>>4360176You severly lack in reading comprehension
>I don't have a single lens that I'm not happy to shoot wide openLiterally no glass is at its sharpest wide open. It is also a fact that you often need it stopped down, because you need a wider focus plane. What a dumb thing to write.
>If you have your ISO limit set to 800 it won't go over itYes, but in manual, you are in fucking manual, which means that you will often OVERexpose if you're trying to get a quick shot. The ISO will also creep to the minimum threshold way too early and just stay there. The only way to alleviate that is to set the exposure compensation way down, which in turn ruins shots that would not have required a lower exposure.
>There you go, that's your solutionNo. I want a hard lower limit in aperture priority, which lets me shoot within the confines of what the camera/glass is actually capable of doing well, without having to manually set the exposure for every quick snap. In all other cases, I want it to simply underexpose and let me deal with the consequences.
>Because it's dumbWrong. It's because it lacks this functionality, which would be extremely trivial to ad. Just an on-off switch in the settings for hard shutter speed limitations in aperture priority would do the trick. Same in shutter priority: The option to set a hard lower f-stop, which is higher than what the lens is actually telling the camera that it is capable of.
>>4360182>Set exposure compensation?Yes, that is what I often do, but it ruins shots where if I turn around and take a shot of something in better lighting, I get undesireable underexposure. It's a wonky crutch.
>>4360191Yes, and that's my point, idiot.
I often don't have time to set exposure manually for every shot, which leads to many overexposed shots if I leave it in manual during daylight hours. It would be very helpful to havea hard cap on shutter speed in aperture priority for this purpose.
>Read mindSurely you can read text in plain English though
