jeljohns wrote in post #10554101
So AV for moving subjects....because even though the light doesn't actually "change" the light hitting the subject does. Correct? I'm just trying to make sure I understand correctly.
No and yes
Like I said earlier, I use M for my "moving subjects", almost exclusively. What I do is find a place where the light doesn't change all the time! So I'm shooting an agility event, I will shoot in the end of the arena which is in consistent sun, or consistent shade. Trying to follow a moving object back and forth through varying light, while shooting manual, is impossible (at least for me). But if, for some reason, you don't have that luxury, then yes I'd chose AV for such things, pending the comment above.... about metering and managing two Manual settings specifically instead of 10 settings.
And Yes on the part where the sun is the sun, but in light versus in shade versus some partial/filtered light are all going to require different settings for a correct exposure.
So far metering is the hardest thing for me to master. I'm just not getting the hang of it.
You're almost there, hang in for a bit more and it'll make sense.
For metering mode I have been using evaluative.
That might make sense, though understand what that means. "take a light reading from the scene, prioritizing the center of the image somewhat higher than the rest of the image, and show the light meter in the viewfinder such that the middle would represent lighting that measurement to 18% gray. Then put the needle on what exposure the current aperture, shutter and ISO setting would result in, so the guy behind the viewfinder can see whether he will net 18% gray, or brighter, or darker, if he takes the picture right now".
Re-read the other metering options, specifically the ones on partial metering and center-weighted averaging, with the same phrasing as my first sentence above. Do they sound more like what you'd like the meter to show? (my guess is "yes they do").