work, and I can combine them or not depending on what
>mode I put the camera in. I'm quite happy to believe that Nikon does
>something much better, but what you've said so far is a bit non-specific.

The Nikon system works flawlessly whether you are using flash as the
sole source of illumination or as a fill to ambient. The Canon system
doesn't work consistently in fill mode, balancing ambient and flash,
and there is simply no predictability as to the manner in which it
doesn't work. That's my experience, plus that of several colleagues
shooting with either the Canon EOS 5D or the 1Ds Mk II.

OK, Canon's system works fine if you are using flash as the sole
source of illumination. But so does any old Metz flash in non-TTL
auto mode, which was the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry if I
didn't make that clear the first time.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

>
> It's the same tripod, the same lens - all that has changed is the camera
> body, and that is almost twice the mass (540g vs 950g inc. battery), so it
> is one heck of a lot more shutter inertia to cause a problem.
>
> One of the few disappointments I have with the 5D.
> --
Few disappointment?
This effect in itself guarantees a large number of fuzzy pictures at shutter
speeds other cameras are quite comfortable with. Using high ISO numbers to
offset the effect by raising the shutter speed is self destructive. The
higher the ISO, the less apparent detail the sensor captures.

Even when you under expose in an attempt to overcome the situation, the
mechanics of the camera seem to produce as much or more shadow noise as
you'd get at higher ISO anyway. I'm not saying this camera is a backward
move but apart from providing the wide angle of view we are accustomed to
from 35mm days, there is no positive in owning one of these over priced
cameras compared to other offerings around the same price.

Canon have simply reacted to market pressure and released a FF DSLR somewhat
reduced in quality and life expectancy compared to their entry level
Professional cameras. Not really good enough at the price they command.
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

"Bill Tuthill" <can.RemoveThis@spam.co> wrote in message news:43d513cf@news.meer.net...
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Douglas <reply.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
>>
>> On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent flash
>> control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.
>
> Minolta and Pentax also have excellent flash systems.

Canon does, too. People who figure out that Canon flash is a spotmetering
system (and know how to use a spotmeter) get excellent exposure every time.
People who don't know how to use one of the most basic and most powerful
tools in photography complain.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Bill Tuthill" <can.RemoveThis@spam.co> wrote in message
> news:43d513cf@news.meer.net...
>> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Douglas <reply.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent
>>> flash control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.
>>
>> Minolta and Pentax also have excellent flash systems.
>
> Canon does, too. People who figure out that Canon flash is a
> spotmetering system (and know how to use a spotmeter) get excellent
> exposure every time. People who don't know how to use one of the most
> basic and most powerful tools in photography complain.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I think that's a pretty accurate description, David, and a good way of
explaining it.
This is one more reason I hate that anything below the 1 series and 5D have
spot meters.
-But one can still similarly dictate the flash response with other bodies,
if to a lesser degree...
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... 

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm David J. Littleboy <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>
> "Bill Tuthill" <can.TakeThisOut@spam.co> wrote in message news:43d513cf@news.meer.net...
> > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Douglas <reply.TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
> >>
> >> On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent flash
> >> control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.
> >
> > Minolta and Pentax also have excellent flash systems.
>
> Canon does, too. People who figure out that Canon flash is a spotmetering
> system (and know how to use a spotmeter) get excellent exposure every time.
> People who don't know how to use one of the most basic and most powerful
> tools in photography complain.

If you are happy with just spot metering - and fairly limited choice of spot
for the flash system - the sure you get all. But shouldn't a 21st century
flash system pull a bit more weight than that?

>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on...