Originally posted by Oldbayrunner Not sure why the two came out differently but I do have a question regarding the exposure settings used. Was the room very dimly lit? Under proper exposure at F1.4 , 1/30 & 3200 ISO would be correct for an EV 1 factor (= dimly lit room properly exposed) The puzzling part to me in the exif is the 1.70 Bias exposure with those settings which would result in the highly clipped 2nd photo. The puzzling part is the two together look like the bias exposure would be as if one was a -1.70 and the other a +1.70 bias setting. Not saying that is what happened.
I agree with IcabodCrane also... For the the almost enitire body shot as it stands with the camera tilted in portrait with a 55mm lens you would need to be at least 15' from the subject. At that distance your depth of field would only be about 1.5ft with a near focus limit of slightly over 15.3 feet and a far focus limit of approx 16.7ft. the background shouldn't be that visable
So, I am starting to believe the problem lies in the body of the K-30.. .Anyone heard something like tis before??
The +1.7ev in because I always try to expose to the right. I might have had that setting on when taking the pictures, BUT, the setting would be the same for both pictures..
As for the background blur, I didn't make the math, but believing you are right, how can I defenetly test it?
Thanks
ps. thinking of giving th k30 to my girlfriendf and getting a k5II to me. The k-3 is a lot of money. For that, I can get a FF from another brand... The k-5II, is it worth the extra punch?? Priorities to me are:
Low light photography (indor and I hate flash)
af spped