Robert Eckerlin: This jpeg photo file is quite underexposed; despite the Exposure compensation of +0.30. However the ACR Photo version that is also included in the provided samples, is wonderfully exposed.
Why is this jpeg Foto file so poorly exposed? Has it been shot with the camera determined aperture/exposure time? If that would be the case, this would mean to me (a non-specialist) that the camera was quite poor in determining the right exposure or in the jpeg creation process.
Do i miss something?
It was deliberately exposed for the highlights with the intent of lifting the shadows in Raw (the next image in this series).
Lan: Surprisingly high levels of noise, and worse still there's quite a lot of noise reduction at base ISO here too. For a camera with professional pretentions this is not looking good at all...
This is a processed, adjusted Raw file.
shademaster: It would have been nice to have seen what the in-camera "Smart Range" Dynamic Range optimizer could have done. Are the tone curves adjustable in-camera?
Smart Range has a pretty subtle effect, honestly in our experience. Certainly nothing like as much effect as this shot (exposed for the highlights) would have required.
Karroly: Obviously, it is still hard to get a nice blurred background at wide angle end...
To be fair, everything in this image is pretty close to being at infinity.
Couscousdelight: Where are the details ? It's all overexposed...Why using a +1 exposure compensation ?
Because it's a white rose shot under harsh, direct light.
Eric Calabros: Well.. We have a DR disaster here
Exposure is actually pretty well-balanced between subject (dark) and background (bright). The camera's metering system did it's job here. AWB didn't though - it's too blue.
macky patalinghug: They're okay. Thanks for the samples.
You are very welcome.
M Jesper: Was this taken with the TCL by any chance ?
J. Gysenbergs: Bit confused here: EXIF data says this picture was taken January 3, 2014 12:34:07AM but you can see people walking towards the Dom lightly dressed and in broad daylight.
The camera is a pre-production unit. Date/time was evidently zero'd.
it's volunteer park in Seattle
JABB66: What went wrong here?
gbvalli: Very faded colours, methinks .
yup. It's what Leica thinks is 'natural'
barb_s: 146 mm but the camera lens is 400mm. Why not use it all for the plane?
^^what that guy said^^
OlavM: Seems to be a bit challenging lighting conditions, and some CA /flare can be observed. How about using a circular PL here?
General policy - we don't shoot *through* anything when we take samples.
kits: Looks promising. Will be intresting if RX10 takes same subject pictures at the same time.
I did shoot many similar shots at the same time, a fact many will bash me for. The point of the pictures is not to show great art, but to show the capabilities of the camera.
Harold66: I am quite certain that the GRD IV does nor allow the use of an EVF contrary to what you wrote in this previewHarold
I'm thinking of the GXRs, aren't I?
shaocaholica: Is the D3XXX the same level as the D40? I really haven't followed the D40 line since.
D40 - D40X - D60 - D3000 - D3100 - D3200
(Though the fact that the D40 continued for a while alongside other models rather muddies the water)
scarecrow76: Nice shot! But it looks like you put an Army uniform (8th Air Force patch?) in front of a Navy/Marine Corp Corsair.
Good catch! I hadn't noticed, the models just happened to be there at the time. :)
You are correct, the ghosting is an aspect of the Auto HDR mode. I've added a note to the description. Thanks for the feedback!