Alll,
In my research about this very problem prior to purchasing the D1X, I was told that you just shouldn't rely on the LCD. Flat out! Period the end! No one ever really answered the question. Almost like they were afraid to say what (I suspected) and (we all) are now finding out with pro level camera's. That wasn't my question however. It was why, can on a consumer level camera, you get a "much" better LCD image than on a supposed pro level camera. Yes, yes, I use the histogram, and yes the bottom line is that no LCD should be trusted for proper exposure (although I really think they could be if the manufacturers wanted it so.). But you folks have hit the " nail on the head" here by giving a clear example and also restating how a consumer level camera (990) will give a better pictoral representation of the exposure.
I believe it is also a combination of this "post processing frenzy" and "wave" of softwares that some emphasis has either inadvertantly been taken away from the LCD, or the action is purposeful in nature to "force" our reliance on the processing software, thus not trusting the LCD pictoral electronics.
Now help me out here. We should definitely trust and feel comfortable with the camera's CCD output being equal to in many cases and sometimes superior, for producing photographs (as compared to film). But we should "never" trust the LCD pictoral review representation of the shot we have just taken? Perhaps True! When you factor in that the LCD is not up to task as the CCD is. But the ultimate question becomes WHY? The technology is certainly there. And as has just been stated again, the lesser camera's have a closer to accurate representation.
To me, the main advantage of digital is to have the ability to review what has been captured immediately so that many additional shots can be eliminated (as with film). We can and should, still make processing adjustments for a final product. But it seems as though we are slipping into "it can't be good unless we run it through levels or unsharp mask, etc."
Why can't it be good enough, right out of the camera, with very fine or limited adjustments made? I can tell you this. It (photographs), can't even start to be good enough on their own, right out of the camera, if the review of the captured image is subpar because the review LCD is subpar. We would be back to taking multiple shots (as with film) because the LCD can't be trusted. OR, using our histograms exclusively and relying on softwares for post processing perfection and still taking more shots than if the LCD's were right on. Basically what is happening now.
Just my penny here,
Mel
i switched from a D1 to a D1X and found exactly the same thing! It
really threw me off. I tried adjusting the brightness too, no help.
After using the D1X for 500+ images I have given up using the LCD
screen as a means to determine if the exposure is correct. By
contrast, pun intended, the Nikon 990 screen is much more effective.
John Latta
