Exposure compensation gone mad ?

[Oricoh]

Hey, today I have been trying to take some photos indoor (Z6ii in manual mode), and everything turns out extremely dark. Then I noticed that the exposure compensation is all the way at the bottom (-), its daylight, there is plenty of light in the room btw.

I manually changed it back to 0 and then it jumps back to the bottom max. As if it's doing auto exposure compensation (?) and doing it completely wrong...

P.s ignore the 1/60, it does the same thing with 1/400 or more.

Why is this happening?

 

[Thom Hogan]

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100

Sunny 16 rule is 1/100, f/16. Your settings are basically about three stops under that. I find it difficult to believe that your interior lighting is only -3EV below Sunny 16.

I am somehow familiar with the rule, but is there a formula, calculator to apply it other scenarios?

Well, there's Moony 11, but no, there's no rule of thumb for your room ;~).

For instance I did try it with ISO 1600 and still the exposure bar was all the way at the bottom.

You're in manual exposure. You're trying to photograph at f/7.1 and 1/60 for some reason. You're at ISO 1600 and the exposure bar is telling you that you don't have enough light for those settings. Simple as that. You've also now giving some exposure preference to white (due to the focus position).

So, hold down the ISO button and increase ISO until the metering bar is not showing underexposure. What's the ISO? Tell me that, and I can tell you how much light is in your room (within a small range).

 

[Thom Hogan]

it's just that I disagree with camera's reading,

You don't know what the camera's exposure reading is. You only know that it's greater than three stops underexposed in your original example, and exactly three stops underexposed in your most recent example.

You have not given sufficient evidence that you should be in disagreement with your camera. I wouldn't expect to be able to use f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 indoors. As I've noted in another response, I don't get anything close to that indoors in my home today, and it's a bright day outside and I've got light white curtains that diffuse the light into the house.

and I think there is something wrong beyond the ISO/Speed/Aperture. I want to have a specific DoF and noise level, so it doesn't help me changing those settings.

Wanting something and being able to attain it are two entirely different things.

As I've pointed out for decades now:

EXPOSURE = LIGHT filtered by APERTURE filtered by SHUTTER SPEED

In your instance, you've dictated a fairly small APERTURE for indoors. The metering of the camera is telling me that the LIGHT you have available is probably pretty low.

For example I changed the ISO all the way to 6400 and It didn't change a thing.

You haven't shown evidence of that.

Either I changed something deep in the settings,

If it were something "deep in the settings" then doing a complete camera reset would fix it. It is possible, given that you seem to be fiddling around, that you have exposure compensation set (which changes the zero point on the exposure compensation bar in Manual exposure) or that you've got a bracketing set in progress. Doing a reset (and if this is a Zfc or Zf moving the exposure compensation dial back to 0) would eradicate the possibility.

or something is broken.

The reason why so many knowledgeable folk in this thread are dismissing that is that you haven't yet proven that f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 is reasonable in your conditions. Again, I don't expect to have my camera set that way indoors. Indeed, I'm not even sure that I've had that level of indoor exposure at the hockey rink, despite all that white floor reflecting the light.

 

[jthomas39]

With my Z6, my brightly lit room with bright daylight through the windows is 1/60, f7.1, ISO 6400 through ISO 8000, depending on where I aim the camera.

That's why there were suggestions to try auto ISO to see what the camera would pick.

(I also switched the mode dial to Auto just to see what it might do. Depending on the camera aim, it's around 1/125, f/4, ISO 1800, or 1/100, f/4, ISO 3200. Auto selected a wide open lens.)

 

[Fujiuseruk]

I am not assuming that there is something wrong with the camera, I used it above for illustration to make a point. From the start I assumed there is a setting gone wild, but I couldn't find it.

Exactly my point. There is no setting gone wild.

I found the problem btw (see in one of the replies) from someone's advise, I am used to centre weighted metering and it was for some reason set to matrix. I think this is the solution, it's now darker in my 'studio" so I can't fully test it in the same conditions.

Center weighted metering vs. matrix can cause differences in a photo's exposure when you are using one of the automated exposure modes. But in your original problem you are in manual mode. It really doesn't matter what metering mode you are using in that case except for what shows on the metering scale.

The rear display showed a severely underexposed photo with the settings you chose. The metering scale simply confirmed it. Switching between center weighted and matrix would not have changed the photo display on the rear LCD (assuming you have your camera display set to show results of settings).

Fair enough, so allow me to simplify or refine my question/problem then:

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100 and my camera decides that the scene is way way under exposed, despite my experience and my needs in terms of noise, how do I check that its not a camera/deep-settings (that I a missing) problem?"

I think it’s your eyes deceiving you .
do you have another camera and lens to hand to compare .

indoors even in a well lit room I’d expect exposure to be around 1/60 f4 iso 3200 as a minimum

here’s a shot from my very well lit warehouse as an example.

You may want to rethink your exposure settings







--
It’s all about the zoom

 

[PLShutterbug]

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100

Sunny 16 rule is 1/100, f/16. Your settings are basically about three stops under that. I find it difficult to believe that your interior lighting is only -3EV below Sunny 16.

I’ve read every post in this thread before responding … so I know about the debate.

Thom was a bit hasty here. It’s not “1/00, f/16.” Read the next paragraph for the full definition.

I am somehow familiar with the rule, but is there a formula, calculator to apply it other scenarios? For instance I did try it with ISO 1600 and still the exposure bar was all the way at the bottom.

No, there isn’t. The “sunny 16” rule only applies to exposures taken outdoors at noon on a bright sunny day, for a scene facing away from the sun. It says that an average outdoor scene is properly exposed under these conditions at f/16 and 1/ISO (as another wrote). If you take a picture under any other conditions then that’s not a bright sunny day at noon, so the rule no longer applies. Kodak (and other film manufacturers) would supply tables in a tech sheet in every roll sold that said for “cloudy brigh (no shadows)t” conditions shoot at f/8 and the same shutter speed, and there were other descriptions to help guide people. But the table was there because in the 1930s or whenever they invented the table, most cameras didn’t have exposure meters so they needed something to help.

Since it's evening and dark, I can't reproduce the same conditions, but here is a photo of the same settings in a complete dark room with a small dim table lamp. As you can see the underexposure bar isn't at the bottom as it was earlier today when the room was flushed with light.

“Flushed with light” doesn’t matter, because you were pointing your camera’s light meter at a dark part of the scene. When metering, what is important is where the meter is aimed, not the ambient conditions.

Additionally, our brains are marvelously adapted to interpreting hugely differing light conditions and still “showing” us a “properly exposed” scene. Humans are not very good at interpreting the proper ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop required to properly expose a photograph - that is why light meters exist.

This new photo is of a relatively bright, white object with specular highlights. Us readers don’t know if you set that “dim” light 0.1, or 10 meters away from it, and we don’t know what “dim” means to you vs. any of us. Since light falling on a subject varies by the square root of the distance from it, it’s important to know this. Based on the spill onto the background I have a hunch it was about 1 meter away, and the background is around 2 meters away. I’m not at all surprised that the mug is as well-exposed as it is and that you have as much light on the background as you do. The indicator on the right showing you are under-exposed by 3 stops looks about right, though adding three stops would probably blow out the highlights on the mug.

and my camera decides that the scene is way way under exposed, despite my experience and my needs in terms of noise, how do I check that its not a camera/deep-settings (that I a missing) problem?"

Go outside on a sunny day, at noon, and point at a scene using a normal (50mm) lens, with metering set to matrix. Make sure your scene is in full sunlight, too - “noon on a sunny day” doesn’t mean you can use f/16 at 1/ISO to photograph mushrooms under a tree in the middle of a forest the scene has to be lit by that bright sun, too. If the camera indicates that proper exposure is sunny 16 then the camera’s meter is fine.

Spot metering, gray card, known light level (which is what I'm doubting here).

 

[Oricoh]

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100

Sunny 16 rule is 1/100, f/16. Your settings are basically about three stops under that. I find it difficult to believe that your interior lighting is only -3EV below Sunny 16.

I am somehow familiar with the rule, but is there a formula, calculator to apply it other scenarios?

Well, there's Moony 11, but no, there's no rule of thumb for your room ;~).

For instance I did try it with ISO 1600 and still the exposure bar was all the way at the bottom.

You're in manual exposure. You're trying to photograph at f/7.1 and 1/60 for some reason. You're at ISO 1600 and the exposure bar is telling you that you don't have enough light for those settings. Simple as that. You've also now giving some exposure preference to white (due to the focus position).

So, hold down the ISO button and increase ISO until the metering bar is not showing underexposure. What's the ISO? Tell me that, and I can tell you how much light is in your room (within a small range).

Here it is, but again in the morning it was a room flooded with light, and now its pitch dark outside, and just a small and dim table lamp.... it feels like in the morning I also had to set it to 20,000 to get something half descent and that's exactly what doesn't make sense.

 

[PAFL-2-point-0]

It seems it may be a language issue as you mentioned, terminology issue...

Get a friend with a camera to come over and compare...same scene, same settings.

Go to a camera club, school...compare shooting same scene with someone, same settings, to see if a difference.

Go to a camera store and compare with another Z6II, same settings...

Yes, you know the light, seem to know...but as people have hinted the sun moves with the seasons...what our eyes perceive and what the camera does is not always in agreement.

And it appears you noticed you have switched between matrix and center metering which will give you different measurements.

If some thing is wrong with the camera send it in to Nikon or local repair shop...simple as that

 

[CliveTJ]

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100

Sunny 16 rule is 1/100, f/16. Your settings are basically about three stops under that. I find it difficult to believe that your interior lighting is only -3EV below Sunny 16.

I am somehow familiar with the rule, but is there a formula, calculator to apply it other scenarios?

Well, there's Moony 11, but no, there's no rule of thumb for your room ;~).

For instance I did try it with ISO 1600 and still the exposure bar was all the way at the bottom.

You're in manual exposure. You're trying to photograph at f/7.1 and 1/60 for some reason. You're at ISO 1600 and the exposure bar is telling you that you don't have enough light for those settings. Simple as that. You've also now giving some exposure preference to white (due to the focus position).

So, hold down the ISO button and increase ISO until the metering bar is not showing underexposure. What's the ISO? Tell me that, and I can tell you how much light is in your room (within a small range).

Here it is, but again in the morning it was a room flooded with light, and now its pitch dark outside, and just a small and dim table lamp.... it feels like in the morning I also had to set it to 20,000 to get something half descent and that's exactly what doesn't make sense.

I’ve just tried a bright room at 1/60 and F7.1. ISO needed to be 6400. An ISO of 100 is unrealistic.

 

[Oricoh]

it's just that I disagree with camera's reading,

You don't know what the camera's exposure reading is. You only know that it's greater than three stops underexposed in your original example, and exactly three stops underexposed in your most recent example.

You have not given sufficient evidence that you should be in disagreement with your camera. I wouldn't expect to be able to use f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 indoors. As I've noted in another response, I don't get anything close to that indoors in my home today, and it's a bright day outside and I've got light white curtains that diffuse the light into the house.

and I think there is something wrong beyond the ISO/Speed/Aperture. I want to have a specific DoF and noise level, so it doesn't help me changing those settings.

Wanting something and being able to attain it are two entirely different things.

As I've pointed out for decades now:

EXPOSURE = LIGHT filtered by APERTURE filtered by SHUTTER SPEED

In your instance, you've dictated a fairly small APERTURE for indoors. The metering of the camera is telling me that the LIGHT you have available is probably pretty low.

For example I changed the ISO all the way to 6400 and It didn't change a thing.

You haven't shown evidence of that.

Either I changed something deep in the settings,

If it were something "deep in the settings" then doing a complete camera reset would fix it. It is possible, given that you seem to be fiddling around, that you have exposure compensation set (which changes the zero point on the exposure compensation bar in Manual exposure) or that you've got a bracketing set in progress. Doing a reset (and if this is a Zfc or Zf moving the exposure compensation dial back to 0) would eradicate the possibility.

or something is broken.

The reason why so many knowledgeable folk in this thread are dismissing that is that you haven't yet proven that f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 is reasonable in your conditions. Again, I don't expect to have my camera set that way indoors. Indeed, I'm not even sure that I've had that level of indoor exposure at the hockey rink, despite all that white floor reflecting the light.

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

 

[ghostfox_1]

it's just that I disagree with camera's reading,

You don't know what the camera's exposure reading is. You only know that it's greater than three stops underexposed in your original example, and exactly three stops underexposed in your most recent example.

You have not given sufficient evidence that you should be in disagreement with your camera. I wouldn't expect to be able to use f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 indoors. As I've noted in another response, I don't get anything close to that indoors in my home today, and it's a bright day outside and I've got light white curtains that diffuse the light into the house.

and I think there is something wrong beyond the ISO/Speed/Aperture. I want to have a specific DoF and noise level, so it doesn't help me changing those settings.

Wanting something and being able to attain it are two entirely different things.

As I've pointed out for decades now:

EXPOSURE = LIGHT filtered by APERTURE filtered by SHUTTER SPEED

In your instance, you've dictated a fairly small APERTURE for indoors. The metering of the camera is telling me that the LIGHT you have available is probably pretty low.

For example I changed the ISO all the way to 6400 and It didn't change a thing.

You haven't shown evidence of that.

Either I changed something deep in the settings,

If it were something "deep in the settings" then doing a complete camera reset would fix it. It is possible, given that you seem to be fiddling around, that you have exposure compensation set (which changes the zero point on the exposure compensation bar in Manual exposure) or that you've got a bracketing set in progress. Doing a reset (and if this is a Zfc or Zf moving the exposure compensation dial back to 0) would eradicate the possibility.

or something is broken.

The reason why so many knowledgeable folk in this thread are dismissing that is that you haven't yet proven that f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 is reasonable in your conditions. Again, I don't expect to have my camera set that way indoors. Indeed, I'm not even sure that I've had that level of indoor exposure at the hockey rink, despite all that white floor reflecting the light.

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen but in real life you could barely see a thing.

If in real life you can't see anything, it's safe to say it's really dark and you were, in fact, massively underexposing...

 

[ghostfox_1]

Your camera meter is telling you correctly that you’re severely underexposing and maybe out of the scale. If you’re in manual mode, just open up your aperture, increase your ISO, or slow down your shutter more. Go extreme and open your lens aperture wide open.

I think your settings are not correct for indoor. ISO 100 is extremely low for aperture of f/7.1.

Exposure compensation doesn’t do anything in manual mode, it’s there to override the camera automatic exposure for the other modes.

Gus

As I have explained in other posts in this thread, I understand what's it saying and I know I can change the other settings, it's just that I disagree with camera's reading, and I think there is something wrong beyond the ISO/Speed/Aperture.

We understand you believe this.

I want to have a specific DoF and noise level, so it doesn't help me changing those settings.

Then you have to adjust shutter speed, as that's your only remaining option. This is basic photography.

For example I changed the ISO all the way to 6400 and It didn't change a thing. I also posted a few other samples, when the room is completely dark at night, and I get better reading from the camera with just a small table lamp. As if it's reading it wrong during bright daylight.

Either I changed something deep in the settings, or something is broken.

Take a picture, look at the histogram. That will not lie to you. You're probably just wrong about the settings you need.

 

[AshleyMC]

My Zf — Manual mode, aperture 7.1, shutter speed 1/60, Auto ISO (min 100, max 16000), Matrix metering, EC dial at 0 — object on table in room with faint light from window.

The metering maxed out at 16000 ISO, and the image was severely underexposed, as shown on the scale and the histogram.

Had I manually set ISO 100 (as you had done), or even “all the way” to 6400 (as you had tried), the image would be much more severely underexposed (as in your case).



I then set aperture at 1.8 (wide open) and shutter speed at 1/30 (slower), and the camera chose ISO 4000 for a properly exposed image — note: 4000. Had I manually set ISO 100, the image would definitely be severely underexposed.

In my experience, the combo “f/7.1, 1/60s, ISO 100” usually points to daylight, outside.

 

[BasilG]

Fair enough, so allow me to simplify or refine my question/problem then:

"I am trying to take a photo in light conditions that I believe should be sufficient for circa: 1/70, f/7.1, ISO 100 and my camera decides that the scene is way way under exposed, despite my experience and my needs in terms of noise, how do I check that its not a camera/deep-settings (that I a missing) problem?"

Hitting the shutter button and taking that image would have resolved that question and told you that yes, indeed, the camera's metering was right and the settings were off. No?

I don't know if its a language issue or just me not explaining the point (and the problem) in a way that is easy for some people to understand, if its the first then I am sorry that English isn't my first language.

I do not think it is a language issue. It is a conceptual issue. If you use manual mode and the camera says your settings are underexposed and the photo is indeed underexposed, and you switch it to auto exposure and the photo has the correct brightness, then the metering is in fact working correctly. But you think the auto mode is using an excessively high ISO to reach that brightness level. Then the next conceivable issue is that maybe your lens is stopping down too much or the shutter does not open for the correct time or the sensor does not record photons the right way because you think it is bright but the settings required suggest that it is dark. All of this is very unlikely. Unless you accidentally left an ND filter on the lens.

Let's use another analogy: take a semi automatic car, that doesn't change gears on the right timing. Then someone says: switch it to manual mode and see if it works. Yes, on manual mode the car works because I switch gears when I feel its time. But I want the convenience of automatic, and I paid for automatic, so the car needs to be taken to a garage to be fixed. In my case you are saying, let the camera decide in auto mode - and my answer is yes, in auto mode, the photo is bright, but the ISO 51k in a bright light room, so its not the photo I want, something is wrong, and based on my experience there is an exposure problem and I can't find where it's coming from.

To stay with the car analogy: It is the opposite. You are using manual transmission and say that the car is defective because it does not run up a steep slope as well as you think it should in 4th gear, but it runs just fine in automatic in 2nd gear.

 

[michaeladawson]

The reason why so many knowledgeable folk in this thread are dismissing that is that you haven't yet proven that f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 is reasonable in your conditions. Again, I don't expect to have my camera set that way indoors. Indeed, I'm not even sure that I've had that level of indoor exposure at the hockey rink, despite all that white floor reflecting the light.

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

Thom is rightly asking for some evidence that your belief in the correct exposure for that room is holds up in actual practice.

Certainly, a photo tomorrow would help, assuming a nice sunny day.

But instead, if you are that sure of the amount of light in that room and what the exposure settings should be, then I assume you must have photos in your photo library that support your memory. Show us a photo from the past, preferably more than one, with intact exposure information that would indicate why you believe that a proper exposure in that room can be obtained at f/7.1, 1/60s, at ISO 100.

 

[Oricoh]

The reason why so many knowledgeable folk in this thread are dismissing that is that you haven't yet proven that f/7.1 at 1/60 at ISO 100 is reasonable in your conditions. Again, I don't expect to have my camera set that way indoors. Indeed, I'm not even sure that I've had that level of indoor exposure at the hockey rink, despite all that white floor reflecting the light.

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

Thom is rightly asking for some evidence that your belief in the correct exposure for that room is holds up in actual practice.

Certainly, a photo tomorrow would help, assuming a nice sunny day.

But instead, if you are that sure of the amount of light in that room and what the exposure settings should be, then I assume you must have photos in your photo library that support your memory. Show us a photo from the past, preferably more than one, with intact exposure information that would indicate why you believe that a proper exposure in that room can be obtained at f/7.1, 1/60s, at ISO 100.

I found a few examples but they are from my previous camera the Z50, it should be similar... right ? If anything the Z6ii should have better low light performance, also the lens I used today is a higher end S lens. I realise that the settings are not 1-to-1 match but they are not far off.

 

[PLShutterbug]

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

ISO numbers can seem deceptively large. ISO 1600 vs. 100? Sixteen times as big! But in terms of exposure it's only four stops. 20000! Huge, 200 times bigger! But it's 6-1/3 stops. I'm using overly-dramatic language here but don't mean to be insulting. But it's common to equate large scalars with large effects when in fact they may not indicate such a large effect in real life. (Another scale going the other way is earthquake magnitude: from 6-8 doesn't sound like much - it's only 1/3 more in terms of numbers, but the magnitude 8 quake is 100 times stronger than the magnitude 6 quake.)

It's a lazy Sunday morning so I did my own test shots. These scenes are in my kitchen, which is not lit by full-length south-facing windows. There is one 1x1.5 meter window on the south wall but it's shaded by a tall tree. I have a skylight fairly close to this scene. The scene is also lit by a bank of undercounter LED lights. Otherwise there is no other light in the room. I'm in the US Pacific Northwest, which is a similar latitude to London (I'm assuming you live there due to the Underground mug) so right now sunlight strength will be relatively close to there. My mug is very similar to yours in color ...

I shot in both manual and aperture-priority automatic. For each photo pair, first is the scene from behind the camera, taken with my phone and showing the settings on the monitor; second is the photo my camera shot. You can see that at the same ISO values you illustrated my scene is lit very closely to yours.


Setting the scene. Note the settings on the monitor.


Actual image taken with settings above: ISO 100, 1 second, f/7.1, aperture-priority automatic, matrix metering. It's a nicely lit scene that shows the white mug without blowing out its highlights. The mug was shadowed as illustrated.


Shot at your original image's settings. No idea here why the camera didn't show the exposure over/under indicator. It does in subsequent shots.


Severely underexposed at settings above: ISO 100, 1/60 second, f/7.1, manual exposure mode, matrix metering.




Raised ISO to 1600. Scene is still underexposed even at four stops higher gain.




Image from above settings: 1/60, f/7.1, ISO 1600. Still underexposed.




Manual exposure indicating correct exposure (exposure indicator at right indicating no under- or over-exposure). 1 second, f/7.1, ISO 100. The same exposure that aperture-priority auto-exposure indicated when the focus box is on the center of the mug.


Exposure from above. Mug is correctly exposed without blowing out highlights (not too much, anyway).

Just for grins, I then pointed the focus indicator at different areas of the scene and noted how the exposure over/under indicator changed. I didn't bother taking pictures with the camera.


Still the same manual exposure settings, but with focus box pointed at inside of coffeemaker. Note it is now showing a stop under-exposed. Matrix metering weights towards the area indicated, but still takes the whole scene into account.


Focus box aimed at tiles next to coffeemaker. Still shows 1 stop under-exposed.

I hope these images illustrate things in a way that helps you understand why your image was so underexposed while also giving you confidence that your camera's meter is not at fault.

 

[Oricoh]

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

ISO numbers can seem deceptively large. ISO 1600 vs. 100? Sixteen times as big! But in terms of exposure it's only four stops. 20000! Huge, 200 times bigger! But it's 6-1/3 stops. I'm using overly-dramatic language here but don't mean to be insulting. But it's common to equate large scalars with large effects when in fact they may not indicate such a large effect in real life. (Another scale going the other way is earthquake magnitude: from 6-8 doesn't sound like much - it's only 1/3 more in terms of numbers, but the magnitude 8 quake is 100 times stronger than the magnitude 6 quake.)

It's a lazy Sunday morning so I did my own test shots. These scenes are in my kitchen, which is not lit by full-length south-facing windows. There is one 1x1.5 meter window on the south wall but it's shaded by a tall tree. I have a skylight fairly close to this scene. The scene is also lit by a bank of undercounter LED lights. Otherwise there is no other light in the room. I'm in the US Pacific Northwest, which is a similar latitude to London (I'm assuming you live there due to the Underground mug) so right now sunlight strength will be relatively close to there. My mug is very similar to yours in color ...

I shot in both manual and aperture-priority automatic. For each photo pair, first is the scene from behind the camera, taken with my phone and showing the settings on the monitor; second is the photo my camera shot. You can see that at the same ISO values you illustrated my scene is lit very closely to yours.

hope these images illustrate things in a way that helps you understand why your image was so underexposed while also giving you confidence that your camera's meter is not at fault.

Thanks a lot for the effort!

Your images are similar and reassuring, but please check one comment above yours in the thread where I posted 2 images taken in the same room (previous Z50 camera) where I usually use ISO 100 - 400 with pretty bright results. It was in April but today was very bright as well. Here is one more, and this are the kind of settings I am use to get when I shoot in my study room. That's why I was very alarmed today when suddenly I got completely a black screen or EV


This one is even against the window where it's even darker/silhouette'ish

 

[PLShutterbug]

But instead, if you are that sure of the amount of light in that room and what the exposure settings should be, then I assume you must have photos in your photo library that support your memory. Show us a photo from the past, preferably more than one, with intact exposure information that would indicate why you believe that a proper exposure in that room can be obtained at f/7.1, 1/60s, at ISO 100.

I found a few examples but they are from my previous camera the Z50, it should be similar... right ? If anything the Z6ii should have better low light performance, also the lens I used today is a higher end S lens. I realise that the settings are not 1-to-1 match but they are not far off.

The statuette at the top is shot at 1/100, f/4, ISO 400. Compared with 1/60, f/7.1, ISO 100:

1/60 to 1/100: 2/3 stop under

F/7.1 to f/4: 1-2/3 stop over

ISO 100 to 400: 2 stops over.

Net: 3 stops over. That's one stop less light than your ISO 100 to 1600 illustration. However, we still don't know where the light was coming from or how much illumination that scene had. To me it's a meaningless comparison.

The one at the bottom (is that the same statuette, or is the bottom one the mold from which the glass statuette was cast?) is 1/50, f/4, ISO 125. Compared with your other:

1/50 to 1/60: call it the same

f/7.1 to f/4: 1-2/3 stop over

ISO 100 to 125: call it the same.

So this one is 1-2/3 stops more light than the other one. But the left side of the statuette is severely underexposed. The right edge is blown out because of the light from the right. You can see that brighter tabletop areas and the translucent red glasses frame are better-exposed but still underexposed by at least a stop. Again, I don't consider this a meaningful comparison.

A meaningful comparison would be a really similar scene to the first image (darker, no specular highlights, fairly evenly lit), shot at the same settings. But I realize you probably don' have that.

Based on my post above I still think your camera is fine and you need to study more about the exposure triangle. As another poster said, if you want a particular DOF and noise level you need to adjust ISO and shutter speed to get a correctly exposed scene. The camera is telling you that your 1/60 and ISO 100 is too little light; others think the camera is right; I think the camera is right; my experiments indicate the camera is right; that's four things telling you that you need to adjust your thinking and accept the guidance the camera gives you.

 

[PLShutterbug]

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo. It looks better in the iPhone photo I took of the Z6ii screen, the iPhone did a lot of corrections, in real life you could barely see a thing on the screen.

ISO numbers can seem deceptively large. ISO 1600 vs. 100? Sixteen times as big! But in terms of exposure it's only four stops. 20000! Huge, 200 times bigger! But it's 6-1/3 stops. I'm using overly-dramatic language here but don't mean to be insulting. But it's common to equate large scalars with large effects when in fact they may not indicate such a large effect in real life. (Another scale going the other way is earthquake magnitude: from 6-8 doesn't sound like much - it's only 1/3 more in terms of numbers, but the magnitude 8 quake is 100 times stronger than the magnitude 6 quake.)

It's a lazy Sunday morning so I did my own test shots. These scenes are in my kitchen, which is not lit by full-length south-facing windows. There is one 1x1.5 meter window on the south wall but it's shaded by a tall tree. I have a skylight fairly close to this scene. The scene is also lit by a bank of undercounter LED lights. Otherwise there is no other light in the room. I'm in the US Pacific Northwest, which is a similar latitude to London (I'm assuming you live there due to the Underground mug) so right now sunlight strength will be relatively close to there. My mug is very similar to yours in color ...

I shot in both manual and aperture-priority automatic. For each photo pair, first is the scene from behind the camera, taken with my phone and showing the settings on the monitor; second is the photo my camera shot. You can see that at the same ISO values you illustrated my scene is lit very closely to yours.

hope these images illustrate things in a way that helps you understand why your image was so underexposed while also giving you confidence that your camera's meter is not at fault.

Thanks a lot for the effort!

Your images are similar and reassuring, but please check one comment above yours in the thread where I posted 2 images taken in the same room (previous Z50 camera) where I usually use ISO 100 - 400 with pretty bright results. It was in April but today was very bright as well. Here is one more, and this are the kind of settings I am use to get when I shoot in my study room. That's why I was very alarmed today when suddenly I got completely a black screen or EV


This one is even against the window where it's even darker/silhouette'ish

The cup is still at least two stops underexposed. That's white under the red and blue, not grey. If you want a correctly rendered image you need to increase exposure. The outside is correctly exposed; I would expect the settings you used for that. But the cup is underexposed.

If you meant to photograph a cup in partial silhouette against a non-blown-out background then it's a nice image. But recognize that if your goal was a "correctly exposed" cup with white whites, you're underexposed.

 

[Oricoh]

A meaningful comparison would be a really similar scene to the first image (darker, no specular highlights, fairly evenly lit), shot at the same settings. But I realize you probably don' have that.

Michael asked for similar older photos so I posted what I could find, I also posted today a photo at ISO 1600 which wasn't much better than the ISO 100.

Based on my post above I still think your camera is fine and you need to study more about the exposure triangle. As another poster said, if you want a particular DOF and noise level you need to adjust ISO and shutter speed to get a correctly exposed scene. The camera is telling you that your 1/60 and ISO 100 is too little light; others think the camera is right; I think the camera is right; my experiments indicate the camera is right; that's four things telling you that you need to adjust your thinking and accept the guidance the camera gives you.

I do a lot of street and nature photography, and I accept what the camera gives me. Sometimes I do 'product' shots or 'studio' shots where I want to have a lot of control specifically the DOF and noise, and then I expect the camera to 'behave', my samples are not exact 1-to-1 as I stated but they pretty close, and they show a very big gap between what I received with the Z50 and what I got today with the Z6 ii .

Tomorrow if there is a nice day, I will take some comparison shots in the same room, same time and same scene, with both cameras at different setting and see if there is a difference, and I'll post the results.