On Apr 9, 4:22=A0am, "Jufi" <bow...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:661lrdF2hlrokU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > Interesting claim. I tested it by setting my camera's white balance on
> > a very red thing, and then noting the auto-exposure values of that
> > very red thing and an adjacent very blue thing, and comparing them
> > with the results with a properly set white balance. If you are correct
> > then there should have been a large difference in exposures with such
> > an extreme test. In fact there wasn't the slightest difference, which
> > given the way most digital cameras do auto-exposure is what I
> > expected.
>
> manually setting the white balance on my 5D and shooting a static scene
> produced no changes in exposure values. None. Rita is, as usual, full of
> ****.
>
Which backs up my own test as mentioned previously in this thread.
Realising that any sample images provided here could easily be faked,
I would suggest that everyone could carry out their own very simple
test if they so desired. This would provide first hand evidence that
could not be questioned. Blindly listening to Rita (who continues to
provide no sup****t for her/his claims and ignores do***ented
information from industry leaders) or others who seem to have a vested
interest in selling us a $90 piece of grey cardboard, is very foolish
otherwise.
|
