Why use M when you have A?

[icassell]

I've come full circle. When I started (in 35mm) I did almost everything with Aperture priority (I owned one of the first 35 mm cameras with Aperture/Shutter Priority -- The Minolta XD-11). As I got more experienced, I went to Manual more and more to learn what the camera was doing. When I got a dSLR 3 years ago, I started with Aperture priority most of the time and then went to Manual exclusively. In the interval, having learned more about what my camera is capable of performing, I have now gone back to using Aperture and Shutter priority more and more. I think the bottom line is that everyone who wants to get better should learn how to do Manual exposure control so they know how to use it when they need it. On the other hand, I don't think it is always needed.

I also used to exclusively choose my ISO manually. Now I will occasionally use Auto ISO.

 

[inTempus]

This is why Nikon came up with the Auto ISO setting that Canon refused to implement for so long..

...and what does this little dig on Canon have to do with the discussion at hand or the OP's question?

Let's make this one multiple choice.

A) Nothing
B) Nodda
C) All of the above

 

[NateWagner]

I vote C.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The argument from the AV/TV side is that you can do all of the same things as in M just by dialing in Exposure compensation to change the automatic variable as long as you are doing so within about a +-2 stop range. Beyond that exposure compensation will not help and you would need to use M.

Maybe I missed it while reading, but what would be the reason that the exposure compensation function is limited to a +/- 2 stop range? For practical discussion it's going to do the same thing as what your thumb would do in manual, I just don't quite see how it becomes ineffective to use it past 2 stops.

 

[fiveoboy01]

This is why Nikon came up with the Auto ISO setting that Canon refused to implement for so long..

...and what does this little dig on Canon have to do with the discussion at hand or the OP's question?

Let's make this one multiple choice.

A) Nothing
B) Nodda
C) All of the above

And why did you pick ONE sentence(which is a FACT) out of this whole thread?

A) Start a fight with Derrel
B) Start an argument with Derrel
C) Start a debate with Derrel

I like ya Tharsmen, but he was just stating a fact. His brand preference is well-known, and he bases that preference on facts and not fanboy-ism.

 

[NateWagner]

The argument from the AV/TV side is that you can do all of the same things as in M just by dialing in Exposure compensation to change the automatic variable as long as you are doing so within about a +-2 stop range. Beyond that exposure compensation will not help and you would need to use M.

Maybe I missed it while reading, but what would be the reason that the exposure compensation function is limited to a +/- 2 stop range? For practical discussion it's going to do the same thing as what your thumb would do in manual, I just don't quite see how it becomes ineffective to use it past 2 stops.

The reason it becomes ineffective to use beyond two stops (or maybe 3) is that the camera will not let you dial in more than a +-2 (or perhaps 3 depending on camera, not sure about Nikons) stop exposure compensation.

 

[NateWagner]

Also, in reality most of Derrel's argument had nothing to do with task at hand.

Even though perhaps true that the Auto ISO was come up with to make the AV/TV modes more useful (which it does if done well) It still has nothing to do with AV/TV vs. M which is in my understanding what this whole discussion has been about the entire time.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The argument from the AV/TV side is that you can do all of the same things as in M just by dialing in Exposure compensation to change the automatic variable as long as you are doing so within about a +-2 stop range. Beyond that exposure compensation will not help and you would need to use M.

Maybe I missed it while reading, but what would be the reason that the exposure compensation function is limited to a +/- 2 stop range? For practical discussion it's going to do the same thing as what your thumb would do in manual, I just don't quite see how it becomes ineffective to use it past 2 stops.

The reason it becomes ineffective to use beyond two stops (or maybe 3) is that the camera will not let you dial in more than a +-2 (or perhaps 3 depending on camera, not sure about Nikons) stop exposure compensation.

Thanks for the explanation, I thought that's what you were getting at but I didn't want to assume. My D300 has a +/- 3 stop range, but I never use that much. If you're using 2-3 stops of exposure compensation to get that far off, then you probably should be using manual anyways, or you're screwing up

 

[Derrel]

Also, in reality most of Derrel's argument had nothing to do with task at hand.

Even though perhaps true that the Auto ISO was come up with to make the AV/TV modes more useful (which it does if done well) It still has nothing to do with AV/TV vs. M which is in my understanding what this whole discussion has been about the entire time.

Nate, you asked a question about using TV when shooting sports action.I gave you a rather long, detailed answer to the question.

Perhaps if you re-read my description of how to approach shooting action sports, you know, the answer to the question YOU asked about, you'll find some very valuable tips on how and WHY using Tv is not the preferred approach.

 

[NateWagner]

ok, did you actually post any images? I've refreshed a few times and nothing is showing up.

Anyway, I don't know that it really matters, because even if you like it better in manual, whatever you achieved could most likely be also accomplished by adjusting the exposure compensation while in AV/TV.

 

[NateWagner]

Also, in reality most of Derrel's argument had nothing to do with task at hand.

Even though perhaps true that the Auto ISO was come up with to make the AV/TV modes more useful (which it does if done well) It still has nothing to do with AV/TV vs. M which is in my understanding what this whole discussion has been about the entire time.

Nate, you asked a question about using TV when shooting sports action.I gave you a rather long, detailed answer to the question.

Perhaps if you re-read my description of how to approach shooting action sports, you know, the answer to the question YOU asked about, you'll find some very valuable tips on how and WHY using Tv is not the preferred approach.

actually Derrel I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION. I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS.
Quote: Originally Posted by Dominantly
In a scenario where you were say, shooting a dog that was jumping obstacles, would you prefer to shoot in Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, or would you dial in your exposure previous to the jump in Manual, and shoot freely, knowing your shots are going to be consistent?


feel kinda stupid now? I suppose you should have gone back and checked. hmm...

p.s. it's ok, every body makes mistakes

 

[NateWagner]

Also, TV may not be the preferred approach to you, but it is to some. For example, what you suggested was building a buffer with the ISO so that the shutter speed can always be high enough etc. while maintaining a high enough DOF that you don't have to worry about focus.

But, you can do the exact same thing in TV. You build in a buffer with a high enough ISO that you're running at say f/11 or f/14 and have a 3/4 stop range before you drop below f/4. It's doing the exact same thing you were talking about in reverse. AND, you have an extra stop or two anyway that you can pull up in post from an under exposed shot that you can't do if your shot is too blurry in AV.

I'm not saying TV is the only way to go, but if your main concern is not DOF but instead is the shutter speed it can work just fine.

Besides that, I thought it was slightly humorous that you went from suggesting the person was using a 300 2.8 (uncommon unless its a wildlife or paid sports photog) to saying on no they have a variable aperture 70-300 3.5-5.6 like so many people have these days.

 

[inTempus]

This is why Nikon came up with the Auto ISO setting that Canon refused to implement for so long..

...and what does this little dig on Canon have to do with the discussion at hand or the OP's question?

Let's make this one multiple choice.

A) Nothing
B) Nodda
C) All of the above

And why did you pick ONE sentence(which is a FACT) out of this whole thread?

A) Start a fight with Derrel
B) Start an argument with Derrel
C) Start a debate with Derrel

I like ya Tharsmen, but he was just stating a fact. His brand preference is well-known, and he bases that preference on facts and not fanboy-ism.

Because he has to toss in a snark about Canon even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Hell, it doesn't even sharpen his point he was trying to make. It's simply an out of the blue jab at Canon, as usual.

I guess this would be the appropriate time to mention Nikon refused for years to put AF motors in lenses. But wait, that that has nothing to do with anything. But hey, it's a fact as you put it.

His snark is intended to draw the ire of Canon shooters. Perhaps he doesn't even know when he does it... he probably wakes up in the morning and thinks "I want some oat meal, God Canon sucks". Who knows. But the fanboyism could be turned down a notch or two. It's worn out.

 

[inTempus]

Oh, and many of his "facts" for his preferences have been proven inaccurate by me.

Nikon has quality control, Canon doesn't. False.
Canon needs micro-adjustment, Nikon doesn't. False.
Canon suffers from decentered lenses, Nikon doesn't. False.
Canon's lenses have cat's eye bokeh and Nikon's don't. False.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

He posts inaccurate info and is forever taking cheap shots at Canon when it's completely unwarranted. I can understand why a fellow Nikon shooter turns a blind eye to his constant jabs, you probably think it's funny.

I don't, I find it tiresome and annoying.

 

[fiveoboy01]

No, I don't find it funny, I just don't care.

You shouldn't either, unless you have some sort of insecurity about the brand you chose.

Remember it's only bait if you take it.

Another option is the ignore button. I use it quite often. It actually lowers my heart rate