Hello Godfrey. The same anwer as to WR - why does the D do it right - not over compensating for the bright sky? The sky isn't THAT bright. IMO the image done with the *ist D is exposed exactly right, rendering both the clouds and the foreground with detail. The one done with the K10D is clearly over exposed - even the dark foreground is too bright and the clouds are burned away. If this is as intended, it's a disrace to Pentax, Pnetrax camera have in the past been well respected for accuate exposure. The *ist D is too, I believe. An old fashioned camera (pre matrix metering) would have underexposed the foreground, rendering it too dark. Regards
Jens http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 10. februar 2007 22:26 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? On Feb 10, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I also discovered that I had the contrast set to +1. This may > partly have > caused the burned out sky/the missing clouds. That's a big help, but for such a scene I actually prefer the K10D's rendering over the D's ... As WR suggested, it's a subject failure. ;-) > I will never get used to having to dial in MINUS CORRECTION for > back lit > scenery or bright sky (quite the opposite of what I have been doing > for the > past 30 years. Even dispite matrix metering). So I'll be doing more > test > tomorrow, preferably in RAW format (now that I don't have to reset > it all > the time :-) > Hopefully I don't have to have it repaired ( I use it every day). I think you'll find the camera is metering properly. The fact that it meters differently is neither here nor there. Matrix metering would lens more importance to the foreground/shadow areas ... it can't help blowing out the sky unless it underexposes those other areas since it's just one exposure for the whole scene. If you had captured in RAW format, either exposure would have been fine. > You are right on the image quality issue, of cource. > However, I don't see any big difference in image quality. At the sample resolution you presented, I don't know what differences you were expecting to see. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
