So the camera lets me think I'm inputting a value of 1/50 when in reality it's going to use a value of 1/64?

On second thoughts, I think I can live with that .

I can think of times when you might want your shutter speed to coincide exactly with the frequency of the mains supply or the frequency of TV or video frame rate, but apart from that, methinks t'is not of any great import.

So the camera lets me think I'm inputting a value of 1/50 when in reality it's going to use a value of 1/64?

On second thoughts, I think I can live with that .

I can think of times when you might want your shutter speed to coincide exactly with the frequency of the mains supply or the frequency of TV or video frame rate, but apart from that, methinks t'is not of any great import.

I welcome his unique point of view. Those who do not are free to ignore the posts that do not interest them.

I don't think it is paranoia to suspect that most online discussions are infiltrated by people with hidden agendas. I have been approached with job offers to work as a troll in the field of food and agriculture, since I am knowledgeable on the subject, have good language skills, and there are commercial interests in the food industry who wish to infiltrate and surreptitiously influence the online discussions about food and farming issues. It is lucrative work, but I didn't go to work in agriculture for the money, and I passed on the offers. It is very rare now to see any online discussion about food and farming issues that is not dominated by what are most certainly paid operatives working undercover for various corporations and lobbying outfits.

Bipod's views on the camera industry are well thought out and well presented. You disagree. So be it. That does not make the other person a "troll" and it is not cause for personal attacks and insinuations. If you do not like these threads, why not stay off of them instead of disrupting them?

Now, I disagree with you om a couple of issues apparently. I thin k I have disagreed with you calmly and respectful. Is that OK with you, or in your view is that proper cause for you to once again make personal attacks against me?

Mike

It time someone talked about WHY exposure is so confusing.

It's because of the way manufacture's label camera settings. They don't apply base 2 logarithms
consistently.

There are two reasonable rules:
1. Each detent on a control (aperture, shutter, ISO, exposure compenstation) must be EXACTLY
twice (or half) the exposure of the previous detent; and
2 Each should be labeled in integers: ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....

If you do this consistantly, you get the Additive Photographic Exposure System (APEX)
which was standardized way back in 1960 (ASA standard ASA PH2.5-1960) and was used
in industry and by the military (where confusion is not OK).

EC knobs (and menus) generally follow both rules: No compensation is labeled "0". Increasing
exposure by one stop is labled "1". Decreasing exposure by one stop is labeled "-1". Anyone
confused by this? Pretty simple, right?

F-numbers follow Rule 1, but not Rule 2. The sequence 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, etc. is a lot more
complicated than 1,2,3,4,5... And you don't need to know the actual f-stop ratio unless you are
building a camera.

Shutter speeds are a mess. They follow neither rule. This sequence makes sense:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, .... This one doesn't: 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, .....
What's the rule for latter sequence, pray tell?

ISO speeds are given in two different sysems: ASA and DIN. Both follow Rule 1, but only DIN
follows Rule 2. The ISO "standard" is to use BOTH! (Sure sign of a gutless committee trying to
please everybody.) The ASA number isn't even logarithmic. And ASA 100 is DIN 21 -- why 21?
"Historical reasons".

Finally, Exposure values follow Rule 1 but not Rule 2 -- again for "historical reasons".
"Historical reasons" is a polite way of saying S.N.A.F.U.

Exposure is confusing because of the silly, stupid, inconsitent way in which cameras controls
are labeled.

Here's the "Sunny 16" rule in the traditional Tower of Babel system:

At approx. EV 15 and f/16, use shutter speed 1/ASA speed
for example:
At approx. EV 15 and f/16 and ASA 100, use 1/100th sec

(which of course, isn't even a detent on the shutter dial-it only has 125.)

Here the general rule in APEX:

Does this math confuse anybody? Dang simple, if you ask me.
So by subtracting SensitivityValue from both sides:

As usual, people are willing to update their hardware and software (= buy stuff) but not their thinking.
Picture a cave man holding a Nikon. "Og like take photos. But Og confused by exposure." No wonder!


For reference, here's the basic system, as standardized in 1960.

APEX SYSTEM (per ASA PH2.5-1960)

Note: this may differ from EXIF Version 2.2.

APERTURE

SHUTTER SPEED

The original APEX standard kept the irregular shutter times: 1, 1/2, 1/4,1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125....

In fact, some cameras are already calibrated to 1/16, 1/32, 1/64... Shutters are rarely accurate enough
to tell the difference except at 1/15 <> 1/16.

FILM/SENSOR SPEED



BRIGHTNESS

Again, the original standard kept the irregular shutter speeds, so it had to have
irregular brightnesses as well.

You are one funny guy. Do you actually believe your own claims? Do you think people are being paid to be on this site? That is paranoia.

If I am going to take you and Bipod seriously, I would believe that Bipod is the one who is here with an agenda. He puts down digital at every chance he has. According to him, only large format cameras can take sharp photos and capable of producing deep enough DOF. Maybe, just maybe, Bipod is a schill for a startup large format company and tries to get business by putting down smaller formats. He does that regularly. So do you think maybe he is the one doing it? I don’t see anyone doing what Bipod is doing towards large format photography.

I mean, did you realize that your photos are fuzzy?

Come on now, give me a break. Or are you being compensated by Bipod for defending him?