NX1100 in the Peak District

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

Honestly, you're just having some personal high expectations for a product you paid $300 for. You just said in this thread that you don't want to spend $700-1200. Many cameras and lenses have pluses and minuses, and frequently price is a factor.

I feel that you should keep learning photography and take more photographs and experiment instead of posting every bit that "disturbs" (you use that word so much) and "worries" you. If you really need very accurate images, its' already been suggested to you that you could invest into proper monitor calibration/proper monitors, white balance calibration on your camera, etc. As well as high quality prime lenses and proper lighting--along with a lightbox. Shooting JPEG only is not a good idea if you're serious about the best outcome for any camera--very significantly for the Sigmas you've mentioned too (they require a fair bit of post-processing).

And as I've said before, color accuracy is debatable for multiple reasons and is a function of camera output, post processing, your monitor, web processing, and monitors your viewers will see your photos on. It's frequently necessary to tweak colors in post-processing, as, for example, LED light colors are very difficult to represent accurately--try photographing turquoise LEDs--they have a high chance looking blue or light blue and lacking any green, or at least looking significantly less green than in person. Etc.

This kind of post is completely uncalled for.

First of all, this is a $500 camera that's at the end of its cycle, and that's why it's so cheap.  I have every right to expect the camera to work properly.  As for color accuracy, I purposely took multiple identical photographs, and the color temperature would change from one photo to the next -- and I certainly have a right to be "disturbed" about that.

I'm putting you on Ignore.