I don’t understand why “light” is part of the donut. That is weird and makes no sense.
I do sort of like the idea that some combo of iso, shutter, and aperture makes a complete circle.
But then you get into the whole idea of “do you trust your meter?” And that’s a whole other can of worms to teach. Photography is inherently complex and technical, so you’d think you’re better of accepting that and learning it, or sticking with the P mode and exposure comp.
Ya I was just throwing it out there. I hadn’t seen any approach like that before??
I agree. It’s basically an exposure triangle with rounded sides; as such, the ‘light’ bit shouldn’t be required — unless I’m missing something?
@martbetz @paperdigits I think the idea with light being part of it is that if there is more light, it makes up more of the circle, so the sections for the other bits will be shorter - shorter exposure, lower iso, and and a smaller aperture (which doesn’t work with f-numbers…)
Seems to me the concept is quite good really, but I agree that it seems a bit pointless.
I find the term "grain blur’ to refer to ISO a bit but again, I see the point.
I just don’t think there’s many people at all who’d be interested enough to understand and use this system, but not keen enough to understand the standard controls. Thanks @priort for the link!
Going of on a tangent…
This reminds me a little of a discussion point in my other hobby of amateur radio - the number of people sitting the exams for the amateur radio licence has more or less been falling for many years mostly cos radio isn’t really viewed as exciting or cool for most younger people, (unlike in the 70s and 80s, from what I’m told - no cell phones for one) and a recurring theme is how to attract more people to the hobby.
Many ideas have been suggested, but it always seems to me that it comes back to this: if someone is interested in electronic and communications, it’s all good, and once they know it’s possible to tinker (or hack) with this stuff they’ll find they’re way into it. But if they’re not interested, even if we do attract some interest it won’t stick. Same with the ExpoNut
Many may wonder why bother - I think the main reason is that the amateur radio service is the only way that anyone can legally experiment with long range wireless/radio, without complex and expensive specific licencing. Most don’t know that “spectrum” is a prime resource, just like real estate, crude oil and so on…
But the service is in quite a few cases under attack - the big “telcos” want the frequencies that are allocated to us. Ok, it’s not all that bad really, I don’t think most of the allocations are going anywhere in a hurry, but still…
Basically the same thing has been happening in amateur astronomy ever since computerized control of telescopes has been a thing: goto vs. the human eye and brain. And now there are completely image-based small telescopes that don’t even have an eyepiece.
The same logic applies though – if there’s a true interest there will be perseverance and the interest will survive. Otherwise no amount of gee-whiz will help. So the basic vs. fancy factor is a non-factor and just a personal preference.
For a while I wondered why numbering schemes are so inconsistent in cameras: shutter speeds and ISO numbers double per stop, yet one uses powers of two the other aligns to powers of ten. Why f-numbers were normalized to double per two stops instead of one. Why focal lengths aren’t consistent between sensor sizes.
But I later realized that this is a feature, not a bug. It’s actually smart design to have no ambiguity between ISO numbers and shutter speeds (except for 100, 200, 400). And I actually love how you can tell that an 18 or 23 or 27 mm lens is likely APS-C, as the same focal lengths would actually be called 20, 24, 28 mm for a full frame lens (this does not extend very far, 35 and 50 in particular are shared, for no good reason).