When do I use full manual mode?
New to photography and I switch between Aperture and Shutter mode
Aperture mode if I need to change the focus and focal length for whatever reason, but usually I leave it in Shutter mode and let the camera decide aperture while I adjust the shutter speed and exposure compensation

>>4434208 (OP)
When you want to control the shutter speed and aperture for sure, but might not care about ISO (set that shit to auto)

Just shoot manual with auto iso

>>4434208 (OP)
>When do I use full manual mode?
Never. Set everything to Automatic. It just werks

>>4434214
This. Scene modes are best modes.

Just use DMF mode

Av is the best but if you are using manual lenses you can use M also

It's up to you desu.
I used either Aperture priority or Shutter priority (depending on what I was shooting) when I first started. Once I felt like I had an intuition for what settings are appropriate, I started using manual mode, usually with auto ISO.
I like it that way, since shutter speed and aperture are the settings that affect the creative character of your photos, but ISO is just a gain applied and modern sensors are quite clean.

>>4434208 (OP)
Av mode for good light
M mode with Auto ISO for bad light
Tv mode for specific amounts of motion blur or if you know that's the minimum to stop movement. Generally dumb unless you're using super wide aperture lenses and don't care about DoF.
Fully M is really only for when the scene stays the same long enough to fuck with multiple settings.
P mode if you have no idea what the fuck you're doing but want to get more comfortable outside of the green A mode.

>>4434208 (OP)
I usually use Av. Only sometimes I use Tv. Honestly what I use 80% of the time.
19%, I'm shooting M when:
Nighttime street photography
Flash photography
When I'm shooting for clients and need consistency between photos
Other times I need such consistency

Weird you usually use Tv unless you're doing mostly action/birds or whatever. Most half-modern cameras (even Pentax DSLRs) are smart enough to recognize moderate movement in the frame and bump up the shutter speed when needed.

>>4434208 (OP)
I myself use mostly program mode with auto ISO, exposure compensation and set white balance, or aperture priority if I care about dof and anything else only if the camera does not expose or focus as I want.
I do use manual with fixed ISO for long exposures, taking multiple photos with same exposure or to blow or crush most of frame. Manual focus too for astro (very rare for me) and photos to be stitched (almost never). I might use manual for shooting though foreground shrubbery, or bright subject in dark or vice versa if contrast is out of exposure compensation range.

>>4434208 (OP)
TV and AV mode are underrated

>>4434208 (OP)
i use full manual mode 100% of the time because im not a pussy im a faggot there's a difference

>>4434208 (OP)
I usually use A-Priority but honestly you're not going to touch SS most of the time, since you usually I'm fine with it at its lowest acceptable level

>>4434208 (OP)
You'll understand Manual by doing this:

>babies first footsteps
Use your preferred mode (e.g Aperture)
Set ISO to 100
Now you must maintain the wished aperture and get used to adjusting the exposure compensation with your wheel (which is actually adjusting the shutter speed)

Once you are attuned to this soon you will choose to adjust ISO based on surrounding and creativity (for me mostly dark/low light environments where I manually adjust to 400 - 800 if I want aperture and want shutter speed to stay at desired levels while also getting good exposure)

>>4434208 (OP)
>be me, rich newfag
>try to get into photography cuz I hate forgetting
>look something fully manual cuz premium autistic
>already looking at 1300 dolla X100Vs

feels ya brah

>>4434208 (OP)
>When do I use full manual mode?

>P mode
>you have desired depth of field but
>ah shit i don't like the aperture
>change aperture as your dick wishes
>camera goes into A mode

>P mode
>you want to shoot some moving subject but
>ah shit i don't like the shutter speed
>change shutter speed as your dick wishes
>camera goes into S mode

>P mode
>you want to change aperture and shutter speed for whatever reason so
>ah shit im ganna change A and SS
>change aperture and shutter speed as your dick wishes
>camera goes into M mode

Usually we still call it M mode even if the ISO is still in auto. If you manipulate ISO too then camera goes into complete M mode.

You don't start from m mode from the beginning.
From P with the camera provides you exposure values you manually set exposure settings. then the camera goes into M mode naturally.

I hope this helps to give you the image of what's M mode new fag.

It's just like 4 different ways to solve the same math problem, user whatever works for you best. I went
>full auto
>P like auto but with extra
>manual because of course thats what pros use
>aperture priority and Auto ISO is the real easy mode
>back to M only so I can get what I want 100% of the time, adjusting exposure doesn't take anymore time than the changes I still did anyways while in priority modes
>also never using Auto ISO again, and try to stay at the optimal iso's for a given camera
Not once have I ever felt the need for Tv/S though, everything I'd use it for I just preferred M. It's also quite surprising how often you can just set your exposure once and be fine for hours of shooting without adjustment.

Did the Japanese ever try to sell a camera without the obscure modes like "green box" and "female head"? Maybe it will actually sell well and cut down on the cost of parts and firmware?

>>4436903
Yes, and that's actually the only reason anyone ever bought a fujifilm

>>4436842
I've never actually used P mode, but assuming it does actually work as you say then how to the parameters go back into auto mode after you've adjusted them?

I just leave mine on p aka professional

No matter what mode you choose, you will be adjusting something. It does not matter.
>Auto ISO inadvisable outside of manual mode due to added complexity of setting up and changing target/minimum values for aperture/shutter
>P mode controls: Exposure compensation, program shift, ISO
>A mode controls: Exposure compensation, aperture, ISO
>S mode controls: Exposure compensation, shutter speed, ISO
>M mode controls: Exposure compensation (meter reading only if not using auto ISO), aperture, shutter speed, ISO (use of auto ISO strongly advised unless you are the type of autist to consult read noise and shadow improvement charts)

>>4437054
I don't think I've ever once turned auto ISO off I guess I'm bad

>>4437060
Cameras are programmed so if you're casual enough to just leave auto ISO on (or use full auto mode) it always selects sufficient settings for a posed "say cheese kids" portrait or landscape that might be printed as a 4x6 (1%) and will probably be forgotten or deleted (99%).

>>4437063
No. A decent camera will actually adjust the ISO to get an appropriate shutter speed in aperture priority (by default around 1/focal length, can be adjust slower or faster). Fuck knows what it aims for in shutter priority because I'm not a scrub that uses it. In manual mode it adjusts to whatever it needs to get the correct exposure based on the aperture and shutter speed you select.

>>4437125
Why'd you say no and then just agree with them?
> it always selects sufficient settings for a posed "say cheese kids" portrait or landscape
> A decent camera will actually adjust the ISO to get an appropriate shutter speed in aperture priority
These read the same

>>4437130
Because it's not appropriate settings for anyone who wants to take better photos than their phone, and catch action or push the quality of landscapes up so they don't look m43/phone tier when used as a wallpaper for your mac

Sufficient for rockwell-esque dadography is not sufficient for good photography, unless you are doing dumb quirky street photography, in which case why does your camera even have a PASM dial and all these control buttons you only need a leica you pleb

>>4437131
You sound like you take awesome photos, can we see some?

>>4437133
Hmm, no.

>>4437133
Anon no one smart will ever engage with your photo begging

The only person dumb enough to (huskyfag) exposed your routine
>Post a photo
>This isn't art
>You're bad at this
>You dont need "good cameras" or "to be good at cameras"
>Your photos are bad because they arent artistic you only need your phone
>My phone is better
They asked you to post a photo 3+ times and you never did, and honestly they're better at this than the german shepherd fag and 50% of /rpt/. just not the fujifilm users, they shoot in interesting places and take pics with way more vibes because fuji people are mostly cat people and therefore more passionate and creative.

>>4437134
That's a shame, it sounded like you had some real expertise
>>4437138
That's okay nophoto, you don't have to cope for them

Photo begging boardwide (often in response to things that are simple, factual, technical statements) is almost universally an attempt to discredit something that can not actually be diescredited, because it is a simple, factual, technical statement.

You may believe it is the same anon every time.
It probably is.
You may wonder if it's the anon that was begging for a schedule C and trying to get someone to justify owning a nice camera.
It probably is.

You may now be wondering if it is moopco, isi, or chosis
No they're just mentally ill

>>4437142
I'm just saying, only one person has ever been dumb enough to entertain nophoto anti-gear photo-beggars. And they have proven what everyone else thought, that you will never post a photo yourself, and you just want to insult them because you didn't like their gear opinion.

There is zero reason to ever post a photo for someone who has not posted a photo first.

>>4437151
uhm, excuse me chud, but you have to prove to me that you are a real artist before anyone can believe that choosing the right settings makes photos look better. you're probably a no soul pixel peeper, because when you post i'm going to say you're not a real artist.

>>4437151
I just think for all the value people here place on their own expertise, it sure would be nice if those opinions sometimes came with pictures
The amount of whining on here with no pictures provided just makes it seem like people are talking out of their ass
People spew wild and inaccurate text here all the time, at this way it's easy to verify the types of shooters it comes from
>>4437152
People have posted more of then that and I even hype them up when posting, posting a bad photo is better then never posting
I also do post here plenty and will happily link all the shots I have up on board currently

You are advocating for a photo board where people don't photos, that sucks

Sorry you all are to scared to post photos here, you should just leave the board for good, you are only making it worse

>>4434304
Pretty much this is what I've landed on over the years.

I'm about 90% Manual with auto ISO
5% Tv
4% Full manual
1% any other mode

>>4437260
Fuck meant 5% Av not Tv

How often do you guys change settings when shooting?

>>4437250
Hes right. You're a disingenuous nophoto. This scenario is idiotic
>auto mode uses shitty settings
>POST PHOTO EXPERT
>DIS NOT ART USE PHONE
I have literally never seen a photo beggar post photo, not first not second. Yall are why no one posts photos.

>>4437265
I've seen several people post when asked and I've posted tons when asked
Don't you think we should be holding our esteemed experts here to a higher standard? You are just making excuses

>>4437267
You are lying coping nophoto
>photo begging over "auto mode uses shitty settings"
Fag
No wonder no one posts. Hey bro small board. Are you the coper one thread up simping for fuji autofocus? You do this often? Fujis are unusable trash. Every pro hobbyist and normie uses sony/canon. Fujis are for people who think theyre an artist for taking a photo of a building corner at sunset lol.

No i wont post a photo nophoto besides its an objectively tested fact fuji af is trash only good for building corners and spray and pray hoping it focuses eventually while shooting 50fps

>>4437270
I have even posted an example of Fuji's AF before, specifically showing examples of how it can fail, but I still think it is totally fine for 99% of shooters here

>>4437278
This is "fine" but it's also the standard set and met by cameras that cost 1/3 as much as the x-t5. Canon DSLRs do better, and you don't even have an athletic dog, and scaled it down to hide most of the errors. An EOS-1V would 100% this and then some.

You wasted your money bigtime. No wonder you're always mad at people with nicer gear.

>>4437278
>obnoxious gearfag mad that people dont like this (dick750/fujishit/micro four turd)
>dog photos
Now check this box
>"i shot 2 weddings once last decade"
Many such cases here on /p/.

>>4437292
True, but AF is only one part of a camera and you only need it to meet a certain threshold of performance for your needs. It being completely unusable as often described here is just factually incorrect. It absolutely does not match top tier AF of other brands, but the fact that it doesn't, does not mean it's unusable.
> you don't even have an athletic dog
Corgis are literally a working breed, they run all the time. Thank you for the cope though, I guess I don't need better AF unless I'm shooting stuff much faster than him, which I never do. What do you like to shoot that's very fast? Can we see your examples?
>>4437294
>nophoto gonna nophoto
I've posted from a lot more than 2 weddings on here lol

>>4437300
>Corgis are a working breed
Even if you paid $5000 for a working champion corgi imported from england, they run slower than cows because they're deformed and prone to back issues.

German shepherds can reach speeds of over 30mph. Now that is a real working dog. Also, fuji's C-autofocus speed isn't the only issue. Its lack of reliability and tendency towards false positives and AF system errors makes it useless for truly capturing life's most precious moments, and the piss poor subject tracking performance makes it worse than an old canon SLR for shooting sports. I have used an X-H2 in single point af-c and it was terrible, it kept locking up and hunting before re-acquiring the subject for a half second before losing focus again. It was like using a nikon.

>I don't need better AF
Cool, go buy a leica lol
>I've shot 3 weddings actually
Photographer level 0.5: Desperate for beer money

>>4437309
The false positives were really only an issue with T5/H2/s and have been resolved with firmware
Did you forget to attach your example images?

corgis and cuckskies btfo by free jack ruselel from dog shelter
fuji and niggon dlsaar btfo by free canon pns from flea market
shooting 3 weddings btfo by one picture of your moms weiner

it is so over for gear copers

>>4437264
never. I shoot wide open 1 second exposures iso 100 then fix everything in post.

>>4437321
I mean like if I go out for an hour walk, more often than not I can just the same SS/A/ISO for everything, the lighting is just never changing that dynamically to have to be adjusting every few seconds
Even on high contrast sunny days I just 1 exposure for sun and 1 for shade, and I can just turn one dial to switch between the two

>>4437309
>Cool, go buy a leica lol
I do have a Leica too lol

>>4437328
This is a self BTFO but you haven't realized it yet

>>4437329
Owning many cameras is bad now?
Also, if you don't know corgifag shoots Leica, must be very new here

>>4437334
Spending five figures on photo gear when your peak was one photo of a fat chick and 500 photos of your meme dog is only based if you freely admit that gear matters and you should pursue whatever spec or experience you want regardless of whether or not you need it or can justify it beyond being able to afford it.

If you go around acting like you use what you use because you are supremely skilled and other people simply can not use your shitty fujifilm/d750/linhof, rather than being disappointed in how poorly it performs for the price, while only having one photo of a fat chick and 500 photos of your meme dog, that's kinda sad. I could buy an a7rii for the price of a d750 for example and blow it out of the water. But I won't because I'm not that poor.

>>4437343
>one photo of a fat chick
What photo was that? I do post lots of other stuff, the corgi is just most recognizable. I've even posted myself ~4 times too.

I don't think what you use matters, I just find it so interesting people aren't even willing to reveal what gear they themselves use. It's one thing not to post a photo, it's pretty silly to not even be honest about the gear yourself uses. I'm obviously all for using "bad" gear, so not sure why you think I'd judge someone for what they use.

>>4437349
>I don't think what you use matters
Cool, when someone says some cameras autofocus sucks, just keep quiet instead of saying its not bad and you are very skilled because you spent 20 minutes trying to get one in focus photo of your meme dog lmao

All you 3 dog gearfags are the same
>I am better than you because meme camera
>dog.jpg
>I am a real artist because real art is (high resolution dogs and eggs | creative intent and antisemitism | uhhhhhhhhhh)

>>4437352
>just keep quiet
Good point, if a cameras AF sucks, you should just keep quiet! Go shame whoever brought up AF sucking first.
>because you spent 20 minutes trying to get one in focus photo of your meme dog lmao
Do you think it took 20 minutes for >>4437278 and only 1 is in focus? Why don't you keep quiet if you're just going to lie.

All you nophotos are the same, lol
>I will never post a photo and endlessly criticize other things and not take my own advice to keep quiet

>>4437355
>no YOU keep quiet leave fuji alone!
Why? Shouldn't the people know if a camera's autofocus is dodgy crap that underperforms a much much cheaper sony aps-c so they dont spend so much time on the gear exchange train?

I think they should. I think people should be warned that fuji and nikon have bad autofocus, sony colors always need fixed in raws, canons come out of the box with random features whacked, and micro four thirds has insufficient DR for a sharp shadowed foreground and a detailed sky without stacking or using a GND.

>>4437358
>Shouldn't the people know if a camera's autofocus is dodgy crap that underperforms
Shouldn't the people know if a cameras autofocus is perfectly fine for most peoples needs

I think they should

>>4437362
>Most people dont need good autofocus
And then what? We already know what you say.
>If they do, they need skill instead
>Like me. I am skilled.
Well first off, you are not skilled. D750, fuji, linhof, doesnt matter, using a camera isn't a huge skill, anyone can learn to use a camera.

No, like, if I press the button once on a fuji while my kid is running around playing ball with me, 40% of the time its out of focus. I could get it in focus more often by taking photos while my wife played with my kid and putting more focus on the camera. Or, wait, I could... spend 1/3 as much on a sony a6500 or a7iii and just take the damn picture. Just like that.

Fuji doesn't sell well. Their social media hype cameras only sell out because production capacity is very limited and 2/3s of orders come from china. Still their entire brand sells less than the sony a7iii.

>>4437362
its not fine for most peoples needs, its fine for taking "vibes" photos of water towers and benches for instagram but for the photos we actually need to take, the golden friends and family photos that come up just once when you're not the dedicated photographer whose job is to stand in the corner and anticipate them instead of being involved in life, its unreliable and fiddly compared to the relatively godly autofocus on a... canon r50.

>>4437373
People do need good enough AF
Very true other cameras have more reliable AF, which ones do you use?

>>4437374
Very true, what kind of action shots do you take?

>>4437375
I'm not interested in being your friend. I'm interested in you being quiet.

Every single thread anyone dares say "nah that camera has shitty autofocus for its price, get this instead" you're there defending it... or huskyfag is there recommending the garbage d750 instead... (which also has shitty autofocus)
it's getting old, go away. no one cares how you cope with your wasted money or that a manual focus leica is enough to take le great photos, you clearly have something to prove but you're not proving anything except that the average photographers ego is too big.

>>4437375
>keeps trying to bait with stupid “which one do you use” gotcha somehow thinking we don’t know that he’s just fishing for a way to say HAH GOTCHA NERD
Like, why do you even try such weak shit? Your intentions are obvious

>>4437378
True, he does want to say "i could have shot this with my leica". He listed what gear he uses and he has over $20,000 of shit. Most of his shit has crappy autofocus except for the TOTL nikons. And given that the TOTL nikons have slightly worse autofocus than the canon R8, and even ken rockwell can notice this... man does it seem like he might be insecure and regretful!

>>4437377
>it's getting old, go away
But that's how I feel about the whining no photos
>>4437378
So you don't own any cameras? This is what I mean

>>4437382
>doubles down
I mean I shouldn’t be surprised

>>4437384
>I do not own a camera or post photos
Okay

>>4437386
>Yes, I did spend $20,000 to take snapshits of my meme dog
Ok thats nice, but fuji's autofocus really isn't sufficient for more progeny/friends/family having uses for a camera. It's very unreliable and trying to force it to be more reliable with the proper area selections takes you out of the moment, and makes it much harder to hand the camera to someone else to take a picture of you and know they'll get it right.

That's why I, and most professionals, hobbyists, and dwacs/mwacs shoot sony or canon. They're just more realistically useful cameras.

But if you want to be cool on the internet only a hasselblad is good enough. Don't forget to tell everyone they can't afford or figure out how to use one!

>>4437389
Cool, which Sony or Canon do you use? Got an examples where you think Fuji AF would've missed the shot?
>force it to be more reliable with the proper area selections
Yeah using an AF point to chose where to focus is too inefficient nowadays

>>4437390
If I wanted to choose AF points, I would use a canon DSLR and stand on the sidelines "like a real professional". Don't you have to walk your dog?

>>4437393
So you don't own a camera? He already had his walk today

>>4437389
Phonefags have already learned to tap the screen to choose the focus area, they'll be able to use any camera just fine.

>>4437427
if you tap to focus on a fuji it misses 80% of the time unless everyone holds perfectly still, then it only misses 30% of the time

>>4437390
If you're taking pictures of humans the sony AF is really good tho
automatic face tracking makes everything faster

>>4437448
Yeah good eye detection was a game changer for AF

>>4434208 (OP)
>When do I use full manual mode?
when you don't want a stupid fucking computer to decide what the best settings for whatever exposure it deems right are i.e. when you aren't a retarded dad that has more money than brains
fucking kill yourself

This thread took a turn

>>4438316
just like the wheels you have to change when shooting manual