[ChopperCharles]

Similar how? Pentax ups the ISO one notch to create a noisier image. Nikon actually changes the exposure settings. For Pentax, it means you can never take a shot at ISO100. Nikon doesn't affect ISO, aperture/shutter speed is modified, so you can still shoot ISO100. What's more, you can tell the Nikon exactly how strong you want the effect, where the Pentax has only one setting.

I'm not getting how those are similar at all.

Charles.

[twitch]

Both methods under expose the shots and boost shadows in the JPEG. Regardless of which of the 3 factors is changed, it's not going to be better than applying the adjustments later in post. It's a useless setting on either camera if someone has any idea of what they're doing in post.

[normhead]

I'm going to jump in here and say I agree with Twitch on this, and when the two of us agree, there's virtually no chance we're both wrong. We tend to come at these things from totally opposite directions. You're swallowing corporate mumbo jumbo.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Similar how? Pentax ups the ISO one notch to create a noisier image. Nikon actually changes the exposure settings. For Pentax, it means you can never take a shot at ISO100. Nikon doesn't affect ISO, aperture/shutter speed is modified, so you can still shoot ISO100. What's more, you can tell the Nikon exactly how strong you want the effect, where the Pentax has only one setting.

I'm not getting how those are similar at all.

Charles.

Well, if you read the review - and a lot of evidence offered in other expert analyses, Nikon essentially ignores reporting to the user that the manipulation is taking place, and reports the set ISO even though that has been altered. This is why Nikon users complain that ADL is causing greater noise in the shadows. The honest answer is that the ISO has been shifted (hence more noise). If you read the DPreview analysis of the 7000 vs. the K5 (same sensor), it is clear that Nikon is making the shift automatically (not reporting to the user and not telling the user it is shifting the ISO), and so Nikon matches nearly exactly what the Pentax user is doing by turning on Highlight Correction. DPreview also correctly states that Highlight Correction makes the change to RAW and JPEGs, shadow correction is strictly a post-process (JPEG) function.

Maybe this analogy will help. Arizona has no Daylight Savings Time. Utah has Daylight Savings Time. In the summer, the sun comes up at the virtually the same time just across the border, but the clocks are set differently. You can say that the sun goes down later in Utah, but that's due only to the fact that the clock has been artificially shifted. So, Utah and the rest of the country is kind of like Nikon, and Arizona is kind of like Pentax. And Sony RAW sensors are capable of accepting only a finite dynamic range of light. The only way to avoid blow-outs in a scene that extends beyond the sensor DR limit is to underexpose (i.e. change the clock).

What is difficult to comprehend here? RAW is what comes off the sensor. Nikon alters the directions to the converter while Pentax gives the user the option to do so. The result is virtually identical. What is not clear here?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Both methods under expose the shots and boost shadows in the JPEG. Regardless of which of the 3 factors is changed, it's not going to be better than applying the adjustments later in post. It's a useless setting on either camera if someone has any idea of what they're doing in post.

I'd agree if I was doing the "shot a day" thing - and then only when shooting RAW. If you are dealing with a huge number of images, the instructions given to the converter are very good for getting you in the right ballpark in terms of tone curve (at least that's my experience with the K20D, K-01 and K30). It does save time if the file is in better shape from the start. Technically, though, working with RAW you can achieve the same results in PP - but it does tend to take longer.

Giving instructions to the camera to properly process RAW data to JPEG to extend range is going to produce a better image than getting an underexposed JPEG out of the camera with no highlight curve applied. If the camera is applying a shift in the RAW output that extends dynamic range (for instance the K5 appears to do this processing far better than the K30/K-01), then your further PP adjustments will tend to be less destructive and result in a better final image quality.

[ChopperCharles]

But the biggest deal here is that nikon adjusts the exposure in the raw file. The exposure. (aperture/shutter speed) The shadows are only bumped up if you open the raw file in the nikon software. So it will physically underexpose the image. The Active part of Active-DL would work even if there was film in there instead of a sensor. THAT is the big difference as I see it. I don't care about the shadow adjustment, open in lightroom and it won't be there. But saving my highlights without resorting to higher iso is what nikon gives me over the regular DL control. (and that's the difference between active DL and regular DL).

I'm not saying it's better, but it is not the same as the pentax system. It's significantly different in that one regard (active exposure adjustment).

Charles.

[twitch]

You have it wrong, Pentax doesn't resort to higher ISO, it resorts to lower ISO to give less noise. Pentax camera says you're shooting at ISO200 say, but it actually shoots at ISO100 and bumps the shadows in the JPEG. Obviously you don't increase ISO to underexpose, you lower it.

I'm not defending Pentax system vs. Nikon here, it's a useless feature however it is implemented. But you have a misunderstanding as to what is going on.

[IchabodCrane]

But the biggest deal here is that nikon adjusts the exposure in the raw file. The exposure. (aperture/shutter speed) The shadows are only bumped up if you open the raw file in the nikon software. So it will physically underexpose the image. The Active part of Active-DL would work even if there was film in there instead of a sensor. THAT is the big difference as I see it. I don't care about the shadow adjustment, open in lightroom and it won't be there. But saving my highlights without resorting to higher iso is what nikon gives me over the regular DL control. (and that's the difference between active DL and regular DL).

I'm not saying it's better, but it is not the same as the pentax system. It's significantly different in that one regard (active exposure adjustment).

Charles.

It's only "active" in the sense that the camera detects when it's needed. Pentax HC does that, too, if set to "Auto" so it really isn't different in that regard. As has been stated many times in this thread, these cameras simply underexpose the image after which the tone curve can be corrected for the underexposure on everything that isn't already on the bright end. This is performed automatically on in-camera JPEGs. Software that detects the special tag in the RAW files will correct the tone curve on those RAWs, too. This is why software that doesn't detect (or know what to do with) the RAW tag will simply display an underexposed image.when loading the RAW file.

[normhead]

If you've ever worked with levels or curves on a raw file, you know exactly what the camera is trying to do. That being said, those types of adjustments have to be manually adjusted on every image anyway, so this really doesn't save you any time or anything. Unless you're telling me the camera knows exactly how I will want to PP this image and does it for me, some kind of telepathy or something. I can manually adjust the high end, the low end, the middle, I can create as many zones to adjust as I wish. and honestly if you're not doing that, you aren't getting the most out of your images, whether or not you think the camera has miraculously done it for you. If you don't want blown highlights, don't blow your highlights. Any adjustments made by any camera are preliminary at best.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Not that photo journalism is thriving, but most major news organizations require their shooters to produce unaltered JPEG output (typically on the basis that PS is a slippery slope away from realism, but also as a practical matter related to speed and cost avoidance). While what Normhead says is certainly true, and I also advocate PP - and especially shooting RAW - at times you are going to want something directly out of the camera, or at least ready to process quickly. For sure, what the camera can process these days is far closer to optimal than what got processed just a few years ago.

Another argument for highlight correction is that we all make mistakes - and a safeguard against blown highlights is the use of "auto" so that the correction is implemented only when needed. As you move around and reframe a shot, the need for extended DR changes moment to moment in some situations. If you are documenting a changing event (journalistic situations), the chances of getting the well-timed shot using auto highlight correction is far better if you are more concerned with getting the shot rather than adjusting the settings. The need is situational.

Just curious if anyone here who is arguing against the use of HC has given it a thorough chance to prove its worth over a period of time - whether shooting RAW or JPEG. I would be more-inclined to be persuaded if someone who had used it extensively would indicate why they have found it lacking in some ways - rather than coming at this mostly from a theoretical perspective. For my part, my experience with HC in Auto (K30, K-01) has been good, but somewhat less than perfect. It isn't good for situations where ISO needs to go higher than about 400. On occasion (although rare), it seems the camera has been fooled and should have switched to HC, or vice versa it went into HC when there was plenty of headroom. The metering misses are unusual (1 out of 20 or so), and in line with the misses you get in any tricky lighting situation. Overall, better metering than any previous dSLR/K-mirrorless I have owned (a total of six Canon and Pentax bodies over the span of a decade).

[normhead]

I have HC set on my K-3, I have one card set to jpg and one set to raw… I prefer to use the RAW images, not the jpg images… I tend to use the jpg images for exporting to my iPad for easy distribution when that is necessary. The jpegs are excellent in most circumstances, it's just, I know I can do better if I'm going to print the image.

[k5astro]

You have it wrong, Pentax doesn't resort to higher ISO, it resorts to lower ISO to give less noise. Pentax camera says you're shooting at ISO200 say, but it actually shoots at ISO100 and bumps the shadows in the JPEG. Obviously you don't increase ISO to underexpose, you lower it.

I'm not defending Pentax system vs. Nikon here, it's a useless feature however it is implemented. But you have a misunderstanding as to what is going on.

I totally agree.

In the Pentax HC system, the minimum ISO is 200 so it can lower it to 100 during HC. You end up with the same thing as the Nikon that exposed and ISO100 and stopped down the aperture. You end up with the exact same exposure because they will also have the same aperture and shutter speed.

However, The difference I see though is that if HC is determined to NOT be necessary, then you necessarily have ISO200 instead of the preferred 100. In this case I can see where the OP might have a gripe.

[normhead]

Who can tell the difference between 10 and 200 ISO? I set it to 100 when I start, but I don't care if it accidentally gets left on 200 ISO.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I totally agree.

In the Pentax HC system, the minimum ISO is 200 so it can lower it to 100 during HC. You end up with the same thing as the Nikon that exposed and ISO100 and stopped down the aperture. You end up with the exact same exposure because they will also have the same aperture and shutter speed.

However, The difference I see though is that if HC is determined to NOT be necessary, then you necessarily have ISO200 instead of the preferred 100. In this case I can see where the OP might have a gripe.

If you have HC set to Auto it will make a judgment as to whether or not the additional DR is needed, and the 100 ISO should be selected if the DR is in the sensor's range. In my experience, that can be a bit hit and miss in difficult, changing light but the camera generally it gets it right. It would be interesting for an expert site to do a comparison of the blowout preservation tools, as in isolation the Pentax system seems to get consistently high marks. Nikon seems to have more adjustability, though.