[Sqeener]

It's not the camera...it's you.

[Aristophanes]

I have owned a K200D, K-7, and K-x and all expose accurately.

I disagree on the underexposure sentiment expressed here. It's just not there. When I convert from RAW in Apple Aperture my histograms are right down the middle of the pipe on Auto Exposure mode shots. Right where they should be.

[Ex Finn.]

I bet 55-300 came out on top, as I have heard it is a Sharp lens

Nope, smc A 70-210 f4 puts out nicest color and contrast.
DA* 60-250 second with DA 55-300 right on it`s heels.
The thing DA* 60-250 does well is the lack of purple fringing even on extremely tough shots.

And now back to Beating up Pentax exposure.

[PentaxForums-User]

It's not the camera...it's you.

Is that what your girlfriend said when she dumped you?

Sqeener, I see you just joined and only made 3 posts so far. Try to be more helpful and involved when posting, instead of making needless and useless comments.

This thread is actually helping some of us better understand our cameras, personal preferences, differences between models, Pentax vs. Canon, strengths and weaknesses of Pentax sensors, and why Pentax chooses to process images it's own certain way compared to other brands.

[GeneV]

Is that what your girlfriend said when she dumped you?

Sqeener, I see you just joined and only made 3 posts so far. Try to be more helpful and involved when posting, instead of making needless and useless comments.

The bluntness of the comment may seem insulting, but he is right. It is you, me and every other one of us. The only way to really say that a camera truly underexposes or overexposes is to take a photo of an 18% grey card, and see if the histogram is a line at the center or to the sides.

Actual scenes are composed of many tones, and the range often exceeds that which can be captured by a digital sensor. We are talking here about which of those tones a camera is designed to place where. I completely get what you are saying. Pentax cameras often catch the highlights, but have shadows which make them look dark, but whether that is "underexposed" is about you or me, rather than the camera.

[PentaxForums-User]

The bluntness of the comment may seem insulting, but he is right. It is you, me and every other one of us. The only way to really say that a camera truly underexposes or overexposes is to take a photo of an 18% grey card, and see if the histogram is a line at the center or to the sides.

Actual scenes are composed of many tones, and the range often exceeds that which can be captured by a digital sensor. We are talking here about which of those tones a camera is designed to place where. I completely get what you are saying. Pentax cameras often catch the highlights, but have shadows which make them look dark, but whether that is "underexposed" is about you or me, rather than the camera.

I think the bluntness of "Is that what your girlfriend said when she dumped you?" is probably correct, too.

I think we're all coming to the conclusion that Pentax saves the highlights in exposure because of limited dynamic range (inherent to all digital camera sensors and varies on their quality of sensor), and whether we like it or not (the fact that highlights are saved while possibly under-exposing other parts of the photo) is a personal preference. As well as Pentax tends to go for more natural/ordinary colors vs. Canon's ultra-bright and "poppy" colors... and again if we like that choice or not, is personal.

At least we are understanding more of the make-up of Pentax and it's reasons for choosing its image capturing/processing scheme.... and what each of us prefers, and possible work-arounds should we want them.

[GeneV]

At least we are understanding more of the make-up of Pentax and it's reasons for choosing its image capturing/processing scheme.... and what each of us prefers, and possible work-arounds should we want them.

True. When I bought my first Pentax DSLR, I thought the images looked darker than I was accustomed with a film SLR. However, with film, especially negatives, those shadows were dead. With a raw file, the DSLR shadows are quite useful and easily incorporated. Recently, when my K-x gave me open shadows and blown highlights, I was annoyed and quickly looked for the function to protect highlights or some exposure compensation. I've gotten used to the Pentax philosophy.

[egordon99]

They are rubbish compared with the Pentax cameras. No in-body stabilisation, crappy viewfinders, no WR, plastic build... toys, really. They only exist so Canon can up-sell you to a different model.

But if you are the sort of person who takes photographs based on stats... then go right ahead and get a Rebel!

The latest Rebel viewfinders have gotten better. Build quality is decent, not as good as the higher-end bodies. But they are NOT toys. I have an Xsi which is two generations old, but it comes with me on all my paid jobs and serves as a great "platform" for my 70-200mm f/4 IS L. My 24-70L lives on my 40D.

It autofocuses when I tell it to, and sets the shutter speed/aperture based on my input, and correctly "records" the scene on the excellent 12MP CMOS sensor. What else do you need for creating great images?

As for the original complaint, IF you switch to Canon, you will be most likely posting on the Canon forum complaining that your Rebel overexposes

Seriously! In high contrast scenes, Pentax aims to save the highlights, leaving you with dark shadows. Canon blows the highlights, leaving you with nicely exposed subjects in the shade with a blown out background.

YOUR job as a photographer is to try and create scenes that can be captures within the dynamic range of the sensor.

As for your complaint regarding "Colors", that's ALL in the JPG processing you can adjust in-camera, or your raw processing on the PC using Lightroom/Silkypix/whatever.

And if it takes you 1/2 day to post-process 200-300 pictures, you're not being as efficient as you can be. My last shoot (50th Wedding Anniversary), I shot ~700 pictures, and it took me about 40 minutes to cull it down to 250, and this week I expect to take no more than two hours to fully post-process all of them in Lightroom.

[egordon99]

I do manual shooting all the time... fine for consistent light, bad if the light changes every few minutes, cuz then even with my adjustments, I still over or under-expose the moment the light changes."

So you're shooting manual, how can you blame ANY of this on the camera?

[PentaxForums-User]

So you're shooting manual, how can you blame ANY of this on the camera?

EGORDON99 - Read the thread. I already went over everything you said... including others complaining that Canon over-exposes.

It is concluded each brand has a different approach, and now we better understand why and how, and which brand approach we like/don't like personally.

Like anyone - I shoot auto, 1/2 manual, and full manual. Since light changes outdoors (and room to room indoors), and I do photography where I'm running shot to shot outside from shade to clouds to bright light, etc. in a matter of seconds or a minute... being on full manual is not always possible because when you adjust your setting, you don't always have time to re-adjust and test the shot and examine the image before you lose the moment - how many times has someone been looking down at their LCD screen adjusting their image/capture settings and watched the moment disappear in the corner of their eye and finally held a perfectly adjusted manual setting only to have the subject pass you by? - all it takes is a few seconds to lose the moment - and if adjusting the setting takes 1 second more, it's still gone - so some of my concern was it would have been nice if Pentax did some of the auto-exposure more to my liking when I had less time to adjust full manual settings.

But as we all concluded - Pentax auto-exposure is under so it preserves the highlights and those that prefer a brighter image just have to deal with it or adjust the settings as needed the best they can.

As for your quick post-processing - I congratulate you. Sorry we're not all the speedy superman you are in the post-processing room. And if you can adjust your manual settings perfectly each time and never ever miss a shot, then congratulations as well. For this - you should get a medal. No - two medals.

[PentaxForums-User]

As for the original complaint, IF you switch to Canon, you will be most likely posting on the Canon forum complaining that your Rebel overexposes .

In fact, I think I already said I wouldn't mind having a camera that over-exposed if it meant colors "popped" more and the main subject of the image was brighter and properly exposed, even if sky was blown out.

It's all personal preference.

Also I stated that's why there is HDR and bracketing and combining images of various exposures to get the full DR. Digital sensors just can't see it all yet in a single image.

I'm not "switching" to Canon. Only thinking of having a second system for some of my personal color/exposure tastes. Probably when the 2011 Rebel comes out. I love Pentax, but I also love Canon colors. And Yes, I know they are bright and in reality unnatural, and I like that because to me they are not boring colors and still work very well.

Still keeping Pentax. Might even get an adapter to use Pentax lenses on the future Rebel.

[GeneV]

.

And if it takes you 1/2 day to post-process 200-300 pictures, you're not being as efficient as you can be. My last shoot (50th Wedding Anniversary), I shot ~700 pictures, and it took me about 40 minutes to cull it down to 250, and this week I expect to take no more than two hours to fully post-process all of them in Lightroom.

I sometimes spend lots of time in pp because I like to, but I do agree that one could get about 80% of the benefit with a few automated actions. Even on my CS3 (a few generations of Adobe back) the Auto function on ACR goes a long way toward equalizing everything from my four Pentax bodies to film scans. The only flaw that can't be addressed to some degree with automation is sensor dirt in the sky, but that is another thread.

[Aristophanes]

I'm not "switching" to Canon. Only thinking of having a second system for some of my personal color/exposure tastes.

That's an expensive taste to a different brand of film!

There's something called RAW that makes this entire argument completely moot, BTW.

[GeneV]

That's an expensive taste to a different brand of film!

There's something called RAW that makes this entire argument completely moot, BTW.

For color, absolutely. For blown highlights, not so much.

[noahpurdy]

So, in conclusion:

Don't blame the equipment on your follies.

/thread