On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:37:10 GMT, ShotByRaoul@hotmail.com (Raoul Lifschitz) wrote:

>>Yes, it can - the exposure shifts are quite smooth
>>in AE compared with ME...

>And yet if you use the button on the side of the camcorder to switch between
>auto iris and manual, the change is always seamless & yet always indicated as a
>(half) stop value. So unless the camera uses fractions of stops that it
>doesn't display, and unless the camcorder displays stop values that are only
>close but not actually the ones used ...

Yes - this is common in newer still cameras, also, where the
AE can produce more accurate exposures than ME due to the
greater number of exposure increments available, yet the
exposure indication is in rather large chunks, to the
nearest one (easier to indicate digitally, otherwise the
indicator itself would be more complex, or need to be
analogue). You have answered the question in the five
lines above - the exposure is obviously determined in auto
by divisions smaller than the indicated 1/2 stop, or what
you observed would not be possible. Same with AE-mode -
since the exposure changes occur smoothly in AE, but not
in ME, the increments available are necessarily smaller than
indicated on the scale. The focus is similar in that the
"indications" are not accurate - but with focus, they don't
even bother with indications, accurate or otherwise. Same
with WB in auto and manual modes (except for the presets).
As I was saying, these are primarily auto-control
cameras...;-) Funny - a ways back when some of us were
discovering how good these little cameras could be, the
"pros" argued that they were useless since they were
primarily "uncontrollable" automatic cameras; now, the
"pros" argue that these are great little manual cameras
(or at least useable...;-). Next step: realizing that the
auto modes of the best actually work really well, and can
often produce better results than using manual modes...;-)
(BTW, in my still-photo days, I was pretty much a die-hard
manual-controls-only shooter - but I now use AF/AE SLRs
that finally actually do work well in full auto mode,
saving me one heck of a lot of grief and time while
working with them. Same for the VX-2000...)

>No argument, the auto exposure system works very well, but if it works as you
>believe this has implications for work method: It suggests that when using
>'manual' mode you should make liberal use of the auto on/off switch on the side
>of the camera, as this _may_ give you access to quarter stops unavailable by
>switching to manual first & then dialing up the stop you want.

Yes. And the increments may be finer than 1/4 stop - I don't
know... (the smoothness would indicate this).

>Not unlike the way I would normally work in manual mode -- set the shutter
>speed to 1/60, set the gain to zero & zoom in on the subject to focus and set
>aperture. Assuming the fractional stop, it would be best to not adjust the
>stop afterwards.

Or, with changing light, use AE (AE, AE-A, or AE-S, with
appropriate bias), and use the "lock" button to hold
an exposure you don't want to shift...;-)

>Also offers a test: if you can dial up a stop and dial back
>down to the same exposure, it suggests the fractional stop is not possible ...

Yes, since the camera probably drops into one of the large
increments when the control is moved at all (this is indicated
by the fact that when it is moved, the increments
are, uh, "klunkily large"...;-) - but it is conceivable
(and unlikely...;-) that the control was designed to hold
the first exposure value (even if not one of the standard
values indicated) and shift in even large chunks after that,
until released... But, the bottom line is still: AE-mode
exposure shifts are more smoothly made - a desireable
thing, I think...;-)