Originally posted by UncleVanya 
Nikon has been guilty of overstating their iso in the past. I wonder if iso accuracy is involved? Also, a simple reduction in exposure on the Nikon might help. I wonder about settings like highlight protection - what are the default settings? I'm happy to see the K-1 do well in the comparison, but I'd like more background detail on the tests.
It looks as if the reviewer was trying to use the same settings for all 3 cameras and in doing so did not make up for the difference in processing done to the raw file. With Nikon they like to use a little more highlight protection so for the same iso they tend to use a lower exposure. In doing so raw converter needs a different baseline exposure for this smaller exposure if they want to the final image to be displayed at the correct lightness. When the raw was processed with this larger exposure ( that the reviewer unknowingly done) without corrected BLE it appeared as overexposed. As for Nikon overstating their iso they fall within the iso standard, just the same pentax likes to use a larger exposure and in doing so less of a BLE ( not as much lightness processing) is needed.
For most Pentax camera's use a BLE of -0.5 whereas Nikon is using a BLE of 0.35 in a lot of their camera ( this is highly dependent on iso setting) so there is a difference of 0.8 EV worth of processing. So basically the raw converter is applying 0.8 EV to the exposure slider for the Nikon over that of the Pentax, this is all being done behind the curtains in the raw converter.
Post #51 by Dan Rentea
Similar Threads 
