[Chako]

Just look up the few that I posted on this forum. The majority of my photos are taken with Canon equipment, so I do not usually post those.

I firmly believe my post is entirely on topic. You nit pick anything to death. Take my advice or not. But I do feel you would be a happier fellow if you did more photography and less whining about your equipment.

As for my comment about those few photos posted, I can only say there is only one that has any merit artistically. If that is your standard body of work, I can see you spend more time on forums gripping and arguing over the minutia that you have lost the larger picture.

And yes, I have taught photography for 4 years at the High School level. I just never saw anyone wax so bombastically over a slight exposure difference in a camera, and paint every product from a certain manufacturer with the same brush. It is quite astounding, considering that exposure values and their usual operations does change from camera to camera and from model to model. I do not see the big deal in all this crying. It basically sums up to one key important fact for photographers since time immemorial. Know your equipment intimately, and you will use it to its best advantage, and hopefully, to the best of your ability.

Do you know a fairly famous photographer named Edward Steichen? Look him up if you don’t. Anyways, he is quoted as saying these words that are as true today as they were back then….

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera."

[lol101]

I just never saw anyone wax so bombastically over a slight exposure difference in a camera, and paint every product from a certain manufacturer with the same brush. It is quite astounding, considering that exposure values and their usual operations does change from camera to camera and from model to model. I do not see the big deal in all this crying. It basically sums up to one key important fact for photographers since time immemorial. Know your equipment intimately, and you will use it to its best advantage, and hopefully, to the best of your ability.

Well, I have to disagree with you on that: I understand perfectly RH's point of view.

As it is well known, a camera is just a box (often black) that is used to produce an image that you like.

So it has to expose, sharpen details, and reproduce colors exactly as you want them to be, no matter what scene you're photographing.

No matter what complicated pseudo-scientific technical arguments he has, the fact of the matter is that RH has just not found any Pentax camera able to get a picture to his liking by following these simple steps:

1/press the button (the big one on the top right of the camera);
2/... well that's all! What else would you want to do?

So he bought a 5D and it's much better now! To paraphrase him: "the ultimate P&S", around $3000 well spent!

Why can't Pentax produce a simple decent $3000 point and shoot??!

It's just not what it used to be....

[ZaphodB]

Oh and as a Canon user, I have come across a few posts of him complaining about the 5D on other forums. So folks, we have a person who will never be truly satisfied with his/her gear because the equipment must be at fault.

Thankyou. Pretty much the same point I made earlier. But it's much more fun to dream up conspiracy theories about Canon paying people to badmouth Pentax

[stewart_photo]

(snip) However, your reply post is totally irrelevant and is actually off-topic. When we are all here at a *gear forum* in talking about our gear, say, features, specs, pros and cons, field performance and accuracy etc. then you just jump out to reply: "your photos (snip)

It's not off-topic, RiceHigh. You've been talking about how "gear" impacts images (exposure, etc), therefore comments about images are directly relevant to the discussion.

Actually, I believe this is exactly where most have a problem with your comments. You seem to somehow think the technology (meters, motors, chips, and processors) exists separately from the photography (the end results). You spend a lot of time measuring the technology, complaining about little things that just don't matter much to the rest of us. For most, it's all about the end results (the photography). And, if the end results are good (and they indeed are with the K10D), we don't really care much about your measurments. In spite of your efforts to make a big deal out them, it's trivial.

Your endless complaints, however, are not so trivial. We have a financial investment in the equipment you're constantly complaining about. Our reputations as photographers (and, in my case, professional photographer) are tied in a small way to that equipment, especially when it comes to other photographers (the "pro" camera versus other debate you love so much). All this makes it very personal. Which means you're obviously going to get arguments when you assault our choices and our decision making process, especially with triviality. That is even more so the case when your complaints are not at all constructive - don't resolve anything, fix anything, or improve anything. Instead, your complaints seem to exist solely for the joy of trashing the camera (and, by extension, it's users).

stewart

[jeffkrol]

Mr. 110,

Have you read the ANSI formula yet then?

Working.......

Whilst you keep emphasizing the faster ISO speed of Canon DSLRs is a problem, do you think a faster actual ISO of Canon DSLRs will cure the inaccuracy exposure problem of Pentax DSLRs?

Never said it was a problem. Just a method to "fool you" into thinking the meter is behaving to the ANSI standards. Apparently you will never see this, though others more capable than me have pointed his out. In simple terms if you take f8 and 1/100sec as a correct exposure for iso 100 film and expose iso 125 film you will get a "brighter" image... That fact you cannot deny. That this is what Canon does is verified by Phil and Kerr... PERIOD. WQhy did Canon pick ISO to fudge? Because the ANSI standards in regards to it are vague. Sensors HAVE NO ISO in the film sense. It must be calculated based on a few assumptions regarding full well capacity ect.
http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/business/ccd/global/plugins/acrobat/en/supportdo...asurements.pdf
so it's easy to fudge and nobody will complain

They are two totally irrelevant cases afterall. Also, how many of the typical DSLR users will use an external meter to meter instead of using the internal meter? If I could use an external meter, actually the exposure problem of the Pentax DSLRs had been resolved long ago - that what I said in my homepage, as I did mention that the ISO speed of my Pentax DSLRs are accurate, as tested. As for Canon's case, it is not very difficult to tackle even if one use an external meter, just dial in 1/3EV less in the camera or 1/3EV more at the light meter for the ISO rating then case closed, e.g., ISO 160 in camera and ISO 200 at handheld meter.

You mean the Camera is not accurate??????

As for 110, 118 and 126, 127 or 128 as mid-tone, different people say different values. Doug Kerr writes 118 in one of his articles. A search on the net returns quite some results of 128. You insist 110 and 126 for me (which I have never said 126). Remember the "hearsay" theory of yours? Which one should be correct?

Yes you did say 126. Your charts show 126, your tables assume 126... are you that dense????? If I search the internet I could also say Elvis is alive. Doesn't make it right.

And, could you explain to me why 110 should be the mid-grey value?? And why Doug Kerr says 118? You keep saying that 110 = sRGB is meaningless actually. What we need to know is why is that! Any supporting documents which can give us a technical reason for that? (don't give us more "hearsay" links!)

Yours are all gospel and my hearsay... your an evangelist...

Anyway, a histogram at 0 is total dark and 255 is total white. In the middle of white and dark is the mid-tone and that the histogram is linear as percepted by human eyes. What's wrong with 128 as mid-tone? Pls explain.

Actually the histogram is not linear. Only linear in the middle. The ends get non-linear...I won't bother to reference since you won't accept anything anyways.

Bottom line: most people says 128 - do a web search and you can see all those photo and technical pages and forum posts. But then the majority could still be wrong anyway. And, YOU may be the ONLY ONE who is correct, hopefully.

Bottom line, most are incorrect. I've already gone through the "myth" of 128. You just refuse it......I've already presented the "proofs" and I'm not here standing alone. You just conviently THROW everything that doesn't fit your world out. Sick and un-scientific...

But since you insist 110, I just try to suggest you (and anyone as well) to try to intrepret my test results in another way. My Pentax DSLRs exposed for the mid-grey (where I metered on) for results that returned the values from 70 something to 130 something, with different lenses and/or different metering modes. And as for the Spot metering, it is often under (less than or far less than 110) But with the Canon DSLR, the results are always close to 128 and well within the 1/3 EV margin.

I went through your tables and corrected them myself. throwing out the "anomolies" like the FAJ and looking at the averages, there not too bad. Bet if you took enough data points on a Canon or Nikon you would come up w/ the same thing.
I never took issue w/ the spot metering "anomoly" and stated it numerous times NOR with Matrix metering which we already know none of us really know what Pentax did to create it. One point though, all meters work only w/ numbers and averages. How they weight them and calculate a "final number" is unknown... Back to the spot meter, when using it as it should be used the 1/2 stop "error" from the CW metering has it's function and I'm not sure how it works in other than the D. I never said Pentax was perfect, only your data
and assumptions were incorrect

So, if you like darker pictures which are reverted to 110 for your own preference (as you say) that's fine. However, you still cannot get around the 110 most of the time but something varied from time to time. In my book, this is simply called "inconsistency" and actually inaccuracy.

Yours,
Mr. 128

Actually never found inconsistency in my D at most working aperatures and with most lenses. Some anomolies in the extremes of the f stop range depending on the lens. Designing a "new" system around old lenses is a wonderful idea but it is inherently flawed. As an example "windows" backward compatability has plagued the OS since it's inception. As far as I'm concerned it is just the way it is and I have to work with it.
You have every right to "discuss" these problems, just get your facts straight..... something you fail to do over and over.
The exposure meter is calibrated to some clearly defined standards and the user needs to adjust his working method and his subject matter to these values. It does not help to suppose all kinds of assumptions that do not exist.'
Erwin Puts

Still waiting for those side by side shots.....................
Edit: Personal correspondence from a "guru" who will remain nameless. This was from years ago:
Nope, haven't tried the Pentax. But 90 would be awful low for even an 18%
gray spot reading. I'd expect more in the neighborhood of 100 to 110.

But that's just one of the issues that make it difficult: ANSI specs on
meters allow them to be off by as much as a half stop.

Nothing has really changed about exposure: you have to calibrate what you've
got and use some sort of discipline to replicate decisions based upon that.

[jeffkrol]

Well, I have to disagree with you on that: I understand perfectly RH's point of view.

As it is well known, a camera is just a box (often black) that is used to produce an image that you like.

So it has to expose, sharpen details, and reproduce colors exactly as you want them to be, no matter what scene you're photographing.

No matter what complicated pseudo-scientific technical arguments he has, the fact of the matter is that RH has just not found any Pentax camera able to get a picture to his liking by following these simple steps:

1/press the button (the big one on the top right of the camera);
2/... well that's all! What else would you want to do?

So he bought a 5D and it's much better now! To paraphrase him: "the ultimate P&S", around $3000 well spent!

Why can't Pentax produce a simple decent $3000 point and shoot??!

It's just not what it used to be....

Funny, never worked that way for film or slides. Would kind of put Adobe out of business......

[vinzer]

And, please show us your excellent photos, our teacher.

I've seen some of Chako's work in the photos section, and I would say he's very qualified to teach photography, more so than you being qualified to even measurebate products.

Please do visit the photo section once in a while. You could probably pick up a thing or two to help your photography out. I took a look at your "Eye on Europe" gallery, and from the way I see things, your point and shoot also needs an EV compensation. I'm guessing you brought your 5D on that trip? Can't say since you did strip all photos of their EXIF data.

Anyone can call themselves a photographer, but at least most of those who do strive hard to work on their eye and technique, not waiting for the next camera that would have a button one could press that will do all the work for them, including framing. If you're still waiting for that one button, forget it. It's not happening ever.

You can't even understand basic photography, instead relying on ANSI tech sheets to tell you what ISO and proper exposure is. And yet you claim to be an expert in camera evaluation? That's pretty amusing.

[RiceHigh]

Anyone can call themselves a photographer, but at least most of those who do strive hard to work on their eye and technique, not waiting for the next camera that would have a button one could press that will do all the work for them, including framing. If you're still waiting for that one button, forget it. It's not happening ever.

Flaming? Yes, I know.

Everyone here without a stance can see that you (and a few some other folks as well) are good at flaming, especially for doing it very personally.

Debate is welcome, but personal flaming is not. I shall ignore you from now on.

[RiceHigh]

Just look up the few that I posted on this forum. The majority of my photos are taken with Canon equipment, so I do not usually post those.

(Snipped)
Do you know a fairly famous photographer named Edward Steichen? Look him up if you don’t. Anyways, he is quoted as saying these words that are as true today as they were back then….

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera."

So, you still have nothing to show us? You said camera is not important but your reason for not having any photo to show is because of the *brand*?? What a good reasoning!!

Even you do have some good works, they should not be used as a tool to attack others when opinions differ. A Real Shame!

Photography is just a hobby for those who are not earning a living from it. I take photos for my own pleasure. If you take photos to show off and to beat and flame others, it would be a true insult to photography! Shameful!

I really hope you not to "teach" your students to do thing in a similar way, afterall. My humble opinions.

Bye, Mr. "Teacher"!

[Chako]

Did I hurt your feelings? Sorry if I did. I however, do not portray myself as some expert. I made a valid observation based upon what I read on your blog, and the photos I have seen to date. Oddly enough, your photos aren't all that great for someone who professes ad nauseum about the slightest technical deficiency on a lot of equipment. It just doesn't add up.

I still say you should go out and shoot more. You should improve your skills. Frankly, most people will look at your photos and wonder why you are blowing so much hot air. I personally came to the conclusion that you will always find something to nag and pick away at. It is obvious from this and other forums, that you stir the ire of many people. People who know that camera equipment is what you make of it.

May haps you should start making pinhole cameras to get a better appreciation of photography? What I do know is that I certainly have many students who are taking better photos then you, and they don't claim to know much about the general process of photography. You on the other hand crow like a peacock from the tallest building. And what you call debate is laughable. Sorry, but from what I have read in here, isn't really a debate. You are getting bashed about the head by more knowledgeable photographers that are finding faults in your comments. There really isn't much to debate is there?

But hey, if you like to measurbate, who am I to take your fun away? Photography means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. If you want to test everything and have biased opinions..then have at her.

Oh and I post most of my real good photos on a local city forum. I don't really want you anywhere on there to be honest.

[RiceHigh]

Working.......

Never said it was a problem. Just a method to "fool you" into thinking the meter is behaving to the ANSI standards. Apparently you will never see this, though others more capable than me have pointed his out. In simple terms if you take f8 and 1/100sec as a correct exposure for iso 100 film and expose iso 125 film you will get a "brighter" image... That fact you cannot deny. That this is what Canon does is verified by Phil and Kerr... PERIOD.

A higher ISO can have a higher EV and the EV need not to be the same. Did Phil say the EV was the same?

WQhy did Canon pick ISO to fudge? Because the ANSI standards in regards to it are vague. Sensors HAVE NO ISO in the film sense. It must be calculated based on a few assumptions regarding full well capacity ect.
http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/business/ccd/global/plugins/acrobat/en/supportdo...asurements.pdf
so it's easy to fudge and nobody will complain

So what? A 1/3 higher ISO of Canon DSLRs does not mean its metering and exposure is inaccurate. Ditto for the Pentax's case. All Pentax DSLRs I have used have accurate and absolute ISO speed - I also verified this. SO what?

You mean the Camera is not accurate??????

No camera is perfect. But all Canon DSLRs I have used are (far) more accurate than *any* Pentax DSLRs I have used, in the metering and exposure department.

Yes you did say 126. Your charts show 126, your tables assume 126... are you that dense????? If I search the internet I could also say Elvis is alive. Doesn't make it right.

Yours are all gospel and my hearsay... your an evangelist...

I let all others to see if I have really mentioned the 126. My homepage is always there online!

Actually the histogram is not linear. Only linear in the middle. The ends get non-linear...I won't bother to reference since you won't accept anything anyways.

I am afraid you have mixed up tone/lightness response of a DC with the histogram or simply the EV scale at the x-axis. Just look at the plotted graph in my page below and think!

The curve is non-linear of course, as you said at the highlight and shadow ends. But how come even the scale can be distorted at both ends?? :-)

SONY ICX413AQ Exposure Latitude + Dynamics Linearity Test (Pentax *ist D + FA* 85/1.4 in RAW )

How can the horizontal scale be "non-linear" as long as it is in the EV or simply logarithic space??

Bottom line, most are incorrect. I've already gone through the "myth" of 128. You just refuse it......I've already presented the "proofs" and I'm not here standing alone. You just conviently THROW everything that doesn't fit your world out. Sick and un-scientific...

I just hoped and imagined you have something REAL. But then you again could show nothing this time. You taught me about what "hearsay" about. And I can tell all people here what you shown me before were all just "hearsays" (well, according to your own definition). Nothing more.

If you're going to really discuss this topic, you *should* show us the relevant mathematical formula and model why 110 will become the mid-tone under sRGB. Of course, you have none so far. If you really have, please show us!

I have already given you the simpliest technical reasoning, where is yours?

I went through your tables and corrected them myself. throwing out the "anomolies" like the FAJ and looking at the averages, there not too bad. Bet if you took enough data points on a Canon or Nikon you would come up w/ the same thing.
I never took issue w/ the spot metering "anomoly" and stated it numerous times NOR with Matrix metering which we already know none of us really know what Pentax did to create it. One point though, all meters work only w/ numbers and averages. How they weight them and calculate a "final number" is unknown... Back to the spot meter, when using it as it should be used the 1/2 stop "error" from the CW metering has it's function and I'm not sure how it works in other than the D. I never said Pentax was perfect, only your data
and assumptions were incorrect

As I have said, nothing is perfect. But I hope Pentax can strive to improve as their system's accuracy really left behind others considerably.

The exposure meter is calibrated to some clearly defined standards and the user needs to adjust his working method and his subject matter to these values. It does not help to suppose all kinds of assumptions that do not exist.'
Erwin Puts

Still waiting for those side by side shots.....................
Edit: Personal correspondence from a "guru" who will remain nameless. This was from years ago:
Nope, haven't tried the Pentax. But 90 would be awful low for even an 18%
gray spot reading. I'd expect more in the neighborhood of 100 to 110.

But how come the huge inconsistency and where is it come from??

But that's just one of the issues that make it difficult: ANSI specs on
meters allow them to be off by as much as a half stop.

Nothing has really changed about exposure: you have to calibrate what you've
got and use some sort of discipline to replicate decisions based upon that.

Whilst you are trying to convince that nowadays DSLRs are not adhering to ANSI or ISO standards anymore, the key thing is are those still accurate for carrying their tasks? Only the end-results will tell! (that is, the exposure results)

[jeffkrol]

I posted this for you at Klaus'es might as well repeat it here:
K factor and meters,
DPanswer: Digital Zone System Tutorial
" If pressed, the manufacturers of some exposure meters will acknowledge that they depart from standard calibration of their meters by incorporating a "K factor." This factor is supposed to give a higher percentage of acceptable images under average conditions than a meter calibrated exactly to an 18 percent reflectance. The practical effect of the K factor is that if we make a care*ful reading from a middle-gray surface and expose as indicated, the result will not be exactly a middle gray! […] With nearly all meters, this factor is equivalent to giving a one-third stop increase in exposure. Although the manufacturers may be acting with good intension, I find it far preferable to work with what I consider the true characteristics of the light and films. Intelligent use of the meter eliminates the need for such artificial aids as the K factor. (Adams 2002, pp. 42f)..... Ansel Adams
"As a start, make a careful reading of some uniform surface, photograph it, and look at its histogram. You will see a narrow column. With most meters, this column will appear to the left of the center of the histogram.

The example on the right shows the histogram my camera produces when I photograph an uniform gray card (median 105), exposed as indicated by spot metering the card with a Sekonic L-778 meter, and processed with "neutral" settings in the RAW converter.".......
........by Gisle Hannemyr.
As a result of this there is some controversy surrounding the use of 18 % gray cards and reflected light metering. Kodak, who sells gray cards carefully calibrated to reflect 18 % of incoming light, used to include the following instructions in each package:

Meter readings of the gray card should be adjusted as follows: 1) For subjects of normal reflectance increase the indicated exposure by 1/2 stop. 2) For light subjects use the indicated exposure; for very light subjects decrease exposure by 1/2 stop 3) If the subject is dark to very dark increase the indicated exposure by 1 to 1.5 stops.....by Gisle Hannemyr.
And best of all.....
After looking at the numbers above, I think the "K factor controversy" may be a tempest in a teapot. All the amounts are minute, and probably within reading error and the meter's tolerance. I see not point in adjusting these, and simply rely on the EV reported by the meter.
With this type of metering, in a "normal" scene the meter should ideally be used to meter whatever reflectance the meter is calibrated for. Textbooks will usually tell you that the meter is supposed to meter "middle gray", or the tones in the scene should average out to middle gray or "18 % reflectance". As noted in the previous section, this is not the way reflected light meters really work..........

Also note the non-linearity of the zones vs the scale. The ends get unequally skewed....
The camera "underexposes" because you don't know how to use a Pentax light meter. Why do I bother!
One more time: Your "target" is assumed to be equal to 18%grey. Now from everything I posted re: this issue your figures are all off by an exposure of -.5
Correcting the numbers and doing a minor statistical analysis on your limited sample (discarding "anomolies as in your FAJ lens which clearly was malfunctioning.) As you can see the meter was pretty darn consistent based on the mean and standard deviation.
Argue all you want, your numbers and conclusions are wrong.
Note: chart should say "add .5" This was done fast and a long time ago... not perfect but you (don't) get the picture. Again, as to why I add .5?
Meter readings of the gray card should be adjusted as follows: 1) For subjects of normal reflectance increase the indicated exposure by 1/2 stop.

[vinzer]

Flaming? Yes, I know.

Everyone here without a stance can see that you (and a few some other folks as well) are good at flaming, especially for doing it very personally.

Debate is welcome, but personal flaming is not. I shall ignore you from now on.

Oh, so now it's me who's flaming? Your vision is totally screwed. You don't post something as patronizing as this: "And, please show us your excellent photos, our teacher." if you're not into flaming yourself.

It was you who questioned Chako's integrity in the first place, and sarcastically at that. I laugh at guys like you, those who throw a punch then go scurrying off for cover.

Just about the only reason you brought about such criticism of your work is because you freely criticize other people and products (both Canon and Pentax, mind you) in the first place and even proudly trot yourself as a photographer for many, many years already but have been found short on basic photographic knowledge and output time and time again. When you give criticism, be man enough to take criticism as well, and not point to the sanctuary that is "You're flaming me! Boo!"

And please, don't paint yourself as the victim here. You were always the aggressor. Also, you're not the only forum member here who has issues with Pentax, but those people try to give all sides a fair shake. They engage in civil debate, not flamebait. Many times we (us forum members) have had different viewpoints (especially with the new bodies being put out by the big players) about Pentax, but the one thing that's good about the people here is that we see eye-to-eye and have a mutual respect for one another and our own different viewpoints. We don't force people to see the way we do and that only we are correct, anything that deviates from that is wrong.

In any case, I'm not particularly concerned (GASP!) that you're about to ignore me. You and everyone else here reading this thread know that I make my posts not to flame, but to knock some sense into you. Really, let's get off that I'm-the-victim-here act. It's not fit for you.

[Chako]

I have no clue why I am posting some photos. I really don't care about what people think of me.

Anyways, here are a few for you Ricehigh. These were all taken on my last photo outing. I spent the day just walking around at the local canal. I spent a few lovely hours relaxing and walking. It was a beautiful day. I do not claim that these are super duper fantastic shots. I do however like them for various reasons.

















My main message that has been consistent throughout is this. Stop complaining about the little things, and go out there and take more photos. You are from Hong Kong. I bet there are millions of things you could take photos of. Arguing over ISO standards is pointless. Most people know that light meters have a range to remain in spec. It all boils down to getting to know the characteristics of your camera.

[RiceHigh]

Chako, thanks for posting your photos. At least now I know how your "far superior" and "must be better than yours" photos are actually looking like. An eye opener!