30D v 350D Metering
 

Attached are two pics taken within a couple of minutes of each other with the same lens. both are evaluated metering, one shot, f8 - Shot in RAW but no processing other than resize and saved as a level 6 jpeg.Not a very technical test but it bares out what I suspected. There is no doubt in my mind that the 30D under exposes by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop when compared to the 350D. I have found that I have to dial in a +2/3 when using my new 30D. Should I be concerned about this or this to to be expected with different Cameras.

Thanks
Roy C

Hi Roy, I have similar findings with the 30D, I also am tending to dial in + 1/3 - 2/3 EV, this camera behaves differently to my previous Nikons. Going by the Histogram on the 30D when set to 0 EV the peak is mostly to the left so this is what I go buy to evaluate if I need to ad EV which most of the time do. I have noticed looking a lot of 30D pics on galleries do look underexposed by 1/3 - 2/3 when EV is set to 0.

pic below + 1/3 EV.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...500&ppuser=146

Cheers

Thanks for replying Nick. I was thinking of sending the Camera back but after playing with it a bit more I think it is ok. I always shoot in RAW so pushing the exposure slightly is no big deal but it is nice to get it right in the Camera.
I have been out today with the 17-40 lens and exposure look fairly good, maybe 1/3 under. I have noticed it more when using Partial metering with my birding lens but dialing in + 2/3 has done the trick. I think I will have to start looking at the histogram a bit more.

That photo of yours is very nice but I notice on the exif data that EV comp is 0.

Cheers
Roy

Hi Roy,

Yep I noticed that as well, but the true exif is +0.33EV using opanda and looking at the original file which I have at home.

Opanda:- Exposure Bias Value = +0.33EV

Maybe WPF is not extracting the EXIF properly, I am fairly sure was ok with my Nikon files?

I find I use the histogram and highlights display more and more these days now I am getting an understanding what it actually means and does. You can't rely on in camera automatic metering and what the pic looks like on the camera screen.

Cheers

Not sure about comparison, but have learnt that the evaluative metering on the 350D can be fickle, ie depends on just how far away exposure of the focus point is from the background, and now tend mostly to use manual, wave it around a bit and then decide final speed/aperture combination

not that im that camera clever, but ive noticed my 350d is taking slightly dark pictures and ive been dialling in +1/3 for most pictures!

Roy, those two shots are no good as examples. You will get exactly the same result taking those two shots even with the same camera.

This is a moderately difficult exposure situation you have, though common enough. You have a dark(ish) foreground and a bright sky, with (in this case) the horizon almost straight across the middle.

Compare the two shots side-by-side or flick between them. In the first shot, the foreground is exposed correctly, the sky is a bit too bright. In the second shot, the sky is exposed correctly, the foreground is too dark. Notice that in the first shot (foreground correct) the horizon in centred; in the second shot (foreground too dark) the horizon is above centre - i.e., the camera is metering off the sky.

So, in both cases, the camera has done the right thing, it's just metering off different things depending on what you point it at.

I initially found my new 400D was under-exposing around 1/3 or 1/2 a stop (compared to my 20Ds). I started by adding a half-stop of EC, which was often too much. Then I went to a third of a stop, which was better, but still upredictable and annoying. Then I switched from partial metering to evaluative, with no EC, and got better results again. I still don't think the 400D gets exposure as right as often as the 20Ds do, but it no longer annoys me as much as it used to.

Better to be under exposed than over.All my cams are set to under expose by one third.It is easier to up the contrast in the editing prog,than try to sort out out overblown highlights.

There is a very big school of thought that you should 'expose to the Right' to get the best Dynamic Range. I saw a thread on this subject a while ago and it certainly seems as if most Pro's follow this rule. Since I have been doing this I get much better results esp. with bird photography. What you should be aiming for is to expose to the right as much as possible (without blowing the highlights of important features of course). Shooting to the right is done to make sure that you capture the most data you can for an image. 1/2 the available data is in the far right stop of the histogram.
If you do a Google on 'Expose to the right' you will see lots of hits on the subject. The following link has a very useful table on the subject.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml

Roy I think a great deal depends on what you photograph, my main area is macro with a high percentage of flower shots and like Christine I expose to the left as IMO you just cannot afford to "blow" the highlights on flowers or for that matter bugs.

Everything I've read on exposure says expose to the right, but it just does not work for me.