Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2006, 1:58 AM   #11
SteveModena's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51

It's not your imagination that the ist DL consistently meters "dark exposure" for overcast views. The ist DL has a high percentage of darks on bright days also, especially if the clear sky is a large percentage of the view.

Yesterday I toured Union County NC and took about 2500 snaps (auto bracketing +/- 0.5). The day began as heavily overcast and ended with the sun occasionally breakng through. I took everything with EV 0.0 and then EV +0.5 and somtimes EV +1.0. I shot countryside and city scenes. P-mode set tocloudy and locked on ISO200.

If I had left the camera on EV 0.0 with no bracketing I would estimate 70% or more of the shots would have been seriously under-exposed.

Two weeks ago I was in Anson County NC and didmostly rural shooting with extremely bright skies throughout. I was experimentally shooting EV0.0 followed by EV +0.5 and EV +1.0, because my previewing the snaps on my laptop was showing a strong tendency to seriously under-expose.

RiceHigh has been critical of this camera series and I AGREE WITH HIS MAJOR CRITICISMS BASED ON MY DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

One series of shots absolutely shocked me into believing that the camera senor may have a narrow dynamic range _per se_.

The 6M *** (high quality) JPG algorithm is seriously flawed: I can not believe the BLOTCHY skies. I experimented with shooting a sheet of white paper (bright 92) under incandescent light (P-mode incandescent). The result was non-white, moire pattern,and huge blotches of "next color."

I shot with an original Canon Digital Rebel for two years of traveling throughout NC doing exactly this kind of photog-ing and taking perhaps 125-150,000 snaps. The Canon *rarely* got it wrong under all kinds of situations. It photographed a white sheet of paper as white, no moire, and no blotchs. Skies never "blotched."

What are the ist DL virtues? Inexpensive to buy ($100 rebate fulfilled, thank you Pentax). I like the colors when the exposure is correct. With the Transcend 2GB 144X SD cards, it is a fast shooter and empties the buffer very quickly (the Rebel was SO slow). The night shooting noise remover is very good. I haven't seen any hot pixels yet (the Rebel developed a lot of them). The camera appears to me mechanically sound and well balanced to handle. When I wear the shutter out, I report a comparison to the Rebel.

That's my 2-cents worth. It is a UTILITY camera and will serve my needs if the shutter can stay with my usage pattern. The idea of shooting RAW to "fix up" Pentax design flaws is unacceptable. My Nikon 995, Canon A520 and Canon Rebel were more "honestly" produced cameras.

Attached Images
SteveModena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 9:07 AM   #12
Senior Member
oreo57's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152

you all should really read what a light meter does and doesn't do. And I could go into detail on why Canon images are brighter because they "broke with" the ISO standards regarding sensor rating. Now this is NOT an attempt to JUSTIFY, or GLORIFY the Pentax way, just basic facts.....There are issues w/ the metering system BUT you have to seperate the facts from the perception of "what it should do" and to add it to what I like to call the "digital dark secrets" (sensors are linear, and not film like, they don't "do" red well, due to the need of an AA filter they are softer, comparing film to digital on almost any level is not wise, they are pretty unrelated, iso is a totally different concept from film to digital, ect) .. I've spent literally years looking into this "exposure"subject and came to MY OWN conclusions regarding it.

A meter does one thing, in general, and I'm leaving out Matrix metering which is a completely different animal all together.Averages the data of the scene and sets an exposure that would produce an average of, hmmm this is where the trouble begins, lets just say an average grey... Now Canon's meter and Pentax will probably agree on shutter/ap readings on the same scene BUT Canon's overrating the sensors iso produces a much brighter look. Add to this compression (probably "just the way the raw is") of the contrast on Pentax, you get the "dark gloomy" issue..... Pretty simple actually BUT doesn't do any of us a bit of good, unless we see the scene as the meter does, and realize that the meter is NOT a genius.... My PERSONAL take on all of this is Pentax pretty much followed the "old way" of calibrating the light meter (with the, get this , fudge factor built into the standards, erring on the low side)for a bunch of "new reasons". Blown highlights are BAD, in general.THIS is all my observations and personal opinions from a bad photographer who likes techy stuff

There are "other issues" as in some lenses are darker than others, some drift as the aperature changes, BUT in order to see those issues you must know what the meter sees first, otherwise you can't seperate the 2. But compare in center weighted metering and REMEMBER it is center weighted as to the AVERAGE, I have no clue as to how Pentax works it's Matrix metering so it throws way too many variables in.As stated above set the exp comp to .7 (in my case here I would probably need 1 full stop, but I like my dark gloomy RAW images) and you'll get your Canon images.........

and a few references:



"Exposure meter calibration"

PS the image IS underexposed, but not as much as you may think. My factory recalibrated D came back a tad lower than the original calibration..... go figure... not enough to annoy me though.......

and did I throw in enough MY OPINION disclaimers...........?????????????

And STEVE.. good job bracketing, that's what I did in my old slide days.... pretty well guaranteed a good shot. gee I miss those days..... NOT

oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 9:44 AM   #13
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15


Thank you for the reply and the very good information. Yes, cost was a factor in my purchase but I have really grown to love my DL. It just fits "me". Easy to use menu and a screen I can actually see without my reading glasses as I already carry enough crap around with me. I will look at my friends Canon when I get a chance but the reviews I have looked at shows what may a busy screen that I probably can't see without glasses. For the most part I am very satisfied with the DL and it's results. Certainly and improvment over the Sony's I have had with one costing twice as much. The help is very much appreciatted!!!!
robert383 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 9:46 AM   #14
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15

Thank you very much for the information and sharing your view on a fairly (to me) complicated topic. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks but I am learning everyday.

robert383 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 1:45 PM   #15
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,004

Thanks for the explanation! The K100D does expose lighter than the DS. I used to use the F717 and always metered from the lightest part of the picture, because it tended to expose too light for my tastes, and the camera was good about bringing/keeping detail in shadows. The DS seemed to naturally underexpose, but that was OK with me - I didn't worry about blowing out the highlights. Now I understand why, and why I initiallyhadsome problems adjusting to the K100D. I can see that a grey card is in my immediate future!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:00 PM.