NX1100 in the Peak District

CMurdock wrote:

marks123 wrote:

I have the NX1000 and use it mainly for landscape and have also noticed the water colour effect, however only ever on JPEGs and when processing the Raw file of the same photo I have never seen it.

I've now taken about 170 photos (JPG's only) and I haven't seen one photo that has the water-color effect. However, the optics aren't particularly good (meaning that even sharp areas of the image are somewhat soft). One of the first things I did when I got the camera was I set the JPG quality to super-fine.

What I am finding that disturbs me is that both metering and color balance are somewhat unreliable. Metering seems to be better in Program mode than Smart mode. As for color balance, even when I specify what it should be (meaning that I don't let the camera select it), some pictures will come out warmer than others. It's quite annoying.

My problem is: Do I accept the flaws of the camera because I paid a low price for it, or do I return it? I can't decide.

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.

CMurdock wrote:

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.

The more I think about your asinine post, the angrier I get. I'm a poor person. For the last 15 years I've made about $12,000-$18,000 a year. I've been using a Canon point-and-shoot camera that I got in 2005. There have been a half-dozen cameras that I've wanted to buy in the last five years but couldn't because I didn't have the money. So getting the NX1100 was a big deal for me. Being the first camera that I've been able to afford in nine years, I have a right to be concerned about whether I got my money's worth. So far, this camera has exhibited inconsistent metering in Smart mode (with about one out of 40 photos being inexplicably over-exposed), and inconsistent hue accuracy in both Smart mode and Program mode. Yet I bought it from a store which is likely to charge me a restocking fee if I return it. So if I want to be "disturbed" and "worried" about its defects, I have good reason to be, and you have no business criticizing me for it. Buying any camera is a big deal for me because I'll be stuck with it for years to come. What I wanted was the Olympus E-PL5, but I couldn't afford to spend $500. As for lenses, I can't afford to buy any lenses because they are as expensive as a camera body.

You need to think twice before you get snarky with other forum members. You don't know what their circumstances are.

Like I said, you're on Ignore now.

Seriously, you are taking everything to heart so much without actually taking in the recommendations and going out and learning your camera, it's simply counter-productive--for you.  I made do for nearly three years with a camera I got for $190 on a black friday sale + occasional use of a used high quality $50 magnifying close-up filter + $30 tripod on a good sale + some creatively placed floor lamps and a DIY lightbox.  I had no spare money for more either and I did a lot of hobby/product photography all the time just fine.  Yes it required all the things I wrote about, including post-processing, and the result were good--I only got compliments.  As you learn strengths and weaknesses of your camera, you learn to compensate--but that takes time and practice and reading about techniques--seeing how other people do it and trying yourself.  There's no perfect camera--especially one you paid only $300 for (yes, it's an old generation now, so brand new MSRP price is not relevant).