Originally posted by GUB I don't know whether ETTL is the correct term - it implies it is the opposite of ETTR and it isn't - it becomes relevant when increased Iso is needed - that is the point ETTR ceases to be relevant. But it needs a term - how about UII - utilising iso invariance.
Oh and I missed your question earlier on what MF glass I use on the K1. I chose the K1 to best use the leagacy glass collection I have. In fact the only prime AF lenses I have is a F50 1.7 and a DA40xs. The default lenses on the camera is anA28 2.8 , A50 1.7 and a Rikenon 105mm macro. But there is dozens of other lenses to play with.
UII sounds fine
Ok, so here's what I was taking from this thread and idea in principle;
- When letting the camera choose 'autoexpose' a dynamic range scene will often involve a section with blown out highlights, even if that's just a slither. By going under that recommended exposure given by the camera you avoid the clipping entirely, consequently also typically receiving the shot with a lower ISO that suggested.
- Because the shot is now under exposed, when post processing, bringing the EV value up to a level that is acceptable might still mean a level
less than suggested by the auto expose given by the camera. Therefore the picture overall could have less noise than what it was shot at if left in suggested exposure mode. For example; pretend the aperture and shutter speed cannot be altered for the scene, they are as they are needed to be to capture the right shot and are therefore fixed, but by going with the suggested exposure for the scene we are left with an ISO 1600. By pressing the +/- EV comp button and reducing - 2 EV, the screen gets very dark, harder to see, however the ISO is now showing 200 (or whatever, I'm guessing here). The shot is taken, for sure there are no blown out highlights anywhere (an additional bonus of using this strategy) and time to visit LR (or whatever). The EV value is now increased, but instead of pushing the full +2 back, the user finds +1.7 is enough, the shot is still ISO 200 but the added EV has brought back some noise, but overall that noise level is still less than if taken with suggested exposure and ISO 1600. The noise now feels like 800 ISO etc. Had you brought the exposure down from the suggested exposure ISO 1600, you'd still be stuck with ISO 1600 grain and blown out highlights in some of the scene.
Having shot for awhile with the K-1 now, I almost feel I'd rather take every shot slightly underexposed, regardless of the context, putting blinkies on and almost every shot taken the review is blinking (tho this is jpeg blinking and if it's not much then RAW is actually fine). But yeh a slightly underexposed image feels safer and prolly cleaner picture than what is often recommended.
Oh, I have a silver DA40xs en route, will look wicked on my silver KP
and I too have a A50 1.7, lovely little lens