Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The continuing saga of my Sony A100

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 18:21 GMT
Spent the last little while taking pictures of my garden and viewing them on the
computer, modifying them, and running out again... I'm using a Samsung LCD.

One pet peeve I've always had with digital cameras was their inability to shoot
bright yellow and white flowers in sunlight. The first cam I had was so bad you
wouldn't have known it was a flower... Cameras did get better over the years,
the best results so far I've seen were with my D70. This Sony is also fairly
good, but... in some cases, very bad.

A few close ups I took were ok, but if the flower (or yellow bean in one case)
is only a small part of the picture, it is blasted out! In some ways the
pictures remind me of movie camera color - kind of like Ektachrome in bad
developer or something... closer to a P&S then a DSLR...   Too much contrast and
poor linearity...

Wide shots of the garden appear to be too light. After adjusting -1 stop, they
appear bizarre... the camera can't handle the entire range of light, and makes
the average a bit too high. It needs a different mid bias.

I managed to correct some of the shots with a negative gamma curve applied by
hand in Micrografx. This camera is going to need curves !!

Taking the picture into Elements 4 and hitting 'auto color correct' made a
change right away. Does that mean something?

(I would LOVE to see similar shots from the Nikon D200 which has the same
sensor. Anyone know of a Pbase page of D200 garden shots?)

The auto WB gives weird results, some shade shots are a weird green - I mean the
bark as well as the leaves... if however I pick 'shade' in the menu it does a
better job.

I didn't like the choice of ISO in auto, so I think I'll keep it manual. That's
my habit anyway. It picked 125 in a shade area and then went to 1/30 sec!
weird...

So far I've been in multi-segment meter and fixed-middle-spot focus. ISO is now
locked at 400. Will try different color modes, also the DR on and off. The
default for that is 'middle' sort of...  See the review at that digital cam
review place.

If anyone is interested, I can upload shots to my Pbase pages. I won't if there
is no interest.

I wish I had my Nikon to compare!

Bob
ian - 05 Aug 2006 21:28 GMT
> Spent the last little while taking pictures of my garden and viewing them
> on the
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> makes
> the average a bit too high. It needs a different mid bias.

dpreview complained about the multisegment metering doing something similar.
Small areas of very bright light did cause an underexposure.

> I managed to correct some of the shots with a negative gamma curve applied
> by
> hand in Micrografx. This camera is going to need curves !!

Turn the DRO onto advanced and report back.

> Taking the picture into Elements 4 and hitting 'auto color correct' made a
> change right away. Does that mean something?

Auto white balance isn't too great on canon either.  Specific white balance
parameters are good.  The manual or custom functions are good.  RAW and
adjustment with the canon software is spot on for me so try that out too
with the sony stuff.

> (I would LOVE to see similar shots from the Nikon D200 which has the same
> sensor. Anyone know of a Pbase page of D200 garden shots?)
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Bob
BobF@nospam.com - 06 Aug 2006 00:47 GMT
>> Wide shots of the garden appear to be too light. After adjusting -1 stop,
>> they
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Turn the DRO onto advanced and report back.

I tried both ways, but I should try the 2 special zone modes as well.
David Kilpatrick - 06 Aug 2006 11:23 GMT
> dpreview complained about the multisegment metering doing something similar.
> Small areas of very bright light did cause an underexposure.

There's a reason for this. Applies to many DSLRs. The focusing screens -
like the latest one on the D200 - are made almost transparent to ensure
 a bright viewing image from the small screen area. The meter cells are
in the prism. Under certain conditions, a light source can 'shine
through' to one meter cell.

The solution on the KM 7D was to have the screen changed for a Type M or
ML, which reduces the screen brightness by over a stop, and makes it
very hard to view with low aperture, short focal length lenses. The
metering would be adjusted overall to compensate. The brightness
remained acceptable with lenses faster than f4, especially long lenses.
As a bonus, depth of field preview actually works with the M or ML
screen; although a preview button is provided on the A100, it is
meaningless, as the result is not an accurate preview. When you fit a
50mm f1.4 lens, the d-o-f you see is equivalent to a 50mm f4 even when
at full aperture, as the exit pupil of the lens is reduced by the
semi-transparent focusing screen and eyepiece/condensor effect
combination. These bright screens also make manual focusing impossible,
as a brief play around with the dioptre control will show you. The AF
markings are, also, separated from the focus screen surface by one or
more shims, inserted in the factory to collimate the lens
mount/screen/mirror setup. When the AF markings are dead sharp by
adjusting the dioptre, you are not focusing the eyepiece on the screen
surface, and all your manual focusing will be slightly out.

The solution is to set a lens at infinity (pick one which checks out on
a good film camera body to actually focus on infinity, when set there -
not one which focuses beyond). If you can, do a check on a focus screen
inserted on the film gate of a camera, to establish the correct setting
for infinity. Looking through the DSLR, with the lens set to this
reference and pointed at an infinity subject (greater than 300 feet)
adjust the eyepiece dioptre until the image (not the AF markings) is as
sharp as possible. Now adjust the dioptre control until the AF markings
are maximum sharpness. Make a note of the difference - i.e., one click
anti-clockwise or whatever it may be. For accurate manual focus in
future, just focus on the AF sensor markings, then adjust the setting by
this amount.

Metering is completely screwed up by the 'Haoda' matt screens with
central micro/split focusing aid. Not only does the screen density
change overall metering, any light source hitting the central focusing
aid may produce an extreme underexposure.

Sony so far has not announced any alternative screens for the A100.

David
bmoag - 05 Aug 2006 22:58 GMT
"the camera can't handle the entire range of light"

You have it exactly.
Current digital sensors, regardless of how many pixels, have a dynamic range
that may be no better than .1fstop (according to Seikonic in their
advertising materials) and for all practical purposes is clearly less than
even transparency film.
Digital sensors have much less latitude for overxposure than underexposure
and the D70 is engineered to underexpose because as we all know you can
bring up detail from shadows but can do nothing with blown out highlights.
As such the megapixel race, just like the CPU speed race, is beside the
point even at this early time in the development of digital photography.
What is really needed is a digital sensor with significantly increased
exposure latitude or an in-camera software method of varying the sensitivity
of the sensors during exposure to tame the highlights.
BobF@nospam.com - 06 Aug 2006 00:46 GMT
>"the camera can't handle the entire range of light"
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>exposure latitude or an in-camera software method of varying the sensitivity
>of the sensors during exposure to tame the highlights.

Thats what the Fujifilm camera does... it has extra 'pixels' for the over-white
and adds them in later.
Wolfgang Weisselberg - 11 Aug 2006 16:27 GMT
> Current digital sensors, regardless of how many pixels, have a dynamic range
> that may be no better than .1fstop

1/10 of a stop dynamic range?  Which camera would that be?
Must be a very special application.  Scanning of b/W art?

> (according to Seikonic in their advertising materials)

Hmmm ... what are they selling?

> and for all practical purposes is clearly less than
> even transparency film.

Can you explain
   http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
then?

> Digital sensors have much less latitude for overxposure than underexposure

Just like slide film, only a bit more so.

> What is really needed is a digital sensor with significantly increased
> exposure latitude or an in-camera software method of varying the sensitivity
> of the sensors during exposure to tame the highlights.

So you are saying that we need better digital than we ever
had film?

-Wolfgang
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.