# 5D3 sharper images when using manual exposure (allegedly!)



## GuyF (Mar 11, 2014)

Just a quick question on behalf of a work colleague. I should say I'm very sceptical, but anyway.....

He uses a 5D3 and 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 to shoot football matches. Normally he would keep things at f2.8 (thanks to the near-constant Scottish gloom) and let the camera do the rest. Whilst pretty happy with those results, for whatever reason decided to go fully manual and constantly juggle aperture and shutter speed to suit. Auto ISO is not used. He claims (RAW) exposures need next to no tweaking regarding over/under exposure. Now here's the thing, he says images appear sharper as a result of using manual exposure compared to Av priority.

I said I doubted things being sharper unless he's just using an "on average" faster shutter speed thus reducing any shake. He's been taking football pics for years and should know the minimum shutter speed he can get away with and seems quite convinced of the improvement.

So, sharper images when using manual exposure - is he just fooling himself? The obvious thing is for him to set up a test chart and do an Av priority shot compared to a manual exposure one. Personally, I ain't buying it.

Any thoughts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2014)

He's not telling you the whole story. You _*can*_ get sharper RAW images with manual exposure, but only if you take the shots by pressing the shutter release on the battery grip instead of the body, while standing on your left foot, on Saturdays within three days of a full moon.


----------



## GuyF (Mar 11, 2014)

Yeah Neuro, kinda what I was thinking. Said I'd ask for a consensus. I feel more people will post similar things to yourself. Ah well......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2014)

On a serious note, the 70-200/2.8L IS II gets a bit sharper when stopped down (that's true for most lenses, although the 70-200 II doesn't improve all that much since it's excellent right from max aperture). Stopping down also reduces the vignetting (the 70-200 II has a fair bit wide open, and a standard UV/clear filter mount adds to vignetting, which is unusual for a tele lens). 

So, if he's using somewhat narrower apertures when setting exposure manually vs. Av mode fixed at f/2.8, there would be a bit more sharpness from that, and assuming some sort of lens profile is being applied to correct for vignetting in the RAW images, the increased exposure will increase noise at the edges of the frame, so some RAW converters also apply a bit of NR in those regions, which can cost a bit of sharpness.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2014)

There's another possible explanation as well - have him compare his shutter speeds. If he's using setting a low(er) ISO or using Auto ISO and in Av mode, he's probably getting lower shutter speeds and with a subject like football, there's definitely a difference between motion blur at 1/500s and 1/1000s or higher, which I presume he used in M mode. With most sports, 1/1000s is the minimum you want to use to freeze subject motion. The difference in motion blur may not be huge depending the difference in shutter speeds, but it's enough to make one photo look soft and the other sharp.


----------



## flowers (Mar 11, 2014)

There is no reason to use Av mode for anything. Manual exposure will always give better results and is not slower. You set the exposure at the beginning of the game and leave it at that. If something crazy like the weather turning from full sunshine to a thunderstorm happens you can easily adjust the shutter speed or aperture, takes no time at all. I don't think Av mode has any advantage and for football or other sports it makes no sense at all. For sports you would use Tv priority because shutter speed is more important to freeze motion, but again manual exposure is less of a hassle than Tv and EC. Human perception of sharpness is based on contrast. Auto exposure overexposes leading to less contrast and softer appearance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2014)

flowers said:


> There is no reason to use Av mode for anything. Manual exposure will always give better results and is not slower. You set the exposure at the beginning of the game and leave it at that. If something crazy like the weather turning from full sunshine to a thunderstorm happens you can easily adjust the shutter speed or aperture, takes no time at all. I don't think Av mode has any advantage and for football or other sports it makes no sense at all. For sports you would use Tv priority because shutter speed is more important to freeze motion, but again manual exposure is less of a hassle than Tv and EC. Human perception of sharpness is based on contrast. Auto exposure overexposes leading to less contrast and softer appearance.



Agree about using Tv as the preferred autoexposure mode. How much football have you shot? I've shot many games, and it's pretty common for part of the field to be in the shadow of the stands/bleachers. The action moves from sun to shade and back constantly, and autoexposure can be *very* helpful in that scenario (whether Tv mode or manual mode with Auto ISO). FWIW, much of my sports shooting was in the film days, when autoexposure was brand new, autofocus was way over my budget, and changing ISO on the fly was a pipe dream. 

As for, "Auto exposure overexposes," that shouldn't normally be the case. If your camera consistently overexposes in the autoexposure modes, perhaps it needs to be serviced.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 11, 2014)

flowers said:


> There is no reason to use Av mode for anything.



Ouch !


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2014)

flowers said:


> There is no reason to use Av mode for anything. Manual exposure will always give better results and is not slower. You set the exposure at the beginning of the game and leave it at that. If something crazy like the weather turning from full sunshine to a thunderstorm happens you can easily adjust the shutter speed or aperture, takes no time at all. I don't think Av mode has any advantage and for football or other sports it makes no sense at all. For sports you would use Tv priority because shutter speed is more important to freeze motion, but again manual exposure is less of a hassle than Tv and EC. Human perception of sharpness is based on contrast. Auto exposure overexposes leading to less contrast and softer appearance.



With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.

And try to image just how incredibly useful this is at a concert with mental flashing lights.

"No reason to use Av" whatever...


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.



Pretty sure that's only for the 1DX and even then only with the most recent firmware update. Previous bodies were, for no obvious reason, limited to 1/60th of a second for minimum shutter speed.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.
> ...



No, 1dx always had this function, the 1d4 also has this. "Set Shutterspeed range"

*edit* the 1d3 also has this function.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.
> ...


1/250s, but yes, for no apparent reason other than to annoy anyone needing faster shutter speeds


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.
> ...



Nope. You're correct in terms of the 'min shutter speed in Av mode' setting (which goes up to 1/250 s before the 1D X firmware v2). However, the ability to restrict the range for shutter speed and aperture (i.e., set a min and max) have long been a 1-series feature. Minimum can be set one stop short of the max possible, and vice versa. 

In Tv mode, it's nice when shooting a fast lens to be able to set a max aperture to maintain sufficient DoF, for example.


----------



## Dick (Mar 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> In Tv mode, it's nice when shooting a fast lens to be able to set a max aperture to maintain sufficient DoF, for example.



Then again, M mode with exposure compensation would more or less make the other modes pointless. Oh... 1DX has that too.


----------



## j1jenkins (Mar 11, 2014)

I have the exact same rig and while I can't speak for the Scottish gloom he mentions, I can speak for Av. I use AV quite a bit when shooting sports like baseball. I set the aperture to 3.5 and let the camera work the timing value. That aperture at 20' gives a nice sharp pic with great bokeh. For my own uses, it's great. Occasionally there is a pause while the body determines a value, but that might happen 1-2times in 1500 shots. I would love to see Canon push some of the 1D features mentioned above down to the 5D....but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2014)

Dick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In Tv mode, it's nice when shooting a fast lens to be able to set a max aperture to maintain sufficient DoF, for example.
> ...



You really think you can adjust with exposure comp between frames at 12 fps of a dude running in and out of the shadows or between flickering lights at a concert or the two combined?

I worry about comp/framing, AF , not exposure in a burst or when tracking a subject.


----------



## flowers (Mar 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason to use Av mode for anything. Manual exposure will always give better results and is not slower. You set the exposure at the beginning of the game and leave it at that. If something crazy like the weather turning from full sunshine to a thunderstorm happens you can easily adjust the shutter speed or aperture, takes no time at all. I don't think Av mode has any advantage and for football or other sports it makes no sense at all. For sports you would use Tv priority because shutter speed is more important to freeze motion, but again manual exposure is less of a hassle than Tv and EC. Human perception of sharpness is based on contrast. Auto exposure overexposes leading to less contrast and softer appearance.
> ...



I don't shoot sports so I happily give the floor to those who do, I just commented based on common sense applied to sports. Of course experience trumps my common sense. I have never used the Auto mode in my camera so I don't know if it overexposes or not. I've used the Av and Tv mode (which are Auto mode with a twist) a few times and based on that I'd say that the camera very rarely (if ever) gets it right out of the box and figuring out if you need + or - EC in each situation would probably be no less trouble than setting the exposure manually. I also don't shoot JPG unless someone is holding a gun to my head so someone being in a shadow is no problem if it's within the RAW latitude. Of course pushing is less desirable than pulling so setting the exposure correctly for the necessary latitude both ways is important. Auto ISO in manual mode is useful if your camera supports it properly. When it comes to concerts it depends on whether I'm shooting video or taking photos. I don't think anyone would even dare think of changing exposure during video, and during photos it's a consideration to itself if you want to chuck the photos in the shadows, fix them by dodging or curves or if you really want to get photos where the shadows are correctly exposed and the stage lights are either pure white or overexposed by so much they look like pastels (with a clipped red channel). The latter isn't necessarily the best option but a lot depends on whether the subject is wearing light or dark clothes. If the subject is wearing black then it's probably best to expose for the clothing and let the lights blow. If you shoot JPGs in challenging lighting situations like concerts I don't know what to say. If you have or rent a 1-D X you have nothing to worry about, my comment was more general and not dependent on the camera model. The minimum shutter speed up to 1/8000 feature is great. It's always best to nail the exposure exactly for most latitude (and less post processing) but it's not always worth it to give up control of the other variables because that can lead to missed shots just as well. The ability to set the minimum shutter speed to 1/250 is not much to brag about when shooting sports by the way, if you have the feature you should be able to set it a lot higher, otherwise it's little more than a gimmick and only marginally useful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2014)

flowers said:


> I have never used the Auto mode in my camera so I don't know if it overexposes or not. I've used the Av and Tv mode (which are Auto mode with a twist) a few times and based on that I'd say that the camera very rarely (if ever) gets it right out of the box and figuring out if you need + or - EC in each situation would probably be no less trouble than setting the exposure manually.


For Av, Tv and M+Auto ISO, I'd call all of them autoexposure modes - you're selecting one or two of the three exposure parameters, and the camera is adjusting the other(s) to give the metered exposure (modified by any applied EC).

I guess we have different ideas/experiences of the accuracy of the camera's metering. I have found that in most situations, the camera does a pretty good job - that's definitely model-specific, though. The T1i and 5DII didn't do as well as the 7D, and the 1D X is quite accurate (plus, with the 1-series you can apply AE Microadjustment to tweak the metered exposure to your liking, up to a full stop in 1/8-stop increments).



flowers said:


> I also don't shoot JPG unless someone is holding a gun to my head so someone being in a shadow is no problem if it's within the RAW latitude.


Depends on the shadows. Sometimes they're pretty extreme, e.g. (not my image):







I don't shoot jpg, but I believe it's not uncommon for deadline-driven sports photographers. 



flowers said:


> If you have or rent a 1-D X you have nothing to worry about, my comment was more general and not dependent on the camera model. The minimum shutter speed up to 1/8000 feature is great. It's always best to nail the exposure exactly for most latitude (and less post processing) but it's not always worth it to give up control of the other variables because that can lead to missed shots just as well.


Sometimes it helps to concentrate more on composition and timing than on exposure variables, to the extent that you can rely on the camera to handle those details. In many situations, a blown highlight or blocked shadow is preferable to missing the peak of action or cutting an athelete's limb out of the frame.




flowers said:


> The ability to set the minimum shutter speed to 1/250 is not much to brag about when shooting sports by the way, if you have the feature you should be able to set it a lot higher, otherwise it's little more than a gimmick and only marginally useful.


Agreed, and since they've added the feature to the 1D X (even though it didn't really need it, since it was possible with another setting), I hope that capability trickles down the line. 

I really don't think Canon had sports/action in mind for that feature. Rather, the intent of a minimum shutter speed in Av mode was to compensate for the fact that in an autoexposure mode, the camera applies the 1/FL 'rule' (or 1/1.6xFL for APS-C). So for example, zooming a 24-xx lens to the wide end on FF, in Av mode the shutter speed will drop to 1/25 s (and only then will the camera raise ISO, if that's set to Auto) - that means even 'still' people will have some subject motion blur. The min shutter in Av setting compensates for that, and 1/250 s is sufficient to stop motion blur for people moving 'normally'. At least that's what I think Canon was thinking...


----------



## flowers (Mar 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For Av, Tv and M+Auto ISO, I'd call all of them autoexposure modes - you're selecting one or two of the three exposure parameters, and the camera is adjusting the other(s) to give the metered exposure (modified by any applied EC).


It makes sense to call them all autoexposure modes, you're right.




neuroanatomist said:


> I guess we have different ideas/experiences of the accuracy of the camera's metering. I have found that in most situations, the camera does a pretty good job - that's definitely model-specific, though. The T1i and 5DII didn't do as well as the 7D, and the 1D X is quite accurate (plus, with the 1-series you can apply AE Microadjustment to tweak the metered exposure to your liking, up to a full stop in 1/8-stop increments).


That model specificity is what makes it something I'd rather not get used to unless for some reason I have to. 



neuroanatomist said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't shoot JPG unless someone is holding a gun to my head so someone being in a shadow is no problem if it's within the RAW latitude.
> ...


Actually, after I wrote that I realized that my mind was too much on nice diffuse shadows created by sunlight filtered through tree branches (conveniently soft and light enough) and I started thinking about some more extreme shadows. I admit that image you posted puts it into perspective, I've never seen that in real life (the type of shadow yes, but not the stadium or the game) so it didn't occur to me.


neuroanatomist said:


> I don't shoot jpg, but I believe it's not uncommon for deadline-driven sports photographers.


 In that case it's understandable, they probably want to print the photos as soon as possible.


neuroanatomist said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > If you have or rent a 1-D X you have nothing to worry about, my comment was more general and not dependent on the camera model. The minimum shutter speed up to 1/8000 feature is great. It's always best to nail the exposure exactly for most latitude (and less post processing) but it's not always worth it to give up control of the other variables because that can lead to missed shots just as well.
> ...


Oh, you're right. I think the problem is that I don't really shoot sports so I might be applying things to sports shooting that aren't applicable.



neuroanatomist said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > The ability to set the minimum shutter speed to 1/250 is not much to brag about when shooting sports by the way, if you have the feature you should be able to set it a lot higher, otherwise it's little more than a gimmick and only marginally useful.
> ...


You're probably right. Personally I'd prefer it if it didn't use the 1/fl rule exactly but gave it a bigger margin to begin with, assuming some movement rather than using the smallest possible value.


----------



## sanj (Mar 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> He's not telling you the whole story. You _*can*_ get sharper RAW images with manual exposure, but only if you take the shots by pressing the shutter release on the battery grip instead of the body, while standing on your left foot, on Saturdays within three days of a full moon.



hahahahahahahahahahaha. Neuro! Too funny.


----------



## sanj (Mar 12, 2014)

All other things being equal, sharpness is a result only off proper focus and appropriate shutter. 

Nothing to do with how exposure is calculated/set.


----------



## GuyF (Mar 12, 2014)

Thanks for all the comments.

Got further info from my colleague today - sticks to ISO 400 unless it's really bad light. Keeps shutter speed at 1/800th or faster. Reason for using Av and f2.8 was to ensure max isolation of subject from background - he wants to separate the player(s) on the ball from the distracting background of others on the pitch.

I suggested that the improved sharpness is simply a case of him having used smaller apertures without consciously realising at the time. I also pointed out the changing sharpness depending on where in the zoom range he is (including the changing DOF for a given aperture and distance to subject).

I've had to AFMA all my gear but he claims his lens doesn't need it. Hmmm, it could happen....

Thanks again.


----------



## flowers (Mar 12, 2014)

GuyF said:


> I suggested that the improved sharpness is simply a case of him having used smaller apertures without consciously realising at the time. I also pointed out the changing sharpness depending on where in the zoom range he is (including the changing DOF for a given aperture and distance to subject).


I have no doubt some of the perceived sharpness came from using smaller apertures. I don't know about the specifics of zoom lenses other than that they tend to be softest at the extremes (a 70-200 would be softest at 0mm and at 200mm)



GuyF said:


> I've had to AFMA all my gear but he claims his lens doesn't need it. Hmmm, it could happen....
> 
> Thanks again.


Actually, I think it sounds just as suspicious if you've had to afma ALL your gear. Are you sure your camera is okay or that your lens supplier isn't supplying you with lemons? I don't think it's normal that you don't get a single perfect lens. A big reason for buying high end lenses, among others, is that they tend to be better calibrated in the factory and the tolerances for quality control are higher.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

flowers said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > I've had to AFMA all my gear but he claims his lens doesn't need it. Hmmm, it could happen....
> ...


I guess I'm confused by both comments - first of all "had to AFMA all my gear" - we lived without AFMA for a while and were okay, so I don't think it has to be done. On the other hand, I have chosen to AFMA all of my lenses and all but one of them were in the +2 to +5 range and one was +9. Keep in mind that all of my AF lenses are f/1.2 to 2.8 and I calibrated extenders as applicable, I think that's pretty good.
To me that is more indicative of camera bodies that are slightly out of tolerance and lenses vs. having lemons, especially the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. 

The only lenses I've ever had that were at "0" were my 400 f/5.6 and my 70-200 f/4 IS, which is more a result of their aperture vs. some level of exceptional quality. Obviously Canon provided this capability because their manufacturing tolerances aren't tight enough to give a "0" for every lens/body combination out there, so I certainly wouldn't consider a lens a "lemon" if it needs some AFMA. I had a 135 f/2 that was beyond +20, so I sent it to Canon and they corrected the optical alignment, but it was still a +2 afterwards.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > GuyF said:
> ...



+1, to get optimal sharpness with a lens/camera combo, it almost always needs a +/- afma value. I've owned 5-6 bodies and 30+ lenses and only one copy of two lenses where no afma needed, and only on one body. If you have 6-7 lenses on one or two bodies, and claim none of them combos need afma, I dare say you are not doing the calibration well enough, or simply, happy with the slightly off results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2014)

I have three lenses that needed no adjustment on one body; each of them needed adjustment on two other bodies. In terms of absolute frequency, that's three lens+body combos out of ~50 combos tested.


----------



## flowers (Mar 13, 2014)

Viggo said:


> or simply, happy with the slightly off results.


This is certainly possible! I don't know to what accuracy you measure the results. I am happy if the AF works very well for practical results. I admit I don't measure if it works down to the last millimeter but if I focus on the eye and the eye is in focus I don't try to see if the focus is 0.5mm in front of or behind the eye if the eye is not blurry and not defocused, especially since I post process all my images. Sharpened/edge sharpened OOF area looks BAD. If you do your PP and it looks good (sharp, focused) then I don't think there's a difference if it's the tiniest bit off, if you can't see it in the final result (in practice).


----------



## Viggo (Mar 13, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > or simply, happy with the slightly off results.
> ...



Yes it depends on how much one care, I for one do not pay huge amounts of money to settle for sharp enough, when a little afma makes them the way they should be sharp like tack. 

The best and most accurate way to do it, by far, is FoCal.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2014)

Viggo said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


Agreed and with most lenses, the difference is subtle, but the f/1.2 lenses show considerable differences in just a plus or minus 2 adjustments.


----------



## GuyF (Mar 13, 2014)

I didn't get a 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 and 500mm f4 mk2 (amongst others) for shots to be "slightly off". If I feel tweaking the AMFA by +1 or -9 or whatever is necessary to get razor sharp results then I'm fine with that.

Other people can settle for less if they want.


----------



## Finvalid (Mar 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> He's not telling you the whole story. You _*can*_ get sharper RAW images with manual exposure, but only if you take the shots by pressing the shutter release on the battery grip instead of the body, while standing on your left foot, on Saturdays within three days of a full moon.



Haha, you just made my signature


----------



## jrista (Mar 14, 2014)

GuyF said:


> Just a quick question on behalf of a work colleague. I should say I'm very sceptical, but anyway.....
> 
> He uses a 5D3 and 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 to shoot football matches. Normally he would keep things at f2.8 (thanks to the near-constant Scottish gloom) and let the camera do the rest. Whilst pretty happy with those results, for whatever reason decided to go fully manual and constantly juggle aperture and shutter speed to suit. Auto ISO is not used. He claims (RAW) exposures need next to no tweaking regarding over/under exposure. Now here's the thing, he says images appear sharper as a result of using manual exposure compared to Av priority.
> 
> ...



Well, I have not read the entire thread, but there could be some truth to his story, problem is, he isn't giving you the whole story. Let's try to fill in the holes. There are three things that control exposure: Shutter, Aperture, ISO. None of these things are "neutral" in their impact to IQ, however. Shutter not only controls the duration of exposure, but also has an impact on the amount of motion blur. Aperture not only controls the quantity of light over time, but also depth of field. ISO not only controls the rate at which the image saturates, but can also exacerbate noise. 

In an auto exposure mode, you control ONE of these things (or, in the case of M+Auto ISO, two). Lets say your friend used to use Tv. He could then control shutter, but aperture and ISO are arbitrary factors. Depending on the needs of the scene, even a lens that is sharp at f/2.8 may not be sharp in a deep enough field, so if your shooting in lower light, you may end up with images that are sharp...in an extremely thin depth around part of your subject. Additionally, you might find that your images are noisier than you might have been able to achieve if you had total control over your exposure settings.

Av mode is similar. Again, you control one factor out of the three, and shutter speed and ISO become arbitrary factors. If you stop down your aperture to achieve the proper depth of field, your shutter might automatically end up too low, increasing motion blur. If you need f/8 for the proper DOF, depending on the capabilities of your camera and how the custom functions are configured, you might end up with a shutter that is MUCH too low, rather than an increase in ISO. You might have a low-noise image, but now you also have blur from camera shake. 

Now, before I move on, better cameras, like the 5D III and 1D line, often offer much more configurability with custom functions to guide the camera into making the kinds of choices you would more often, thereby reducing the chance that you might fall into one of the situations where the camera chooses wrong, and your IQ suffers as a result. 

There IS an argument for using manual mode to achieve sharper results. When you control every aspect of your exposure, you are also controlling every aspect of IQ. YOU control the shutter speed, and therefor have total control over whether you get motion blur or not. YOU control the aperture, and therefor have total control over whether the entire thickness of your subject is within your DOF. YOU control ISO, and therefor have total control over noise levels. 

If your friend was really referring to his ability to exactly choose, via instinct or that natural sense that accumulates along with experience, the right shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to maximize his IQ....then he is absolutely correct. You CAN get sharper images when using manual exposure. The kicker is that you have to have the skill to gauge all the various aspects of your scene and your exposure settings to actually set them right and achieve that maximum level of IQ. 

Personally, I use manual exposure mode for my bird and wildlife photography. I used to use Av, but I then I learned a bunch of new things, and I became aware of how to use manual mode properly to maximize IQ, on the fly, without having to actively think about it all that much. It's a technique that kind of comes along with a certain level of experience I think. With birds, I eventually got a sense of what apertures with what lenses I needed to get the right amount of the bird in the DOF, and at what minimum shutter I needed to freeze the bird's motion. I learned the range of ISO settings within which noise was acceptable and controllable in post. You also learn how to use the exposure meter at the bottom of the VF to help you, along with the brightness of various background factors, to gauge what your exposure needs to be (where the marker on the exposure meter SHOULD be pointing in order for exposure to be "correct" for that scene). 

Once you reach that point, you don't have to think as much about what your doing when it comes to exposure. You make quick, momentary judgments about where you think the exposure meter indicator should be, what DOF you need, roll some dials, and start taking shots. You also begin to understand that once you set your exposure for a given scene in known lighting, you don't need to change your exposure once it's set. Only when the lighting changes, or you change your scene (i.e. point your lens somewhere else) do you then have to recalculate and choose new settings...but again, that should all happen in a couple of seconds and be done before you really realize you did it.

So, your friend isn't wrong, he just wasn't telling you everything.


----------



## pwp (Mar 14, 2014)

flowers said:


> There is *no reason* to use Av mode for anything...


"_No Reason_" is a mighty big place...a touch dogmatic?

On a 1-Series you can turn off modes. Primarily I like to work either in Manual or Av, so the rest are disabled. So when I toggle the mode control, all I'll get is either M or Av. 

Last night I shot a swimming & diving championship event at a major swim stadium. The light levels vary slightly from end top end of the main pool, and Av is perfect is this situation. To achieve max shutter speed, I'm locked on f/2.8. Only the ISO or exposure compensation get adjusted. Earlier in the week I shot the final dress rehearsal of a stage production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. Naturally the lighting was all over the shop, as it should be for a stage production. Av was perfect. Track & Field athletics? Av please, especially under lights at night. In fact, just about any dynamic shooting situation where there are either subtle or substantial lighting variations, Av works for me.

-pw (Av fanboy)


----------



## sanj (Mar 14, 2014)

pwp said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > There is *no reason* to use Av mode for anything...
> ...



Works for me too. Perfectly. If I want to override it I use exposure compensation.


----------



## Badger (Mar 14, 2014)

> Actually, I think it sounds just as suspicious if you've had to afma ALL your gear. Are you sure your camera is okay or that your lens supplier isn't supplying you with lemons? I don't think it's normal that you don't get a single perfect lens. A big reason for buying high end lenses, among others, is that they tend to be better calibrated in the factory and the tolerances for quality control are higher.



I sometimes think there might be a misunderstanding of what AFMA is and why one would want to do it. If by some miracle all your lenses actually matched perfectly to your camera and needed 0 AFMA, there is a very good chance those same lenses might need some require some adjustment on a different (perfectly good) body and some different adjustments on a third (perfectly good) body. 
The need for AFMA is not an indictment on the quality of the lens or the body, it is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the lenses and bodies are created separately. AFMA is just an attempt to allow us to form a "more perfect union" between our individual bodies and lenses


----------



## digital paradise (Mar 14, 2014)

To the Av vs Tv comments. I prefer to use Av for sports and birding, if I'm not shooting in M. I prefer to control my DOF and keep an eye on the shutter speed rather than the other way around. Both accomplish the same thing, just a preference.


----------



## climber (Mar 14, 2014)

That green icon on the 5DmkIII mode dial is the best. 

Just joking


----------



## Skatol (Mar 14, 2014)

I returned my 5dIII and got a Rebel so I could use the handy Sports, Landscape and Macro settings :-*
Life is so much easier now, at least when I remember to change the mode.


----------

