Hi!
Yes, you're right. I knew that should be the case, but as I stated, I got
puzzled when I tried metering from a grey paper and got unexpected results.
I posted the message, then tried with a different method. It was OK the
second time, but the message was already posted.
The part of reversing 28-135 IS seems interesting. Let us know of the
results. I just got mine (28-135IS) previous week and did not try it with
extension tubes yet -- as I remember, you had good results with it.
rgds,
Miha.
ps: Congrats on pp contest. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> Hi Miha,
>
> I'm jumping late in this one... ;-)
>
>
> > So I think we've solved my puzzle. Now I know for sure (not just from
> > theory) that my underxposed slides are due to the nature of Evaluative
> > metering. As someone noted.
> >
>
> The problem is not the extension tube nor the evaluative metering but the
> nature of the shot you're doing. You're using extension tubes to
> get closer to
> your subject, right? Then your subject is filling the frame or
> almost, right?
> Then, what you're doing is using a big matrix meter for the same
> you would use a
> spot meter if you were a tad further away from your subject...
> and we all know
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
