Nice! He'll be coming back into Denver on 9-6 and I have a little chase planned. He'll be running parallel to I-70. I missed him the last two times out but am hoping to catch him this time.

I also got a mini 2 for father's day and have yet to fly it. I have another I've been learning with so I don't get the mini banged up before I am able to take advantage of those magnificent features.
Fortunately, I live in Colorado which is around 65% national forest where about the only restrictions are to not disturb the critters. Of course, the state and national parks are restricted but that leaves me an awful lot of open space to play in that's not a lot less desirable than in the parks. I don't do any kind of shooting around people so that's not a problem. There is always some sucker who will go out of his/her way to tell you what you can, shouldn't, and can't do. When that happens I just smile, nod, and carry on.

CHG_CANON and BebuLamar, thanks for the extended explanation. This stuff is way over my head but all things considered that both of you mentioned, I think what the gentleman I quoted was thinking that regardless of the camera and all the other considerations and potential diversions mentioned here, I got the simplistic sense that all he was saying is that the tonal value between 18% grey and white is +1.3 stops of light or EC so you dial that in regardless of all other considerations. Perhaps his approach is a bit general and overly simplistic.

Moving right along, since many have offered their technique with regard to ISO, so shall I, briefly. All the usual disclaimers apply - I'm not a pro, I only shoot for my satisfaction, it won't make it to NatGeo, etc., but I don't set an upper limit to the autoISO of my A7r3, for about a year now, and it goes up pretty high. I shoot in "M" mode, set shutter and aperture, let ISO roam, process my Raw images with LR, PS, and TopazAI, and if then I don't feel an image is worth keeping, even some shot in virtual darkness all the way up to 102,000 ISO, then is when I toss 'em. I have shots I really like that I'm sure a more perfectionitic person would likely toss out. I'm shameless, I suppose.

If I understand you right, I hear that cameras are programmed to use the lowest ISO for the situation given the aperture and shutter speed you have selected, basically what you say you do. So what do you do if a scene can't be shot with 100 ISO and a shutter speed too low to capture the scene or an aperture too open for enough depth of field? Do you just not take the shot or look for a scene that matches your preferred settings, or what? Do you pretend you're shooting film and are stuck with 100asa and helpless or do shoot anyway and accept a badly exposed image or do you start cranking up the ISO as the camera would until you can see you're getting a useable exposure? If so, why bother if that's what the camera does? What satisfaction are you getting from knowing you're doing what the camera does, that you paid big bucks for, only a lot slower?

Yep, he knows already - you missed it. It pays to read before you write. Makes it look like you ain't really "Beenthere."

CHG_CANON and BebuLamar

Your comments make me want to ask why then, would not each camera require a different shade of grey card to ensure we get white but, but, we only have one grey card? What am I missing here? Asking for a friend...

Thanks. It isn't clear to me why constant neutralization of the built-in tendency for cameras to seek to produce 18% grey to ensure white is camera dependent. And if all cameras do seek to produce 18% grey, or as some contend, closer to 13% grey, why, barring a defect in individual cameras, would the constant EC setting of +1.3 need to vary from camera to camera?

I recently read where a pro said he uses "M" mode and auto ISO and dials in a 1.3 EC and holds those settings for almost every shot. His rational is that, since digital works best when exposed to the right (ETTR), white resides at that 1.3 EC setting so you don't get grey whites, you don't blow out reasonable highlights, and you don't have to keep fiddling with the controls except to change the intended effect such as a requirement for a faster shutter speed or a more open or closed aperture. I've used his technique some, especially when there's an overabundance of white in a shot like when the ground is covered with snow. It often becomes a bit fiddly with the shadows in a shot. Has anyone tried that technique. What would be reasonable arguments against it?

Some Elmer's, a few staples, a little paint, and...

You might want to scroll up and read my post above yours. Paypal, in theory, matches your statement but they have some idiots working there making decisions about claims who don't have a sense of traditional redress in cases of fraud and scams and "once we make our decision it is final and there is no appeal."

It has become totally a crap shoot to buy anything at a reduced price no matter where you buy it from. Scam artists are taking advantage of the fact that there ARE indeed some instances where a person can catch a break on the price of an item when it appears to be "too good to be true." I have bought several things via Facebook Marketplace and Instagram adverts and have yet to buy anything from either place that has not been a petty scam which I'm sure adds up for the scammers. All my purchases were with Paypal and I have had to fight with them to get a refund, been turned down three times when it is clear I've been scammed and had to repeal and argue with them to get redress. The scammers are using the adverts copied from the legitimate merchants and either sending a cheap substitute product or no product at all. The scammers convolute their company name, address, etc., from the original advert, send you a tracking number under another name, bill Paypal under another name, and the bogus product arrives to you either with no return address or a different name and address than previous correspondence, email, etc. If you try to contact the support number given and you're lucky enough to not have your email returned for "no such address" or "there was an error in the process," you get a reply reassuring you that your product is legitimate and "on the way" but it still may never arrive. Your tracking is for China Post and your tracking facility is a third party. Once your package arrives at a USPS facility it gets a USPS tracking number but if there is no package sent or if it's a bogus product it makes no difference if you can track it or not. Paypal forces you to make contact with the seller in an attempt to get redress and the company tells you if you return the merchandise they will refund what you paid minus the shipping and you have to pay the return shipping which is at a rate often greater than the cost of the product you bought. Paypal is often a joint culprit in this process because they fail to vet the merchant. These Chinese scammers are not just hurting the buyers - they are also making it impossible for a legitimate liquidator to get rid of their merchandise in case such as bankrupt stock disposal. I don't know what the answer is and I don't know how it's happening but somehow these Chinese scammers are making some money out of this process or they wouldn't be doing it and they're doing it with Paypal' help even if Paypal isn't aware of the fact they are complicit.

A few months back there were some huge adverts scattered around about a warehouse located in California that accepted and handled all the "returns" from Amazon, Walmart, Target, etc., was "bundling" photo equipment in mystery bundles and you could buy a "box full" for $39.95 and it might contain a returned camera with multiple kit lens or it might contain just a bunch of accessories, straps, filters, flashes, etc., but guaranteed it would be worth more than what you paid for the box - all major credit cards, Paypal, Venmo, Google Pay, etc., available. The payment method has traditionally been the tipoff to a scam but no longer. All these legitimate credit forms are being compromised with this stuff. Being a bit of a gambler, I bought two of these boxes and the process I outlined above was set in motion. A month later I sent an email to "support" and got the runaround - "rest assured and please be patient, the boxes is on the way."

Now, if you buy several items within a certain time frame so you're waiting on several items to arrive, which I often do especially during the pandemic and no local shopping, and you don't keep meticulous records of what you're supposed to receive, when, from whom, and where, with the convolution described above, it can be almost impossible to figure out what you have received and from whom. I kept waiting to receive these two one cubic boxes full of goodies and I received two little envelops, one with a "cube camera" I can buy for $6 and the other a small envelop with a child's ring worth about $1.50 neither from an address mentioned in any advert I had responded to. I complained and the process began -"send it back and..." the process I outlined above.

I WILL NOT buy anything else advertised on Facebook Marketplace or Instagram which is going to hurt those who are legitimate. For those of you who like to dump YOUR morality on others by saying "you're a damn fool and deserve to be scammed" because there is no such thing as a bargain and "you get what you pay for," you are the one being screwed in life a little bit at a time every time you pay full price for something because there are legitimate bargains out there and have been for many years. Bonafide liquidators who help dispose of bankrupt stock are vital part of our society and there are many, many people who sell very valuable stuff way underpriced due to ignorance, negligence, and often even on purpose and I have been the beneficiary of their generosity on many, many occasions. To be sure, there are times when it's better to not avail yourself of those bargain situations but there are some highly valuable rewards for shopping secondary markets if you know what you are doing. This thing that's going on with the Chinese scammers needs to be shut down but apparently it'll take time for the likes of Paypal, et. al., to see the pattern and put a stop to it.

In the meantime, the scammers are altering the benefits to those attempting to utilized a traditional necessary alternative method to the normal retail process who have something they MUST sell and those who would be their customers trying to maximize their buying power and keeping our landfills from overflowing in the process. To me and many people like me, it is the person who always pays the highest price they can find for something they want is the idiot here who is willing to pay good money unnecessarily for something they can get cheaper and I'm not even a borderline skinflint. Think twice before you say "you get what you pay for" when you are meaning to say that if you don't pay top dollar you cannot get something that's of value equal to that for which you pay top dollar. That is an overly conservative statement that is just not factually correct and make no mistake about it, regardless of what our official government policy is, we are allowing foreign sources to alter our way of life and our commerce methods in this country. They are taking unfair advantage of our traditional mode of "giving the benefit of doubt," and "playing by the Marquis of Queensbury's rules" with regard to our respect for our fellow man and the concept of fairness. We are within a hair of being dependent on the Chinese because we have allowed them to produce too many things that we traditionally need in our society as it currently exists and we have no alternative but to be at their mercy or do without.

Sure, I don't have to have "mystery packages" and I'm "broke from sucking them eggs" but the worst part is that our society and traditions are being systematically broken down. It hasn't been long ago that it was not easy to get a merchant's credit card account from the likes of Visa, Mastercard, and American Express even if you've lived in the U. S. all your life and wanted to start a legitimate business and now apparently every petty Chinese scam artist is qualified???

...and here I was thinking them New York birds sure must fly funny. Phew!

Yep, like any other kind of photography, the technique you use depends on the nature of the action and what you want to convey.

I wasn't and haven't been searching for anything to do with Topaz. I've been content to use the non-updated versions I have and wasn't planning to update anymore so the only thing they may have detected is that I wasn't playing the new game in a manner convenient to them and I took it to be a need for a donation and served one up in appreciation for all the previous years of satisfied service from them.

Your last comment appears to support a belief that we end users "own" software which would be contrary to the reality - we as users never own their software - we merely pay for a license to use it and how, with Topaz, that differs from Adobe is a matter of semantics and pretty meaningless. They've figured a way to have a renewable source of income and it is in our better interest to play along so they don't go out of business, something that would not be a good thing for most end users. At 84 I figure I'll be the one out of business before most software producers. My association with computers began in the late '60s as a programmer/analyst. I have done my fair share and I may even have an even greater appreciation for what they do than many other folks might. As a software junkie I appreciate every bit of the effort that someone else does that produces software that performs a useful task I want to get done. They usually earn their keep.

Sounds like we enjoyed equal treatment this time around except they offered me a discount price of $63 for the upcoming year's updates as opposed to the $99 they want from you, not exactly equal treatment, I'd say.