I think it is instructive to take a look back at what we considered DSLR performance in 2006 and compare the RX100M2 with the A100.
That's one of the places where DRO is so good and an advanced DRO equipped camera does much better than is being described here.
Not the same, unless you adjust the curves for each pixel separately.
I've been experimenting today with different -EV settings on the RX100, but the resulting shots vary from looking ok to being way too dark, even at the same EV settings, but as you say it's better than blown highlights. When I shot the above photo I'd only purchased the camera 48 hours earlier, so unfortunately had not had the chance to do any extensive testing before the photo shoot.Ron AKA wrote:
Not the camera... The RX100 has a relatively large dynamic range, unless you go below ISO 125. Need to expose the shot properly in the first place, and then do needed post processing to fine tune it. Blown highlights are blown forever, and can't be recovered. While it is nice to expose to the right (higher side), if you go too far you are toast. If not sure of exposure and the highlight areas are important to the shot then better to underexpose a little, rather than overexpose.
Some quick touch up with ACR. The front corner of the car is blown. Rest could be recovered.
I think it's a bit harsh to intimate that concerns about blown highlights are just the fault of the photographer. Folks can quote DXO data or whatever numbers they want in relation to the RX100 MK1 and MK2 dynamic range, but even though I have used DSLRs, micro four thirds and many different digital compacts, and used to shoot with film, I initially got caught out by the tendency of my RX100 mk1 to clip highlights more easily than the other cameras I currently shoot with (Sony a57, a77 and Panasonic GH3 and GX1). I was reminded of when I first got into micro four thirds - the first 12MP m 4/3 sensors/cameras (e.g. GF1) clipped highlights very readily as well. In bright conditions this can be a tricky issue because you may find yourself having to boost the LCD brightness using the sunny setting. If you do that, the brightness of the playback image is not a correct reflection of the final captured image, nor is the liveview, so dialing in minus exposure compensation does not necessarily work out in a straightforward way.Ron AKA wrote:
Not the camera... The RX100 has a relatively large dynamic range, unless you go below ISO 125. Need to expose the shot properly in the first place, and then do needed post processing to fine tune it. Blown highlights are blown forever, and can't be recovered. While it is nice to expose to the right (higher side), if you go too far you are toast. If not sure of exposure and the highlight areas are important to the shot then better to underexpose a little, rather than overexpose.
Some quick touch up with ACR. The front corner of the car is blown. Rest could be recovered.
I recommend you shoot RAW, Alan. I always shoot RAW + JPG - the JPG is there for convenience but I always have the RAW to fall back on if I need to get more out of an image.Alan Robson wrote:
I've been experimenting today with different -EV settings on the RX100, but the resulting shots vary from looking ok to being way too dark, even at the same EV settings, but as you say it's better than blown highlights. When I shot the above photo I'd only purchased the camera 48 hours earlier, so unfortunately had not had the chance to do any extensive testing before the photo shoot.Ron AKA wrote:
Not the camera... The RX100 has a relatively large dynamic range, unless you go below ISO 125. Need to expose the shot properly in the first place, and then do needed post processing to fine tune it. Blown highlights are blown forever, and can't be recovered. While it is nice to expose to the right (higher side), if you go too far you are toast. If not sure of exposure and the highlight areas are important to the shot then better to underexpose a little, rather than overexpose.
Some quick touch up with ACR. The front corner of the car is blown. Rest could be recovered.
It's interesting to see how much colour can be recovered using ACR, and also that all the information has been blown out on the the front corner of the tram.
Always having fun with photography 
I believe that just the opposite is true. IMO low sun, behind the camera is one of the conditions that I think can often lead to a great outcome. This page from the instruction sheet for my first camera, a Kodak Baby Brownie Special, shows the ideal position for picture taking, minus the cigarette ;-).
Actually, with the sun low and behind the camera, I generally get great, warm lighting. Blown highlights is rarely ever a problem in such a situation as well.
Agree, maybe the third billy goat won! Hadn't noticed, good catch.Lucas_ wrote:
... where's the O.P.?? Three days ago he provoked a discussion on a problem most probably non existent ( I have the RX100 since November 2012 and never had that problem ) and never came back!
Smells like trolling to me...!
... Lucas
http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/
This thread was started by me on behalf of a friend, Alan Robson. He has grabbed the baton and responded twice to the thread. Therefore what is you problem?Lucas_ wrote:
... where's the O.P.?? Three days ago he provoked a discussion on a problem most probably non existent ( I have the RX100 since November 2012 and never had that problem ) and never came back!
Smells like trolling to me...!
... Lucas
http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/
I think you need more basis to make that criticism of the camera, than a single photo of a very light colored object against a dark background. If you do not meter for the light colored object then of course you will overexpose it. Has nothing to do with the camera that I can see. Following is a quote from the Imaging Resource site:
