Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
David Kilpatrick wrote:The A850 does have ISO 100, but in fact no DSLRs have had ISO for ages. Digital sensors really can't do ISO 100 easily, the ISO 100 settings are normally 'over saturated' exposure and the native true speed of the sensors tends to be in the ISO 200-400 range.
By using 200 as the base, Sony simply removes an oversaturated exposure level, and improves the apparent dynamic range marks for the camera.
I now have 4X neutral density filters for all my lenses and the NEX-5 zoom is fitted with one most of the time.
David
David, could you please expand on using a ND filter -- so that I can understand how using one is connected to the issue of ISo and oversaturation. I for one, don't get it.
Winedarksea wrote:
Maybe sooner the message Toru is sending will get through to you.
And what message might that be then?
I'm just an observer not the one getting panned by reviews. Put the blame where it belongs..if Toru is ill informed enough to think making DSLR's like p&s cameras is a great idea, then why have the top makers not been doing this?
Sony made a lot of noise years back about taking no. 2 spot. So what happened to that then? Just chest beating and not a lot else!
A neutral density filter simply cuts all light evenly (supposedly) that enters the lens, upping your exposure times or creating a 'false' lower ISO than you are using. A x4 ND will cut light 4 stops. If used at ISO 100, you could shoot at the apertures and shutter speeds you would be using if you had Kodachrome 25.
Yeah great one, and what about WB? presumably an ND is a neutral grey tone, but I'd be suspicious about using Auto WB and getting accurate colour repro.
Greg
Greg Beetham wrote:Yeah great one, and what about WB? presumably an ND is a neutral grey tone, but I'd be suspicious about using Auto WB and getting accurate colour repro.Greg
If your ND filter is not completely neutral - or even if you are just worried that it might not be completely neutral - make it a practice to use a WhiBal or other color-balance tool to calibrate your images.
That approach does require the extra effort to use that tool every time you feel that the color balance of the ambient light has changed enough to matter. However, I already do that for the occasions where I consider accuracy of the color balance to be sufficiently important - or when the lighting is really strange and I'm concerned about the post-processing work that might be required to color-correct the image to get something that doesn't look unreal and/or horrible. A high percentage of the time when I have a camera with me, I also have a WhiBal card on a lanyard around my neck, so it's fairly quick and easy to use. Accordingly, it would not create any significant extra work for me if I were using a ND filter of questionable neutrality.
Yep I guess if you want too save yourself some extra work fiddling around that's a good plan Tom. I noticed I have problems enough just as it is, the KM5D is noticibly different too the A100 in handling early morning light (strong orange tone), midday sunshine and overcast, and then Elements 8 does funny stuff as well, the RAW image is right besides the JPEG in the organizer and they are sometimes miles apart in colour tone, and then the Auto Smart Fix sometimes really gets it wrong as well, so I guess whatever an ND does too an image probably wouldn't be as big a variation as I see already.
Greg
