Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2009, 08:21 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
That's a statement again, not an explanation of how you arrived at your position. I guess it is safe to assume that you have a feeling but no objective data.
i went and played w/ my K100D again. when the mirror slaps up there is a vibration that bugs me. yes perhaps it is only mine (which i doubt, as i think i've tried one other K100D, but it's not a comprehensive study if that's what you're looking for) or maybe i'm more sensitive. besides that no objective data, but might as well throw my experience out there for other people's consideration. the k100d lacks the shutterbox damping of many other dslrs.

QuoteQuote:
You only need the shadow detail for applying a non-linear tone curve, don't you? If you just scale down brightness globally then you may as well use less exposure right away. And again, the same applies to RAW & JPEG. No difference, except the normal advantages that come with shooting RAW (but are not specific to this particular issue of exposing to the right).
Expose Right


Last edited by k100d; 03-01-2009 at 08:26 PM.
03-01-2009, 09:27 PM   #47
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
i went and played w/ my K100D again. when the mirror slaps up there is a vibration that bugs me.
But you cannot really know whether that vibration happens before or after the shutter closes, right? If the vibration stems from the mirror return, it won't have any effect on images and your "one stop loss" on hand holding conjecture won't be true.

QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
besides that no objective data, but might as well throw my experience out there for other people's consideration.
Sure, but when you mention concrete numbers like "one stop" then it is natural for people to wonder how you arrived at such figures and ask questions.

QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
This article also recommends to combine "expose to the right" with shooting in RAW, but it doesn't explain why shifting the exposure level in RAW makes a difference. Shifting a histogram to the left perhaps could be done in such a way that noise levels are reduced but I don't see why this could not be / is not done when shifting the histogram of a JPEG image. I also don't see how that technique should help against "posterization" (as claimed in the article). Shifting a histogram to the left, doesn't create more levels in the shadow areas. Perhaps I'm missing something?

EDIT: I noticed a passage in the article that probably reconciles my view with that of the article. It says "do your usual corrections" (with a normal exposure and then see if the expose to the right techniques has advantages). If the "usual corrections" involve pulling up shadow levels then of course this may introduce posterization and going the other way (compressing the highlights) will give the better results. For a linear shift of all the levels, it shouldn't make a difference of whether you expose the correct scene directly or expose to the right and then shift to the left. I'm happy to be corrected on this matter.

BTW, later on at the same page someone is quoted to stating that the 18% exposure doesn't make sense for digital cameras and that they should rather watch out for the highlights. This is what Pentax DSLRs tend to do but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps you are just more fond of how film manages to capture a wide dynamic range with soft shoulders at the extremes.

Last edited by Class A; 03-01-2009 at 09:45 PM.
03-01-2009, 09:53 PM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
But you cannot really know whether that vibration happens before or after the shutter closes, right? If the vibration stems from the mirror return, it won't have any effect on images and your "one stop loss" on hand holding conjecture won't be true.
i tried it in bulb mode, so i hold the shutter release button, the camera goes slap and shutter opens and there's a vibration. when i release the shutter closes and there's another slap and another vibration.

if the first slap before the shutter opens throws me off, then the picture will be blurry. the return mirror i would not be as worried about.

QuoteQuote:
Sure, but when you mention concrete numbers like "one stop" then it is natural for people to wonder how you arrived at such figures and ask questions.
you're right kind of ambiguous, it's rangefinder talk. and again there's a reason why there's mirror lockup and improvements w/ leaf shutters.

QuoteQuote:
This article also recommends to combine "expose to the right" with shooting in RAW, but it doesn't explain why shifting the exposure level in RAW makes a difference. Shifting a histogram to the left perhaps could be done in such a way that noise levels are reduced but I don't see why this could not be / is not done when shifting the histogram of a JPEG image. I also don't see how that technique should help against "posterization" (as claimed in the article). Shifting a histogram to the left, doesn't create more levels in the shadow areas. Perhaps I'm missing something?
i've already said this before and it's mentioned in the article. digital cameras are more sensitive to highlights than shadow detail. so to capture as much information as possible, you want to overexpose to account for this. then decreasing the exposure in RAW and you'll get a better picture.

if you do this the reverse way of underexposing (expose to the left) and then increasing exposure, your picture will not lok as good.

this only works in RAW because RAW is has all of the captured information. JPEG compression throws out a lot of this information and therefore does not have the same allowance for exposure adjustments.

edit:

QuoteQuote:
BTW, later on at the same page someone is quoted to stating that the 18% exposure doesn't make sense for digital cameras and that they should rather watch out for the highlights. This is what Pentax DSLRs tend to do but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps you are just more fond of how film manages to capture a wide dynamic range with soft shoulders at the extremes.
marc and i have had this discussion before. right i don't like the 18% or whatever it is really, if i'm always adding +0.7 or more (not even considering ETTR), then my definition is it underexposes. maybe instead of "underexposing", i can say "the pictures turn darker than i want". yes, i am loving film dynamic range
03-01-2009, 09:56 PM   #49
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Richard Spencer: Now, my problem is that it is all going so well that I feel very little desire to upgrade either my camera or any of the lenses. Have I reached Utopia or am I just a tired, worn out old bore?
Richard.
What a refreshing post--cudos to you!

03-01-2009, 11:30 PM   #50
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
when the mirror slaps up, if there is significant vibration right before the shutter opens, that can throw off your handholding esp for slow speeds. the K100D does a bad job of it.
If you can measure the amount by which the K100D does worse than any other camera, I'm all ears. As it is, all you have is a a guess that says "one stop difference", which strikes me as severely overestimated. If you want anyone to believe it's a problem, you might want to try collecting actual evidence.

QuoteQuote:
QuoteQuote:
And conversely, when I shoot in dark situations, I usually need to dial in *negative* compensation, to keep the camera from trying to make the scene look as bright as day. All depends on the scene and what effect you are going for.
i don't agree on this either. if you're shooting RAW and i know you are, if it's brighter as long as it doesn't blow the highlights, exposing as much as possible is beneficial.
I'm not sure what you don't agree with. You don't agree that i often have to dial in negative compensation? I assure you I do. You don't agree the results depend on the scene? Shoot a black cat and get back to me. You don't agree it depends on the effect you are going for? Well, the effect I am going for is a predictable ISO-standard exposure, and I get it every time. You apparently are going for a different effect.

As for "exposing to the right", sure, it's beneficial in some ways. It's not the "correct" exposure and it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the camera to do this for you, but if you wish that effect, you're welcome to take the necessary steps to achieve it.

QuoteQuote:
-- Marc have you had a K100D before? or are you basing your comments on your experience w/ the K200D.
My wife has the K100D, and I had an *istDS before my K200D.
03-01-2009, 11:55 PM   #51
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
marc and i have had this discussion before. right i don't like the 18% or whatever it is
I don't "like" it most of the time, either - that's not the point. But I also absolutely understand what it is and why the International Standards Organization and every book on photography ever written gives it as the standard for exposure. Not because it is always what you want, but because it is a predictable baseline that you can then alter as you see fit. It really is worth understanding and accepting this rather than constantly wishing the camera would try to read your mind.

QuoteQuote:
maybe instead of "underexposing", i can say "the pictures turn darker than i want".
That would be more accurate. But the solution isn't necessarily to blindly dial in compensation; there are other (better) solutions, such as substitute metering (where you meter off something that will yield the exposure you want then lock with AE-L).
03-02-2009, 06:24 AM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
One can sit there arguing the reality of a one stop mirror slap and 18% grey being ISO standard 4.2 service pack 3 if you like compared to other cameras I have used the mirrir slap is a freakin huge kkkkkkeeeeerrrrrr clunk!!!!! and Pentrax cameras produce an image that is darker than most of it's competitors and they reproduce poorly on screen and REALLY poorly in print (lower luminance of paper).
03-02-2009, 06:50 AM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't "like" it most of the time, either - that's not the point. But I also absolutely understand what it is and why the International Standards Organization and every book on photography ever written gives it as the standard for exposure. Not because it is always what you want, but because it is a predictable baseline that you can then alter as you see fit. It really is worth understanding and accepting this rather than constantly wishing the camera would try to read your mind.
are you implying that only Pentax follows ISO standards for exposure?

Expose to the Right is always beneficial, the usage depends on whether your want to bother w/ it and sacrifice the shutter speed or not.

03-02-2009, 07:04 AM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
If you can measure the amount by which the K100D does worse than any other camera, I'm all ears. As it is, all you have is a a guess that says "one stop difference", which strikes me as severely overestimated. If you want anyone to believe it's a problem, you might want to try collecting actual evidence.
i can't say i've used tonnes of cameras, but i after using the Pentax AF film cameras, i can say that there is a big difference. it's all anecdotal and more of a personal thing than scientific, but it's easily "tested" in comparison w/ other cameras if the mirror slap throws me off.
03-02-2009, 07:27 AM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
w/ all my issues w/ the k100d, i'm kind of glad i kept mines instead of selling and letting someone learn all the intricacies.
despite all my criticisms, i know how to work around most of the problems and it still is a good camera when i get everything right.
03-02-2009, 09:38 AM   #56
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posts: 129
Original Poster
As the original poster (the guy in Utopia), it is fantastic to receive so many replies, I have learnt so much, thanks to all of you.
One thing interests me though. My K100d consistantly over exposes, has done from the day I bought it, I need to dial in -0.5 exposure compensation to put it right. Anyone else have the same situation?
Richard.
03-02-2009, 10:14 AM   #57
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
You sure you're not spot metering? That sounds awfully odd. What lens? The superzoom can do that, the 18-250 ..... rest of my gear underexpose.
03-02-2009, 11:26 AM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
I use the K100D as it can be capable of giving outstanding results.

Yesterday (Sun Mar/1) I shot at the Sean Costello Memorial Concert -
it was held on the stage at the North Atlanta High Center for the Arts -
the stage lighting seemed simple compared to most of the music concert venues - but the results were really good to say the least.

Although the lights gave good results - the shooting conditions were still somewhat challenging - there was a deep orchestra pit between the seating area and the stage so to get good close ups I needed to use the equivalent 200mm region - which really means over 1/200 sec for handheld without Shake Reduction.

I normally have the K100D set at Auto ISO with the range 200-1600 - and most of the shots were at ISO1600.

Here are 4 shots from that session I have re-attached the metadata (EXIF + Pentax notes) to these resized/processed images using PhotoME .


left: lens equiv. 207 mm; f/4.5; 1/125 sec; ISO1600
right: lens equiv. 270 mm; f/5.6; 1/50sec; ISO1600


left: lens equiv. 187 mm; f/4.5; 1/50sec; ISO1600
right: lens equiv. 240 mm; f/5.6; 1/40 sec; ISO1600


rest of that Album

Some thoughts on the lighting -

To me these shots almost look like studio shots - except for the obvious action - I thought the light was that good....

I think it was theatre stage lighting, which stresses proper facial lighting -
and that makes a lot of difference - most concert stage lighting are mostly about colors and what looks good for the stage and not necessarily about the artist - ie: "light show" - as opposed to lighting the artists/act on stage.

..... remember these are all ISO1600 shots and 200+mm handheld at 1/40,1/50 and 1/125 sec -
I not saying only the K100D could have taken these shots, but it certainly contributed a LOT.
03-02-2009, 11:46 AM   #59
Veteran Member
mickeyobe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,759
Vincent,

As the owner of a K100D I am thrilled with your pictures.
I couldn't ask for anything better.
They prove that I made a wise choice.

Thanks,

Mickey
03-02-2009, 12:14 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by mickeyobe Quote
As the owner of a K100D I am thrilled with your pictures.
I couldn't ask for anything better.
They prove that I made a wise choice.
Thank you Mickey - this is very kind of you.

Yes, the K100D may not be perfect - but it basically does everything I want (for now) - I would love better ISO3200 or even ISO6400 (like the Nikon D90) - perhaps even faster AF - but I rarely have problems - mostly it's probably not being able to keep up with "fast" action - I am not too sure if "faster" AF would really solve the problem -

Most of the time I don't have problems as I always pre-focus and wait for the shot - but if I shoot, then see another opportunity - I have to refocus and may miss the shot - I could set the lens on manual fixed focus - but this works for wider angles with more depth of field to play with - but not with longer telephoto lengths where the DoF is much shallower and the focus point could be out of depth.....

Last edited by UnknownVT; 03-02-2009 at 02:59 PM. Reason: typo
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k100d, lenses, photography, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your satisfaction with Pentax Customer/Support Services jpzk Photographic Technique 4 02-09-2010 09:32 AM
K-7 owners' satisfaction/dissatisfaction? Pentaxor Pentax DSLR Discussion 87 08-31-2009 02:44 AM
LBA satisfaction - 2 x Tamron (and some bokeh tests) Illuwatar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 06-24-2009 02:26 PM
J.D. Power 2009 Japan Digital Camera Customer Satisfaction Survey yakiniku Pentax News and Rumors 12 03-23-2009 11:33 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: K100d Body only $325 total. includes shipping + insurance and paypal GatorPentax Sold Items 0 10-30-2007 11:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top