On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Mark Stringer wrote: > Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: > "The 16-45 is told to underexpose one stop." > > I am very disappointed in my DA16-45 which I bought with my istD. I > cannot count on it to produce useable photos. My first outing was > to see my daughter at an equestrian event on a bright day. > Everything is washed out, even close ups of my daughters face. > > Is there a fix for this? Is Pentax acknowledging this? I do not > want to have to make additional settings to cope with this problem. > I would like to trade it in for a DA14. Anyone else notice this > problem? I have compared it to other lens and it is obvious.
What metering mode are you using? What is your contrast setting? Are you shooting raw? What exposure program are you using? There is a learning curve with exposure on digital SLRs unless you are coming from a slide background. There is a lot less exposure latitude on them than when shooting negative film. With RAW you do get some extra latitude, but blown out highlights tend to remain blown out. On a bright very high contrast day the scene dynamic range is almost definately going to be larger than what the sensor can capture. If skin tone is important than you are going to need to meter for that, but you'll give up a little shadow detail in exchange. Shooting on low contrast (which captures the widest dynamic range possible) or using RAW so that you can tweak it later provide the best flexibility. I haven't noticed any differences in metering with my DA 16-45/4 compared to any of my other lenses. I haven't done a back to back comparison though. If I get a chance I'll do this with my FA 35/2 and A 24/2.8 since they are the two other lenses that I own in this focal length range. alex
