[Gio645]

And, my "lame blog"'s traffic need not to be boosted - it has been the highest Alexa and Google ranking Pentax Blog since 2008! In fact, the traffic of my Pentax blog alone exceeds quite some of the official websites of Pentax at some countries/regions.

You remind me Herostratus and his famous (infamous) way he had chosen to immortalize his name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

[RiceHigh]

You remind me Herostratus and his famous (infamous) way he had chosen to immortalize his name.

Herostratus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you boys want to act as the "internet police" and want much to execute me, then?

But the difference is: Did and do I set the "fire"? The fire is already that, I am just a reporter!

[Digitalis]

a child would destroy the world if it had the power.

- Sigmund Freud.

[Gio645]

So, you boys want to act as the "internet police" and want much to execute me, then?

But the difference is: Did and do I set the "fire"? The fire is already that, I am just a reporter!

Me personally, don't want to execute you. I'm just criticizing you. As simple as that. No one is above criticism.

---

Last edited by Gio645; 05-22-2009 at 03:03 AM.

[celetron]

Hello RichHigh,
I use EV compensation all the time… In fact in a way I always did. Only that at my old MX I had no Av program and used to do everything manually… I used to alter the speed or the aperture according to the subject, the environment lighting and the final effect I wish to achieve… For example when I wish to render the skin tones on the film I usually overexpose 1 stop. I do the same thing using the digital bodies… Only that with a digital body I use Av and overexposing 0.7 stop by increasing the EV up to +0.7. The overexposing or the underexposing depends on the same factors as they do with film bodies…
Now if you will try to meter the same subject at different lighting conditions without using EV compensation you will get completely different results… Possibly you will say that the camera underexposes during a sunny day, meters correctly at late afternoon and overexposes at low lighting conditions… If you want your camera to constantly overexpose 1 stop then set the EV to +1.

You might say however that pentax bodies have the tendency to underexpose about 0.3 stop in comparison with the old film bodies. That might be true but considering the fact that sensors do not have the same DR as B&W film does and that the burned areas of a digital image cannot be restored, I strongly believe that pentax did the right thing.
There is nothing wrong with that and I really do not understand your persistence of bringing up such a non-existent issues…

[Stefan Carey]

It is the same as last time (K-m), and the time before (K20).

New Pentax Camera > sample shots released > "somehow not right". Predictable and irritating. I am surprised Pentax keep failing to realise what goes on in these forums, and when a new camera is released people love making snap judgements based on one photographer's personal preferences in a few samples.

I think judgments based on a few samples posted on another site in another language is unscientific, emotional and imprecise. We don't even know what the page with the sample say. (Pentax pull your finger out and post samples with English text, or remind your web marketing team what they're employed for.)

Making big statements based on a few JPG samples is like judging a meal based on how well cooked one pea is, e.g. one pea is slightly uncooked, let's throw the entire meal away.

Some statements appear to obsess over valid minor details, made more than likely with the right intentions. OK Ricehigh, so there might be some underexposure, but what are the benefits to a photographer of this design approach? Are there any? Will it help my workflow? Could it help me find more detail when I really need it? I think the proof is in the beautiful images we can make with these great cameras and lenses.




Supposedly my K-m produced rubbish jpgs based on the initial samples when they came out late last year. But then we see otherwise as soon as people take a few shots of their own.

Why not wait for a while. And cut each other some slack. RH's intentions are probably to help Pentax be a better manufacturer, but his way of displaying these intentions are often too forceful to be understood as helpful.

[mickey]

Back to your accuse (as usual for fanboyism symptom). Whats the problem of pointing out that all that four official samples are with +EV compensations applied for the metering? These are *facts*!

Well, here comes the problems again. You particular guys not even allowing any others to state *facts*, once these come out to be not so "favourable", in any ways!

Finally, just mind you that don't insult the wisdoms of other people. People whom read will make their own judgement. What "forced gospel" then??

"fanboyism?".
Maybe...I've only been a Pentax user since Nov 08, after having used a eos 50e since the 90's.
Moved to Pentax for reasons not important today.
I'm just optimistic about the camera.
If that makes me a fanboy, then so be it.

I'd just like to know what's the problem with using EV, even on sample images?
It's a feature of the camera. Don't see the problem, and usually boils down to photographers preference, no?

I'm far from being a pro, even far from being an amateur.
The K-7 is probably far too advanced for me, anyway.
I just enjoy taking pics.
I enjoy playing guitar, but I'll never be in a famous rock band.
I'm just happy doing what I'm doing.

That is all.

NO Person on Earth is NOT Biased - we all have our own thinkings and opinions!

And, my "lame blog"'s traffic need not to be boosted - it has been the highest Alexa and Google ranking Pentax Blog since 2008! In fact, the traffic of my Pentax blog alone exceeds quite some of the official websites of Pentax at some countries/regions.

Just accept the *facts* or not. Just go find out the evidence yourself if not believed!

I share my interests and views at my blog. And if it is popular, there must be some good reasons. You can write your own and see if people will go visit. Blaming me for having a blog and write and share there is just something rather strange and almost unexplainable.

To explain your strange behaviour (and many other people like you as well), there is only one reason: you guys don't want to see any different opinions, or, just any "negative" opinions about Pentax, to put it straight foward!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/58415-k-7-dimensions-v...tml#post572904

1) Build up deniability.

RH could use later this unusual positive posts to criticize at will K-7 like he did before with probably all Pentax dslrs. He will claim that he's impartial but, hey, the new camera just doesn't cut it for him and of course, is a stupid toy next to his vintage C 5D. And he wanted so bad to believe ! Bla, bla, bla ...

[snip]

I think I was right almost a month ago. This guy used the hype around K-7 to boost the traffic of his lame blog and now he'll do just what I predicted. It's too bad that some people still get suckered in thinking RH has no agenda other than *to put Pentax on the right course*. It's a free world and anyone should appreciate this matter according to his/her own mind.

Radu

[falconeye]

I think you're the one who has got the whole point!

But, the official samples are all taken with a K-7 with firmware 1.0! Anyone interested can inspect the EXIF!

@RiceHigh:

Thanks for having a careful eye on the exposure topic. I see your reason for being cautious. As for the four images, I had an examination as well. So, let's share our results:

RESULTS:
All four images: K-7 firmware 1.0. JPG filters and shadow processing unknown.

Img #1: Matrix, +0.3EV, histogram slightly clipped in the highlights, with some room in the blacks. Would have been "perfect" at 0EV. But +0.3EV gives it more "popp".

Img #2: Center-weighted, +0.7EV, histogram has some room on both sides. Would have been perfect at +1EV.

Img #3: Matrix, +0.7EV, histogram minimally clipped on both sides. A perfect "to the right" exposure would probably have been at +0.3 or 0EV, with shadows recoverable in Raw. But +0.7EV gives it more "popp".

Img #4: Center-weighted, +0.7EV, histogram has some room on both sides. A perfect "to the right" exposure would probably have been at +1.3EV.


Let's have a closer look at Img #4 as it seems the most "underexposed". There are 77 metering zone read-outs. Unfortunately, PhotoMe only display the first 16 of them, thinking it is a traditional Pentax meter
These first 16 readings (probably the upper edge) is between 8.8 and 9.3 EV. The effective EV of the exposure is 11EV (incl. +0.7EV compensation -- would be 10.3 without).

So, the K-7 "metered" about 1 and 1.5 EV "brighter" than the image's upper edge, i.e., a lot brighter than the center. But as we know, it should have metered 3 EV brighter Not much more we can say here before we know all 77 metering values.


So, what must be our verdict here:

For Spot Metering:
The test would have been if a 18% grey card would have come out 11% grey (with the sRGB profile, I believe, the right number was 11%). No test case supplied in the samples. This is an industry norm. A vendor has no freedom here (But some vendors are known to break the standard for non-pro cameras here. So far, Pentax (D)SLRs have always adhered to the standard, though.

For Center-weighted metering:
Two test cases supplied (incl. Img #4). Manufacturers have more freedom in interpreting metering values. However, there is only a single metering value available: the weighted average over zones. Here, it doesn't make any significant difference if the average is over 16 or 77 values. Almost identical result. If the average metering would be interpreted as 18% grey, most images would be heavily underexposed (think of snow ) So, most vendors go for some arbitrary figure higher than 18%. If you know this figure for various vendors, you can cross-compare vendors by adjusting EV compensation for the respective target luminance. Pentax is known to be more conservative than some other vendors here which, in the first place, is a good thing. No final conclusion for center-weighted metering can be reached because the center meter readings are not known.

For Matrix metering:
Two test cases supplied. Manufacturers here can combine position and value of all metering values, not just a single value. E.g., they could guess the scene type, or use the variance between zones to guess the 0.01% clip-off barrier, etc. This is the only mode yet of interest with the K-7. Both supplied samples would have been absolutely perfectly exposed without EV compensation applied.


Final verdict:

The exposure in the 4 samples leaves nothing to be desired, from what can be told from available data.


RH, do you agree?

[RiceHigh]

@RiceHigh:

Thanks for having a careful eye on the exposure topic. I see your reason for being cautious. As for the four images, I had an examination as well. So, let's share our results:

(Snipped)

Final verdict:

The exposure in the 4 samples leaves nothing to be desired, from what can be told from available data.

RH, do you agree?

I think to put it simple, all the four samples look fine to me for the final exposure results, but all required +ve EV compensation to make it looks right and +0.7EV just a little bit too much. So, even though the CWA might not do the job exactly, the Matrix should do it better by default. If it is not, its intelligence and accuracy are in doubt.

Note to all others: Exposure Compensation is designed for the photographer to make the photos brighter and dimmer based on *a correctly exposed* picture in the first place for his own expressions, but not for correcting *obvious* errors!

Note 2: I must say my Canon requires mostly +/-0.3EV to make my pictures look right on my calibrated monitors no matter for the Matrix or CWA metering mode. And of course, I know where to meter for both (and so do the Pentax official photographer especially when they used the Manual exposure mode).

[falconeye]

I think to put it simple, all the four samples look fine to me for the final exposure results, but all required +ve EV compensation

RH, may I be so insisting and ask for a slightly less simple response?

Because, as I have carefully analyzed above, both Matrix images were slightly clipped in the highlights and they did NOT require +ve EV compensation.

They had +ve EV compensation to bring out more "popp" at the prize of some burned highlights, as must have been a personal choice by the photographer.

So, why do you say "they required +ve EV" compensation? Used: yes, but required? I don't understand.


Or "to put it simple": the two Matrix metering examples are slightly overexposed, as to be expected after using +EV compensation. Look at the histogram attached: Overexposed, but perfect for +0.3EV!

[RiceHigh]

With the limited Dynamic Range than various different scenes in reallife, the Matrix metering system *has to* decide - decide *where* the subject or area of interest will be and for those uninterested or less important parts, like the bright sky in some cases, has to be sacrificed. It is just impossible to preserve all the shadows and highlights, the camera has to choose one over the other.

As for CWA, the camera should do it right for mid-tone with AEL or M mode used. In this case, no EV compensation should be required unless the subject of metering is of a too high or too low reflectance.

RH, may I be so insisting and ask for a slightly less simple response?

Because, as I have carefully analyzed above, both Matrix images were slightly clipped in the highlights and they did NOT require +ve EV compensation.

They had +ve EV compensation to bring out more "popp" at the prize of some burned highlights, as must have been a personal choice by the photographer.

So, why do you say "they required +ve EV" compensation? Used: yes, but required? I don't understand.


Or "to put it simple": the two Matrix metering examples are slightly overexposed, as to be expected after using +EV compensation.

[falconeye]

With the limited Dynamic Range than various different scenes in reallife, the Matrix metering system *has to* decide - decide *where* the subject or area of interest will be and for those uninterested or less important parts, like the bright sky in some cases, has to be sacrificed. It is just impossible to preserve all the shadows and highlights, the camera has to choose one over the other.

As you can see in my histogram attached above, the camera would have preserved perfectly all the shadows and highlights without the +0.3EV compensation. Now with it, some highlights got burned.

You cannot seriously blame the K-7 for having metered perfectly, can't you?

As for CWA, the camera should do it right for mid-tone with AEL or M mode used. In this case, no EV compensation should be required unless the subject of metering is of a too high or too low reflectance.

And who decides what exactly "mid-tone" is? Is it you? Every vendor has decided on a preferred arbitrary value here, a long time ago. And it better keeps this value from model to model. If you jump brand, just apply an EV correction which is a constant value between two brands. Where is the problem here?

[Kunzite]

You cannot seriously blame the K-7 for having metered perfectly, can't you?

He actually can. And he will do it, correction, he is doing it. It's nonsense, but this won't stop him, it never did.
Now RiceHigh is showing his true colour - did any of you expecting anything else?

[melander]

Copy pasted from DPreview:

"The new pentax overexposes when you increase the +EV value"

Sometimes I think that RH dont have the ability to read others posts.