Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 34 of 34

Thread: 510 underEXPOSURE

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido, Japan
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by finemom View Post
    I've asked this question before and never got an answer. Can you explain how you know the 510 shoots iso1600 as 1250? Does that mean one would need to go to a minus exposure to get the results of 1600? I have a 500 and 510 but don't even know what to do to test this.
    I've heard people say ISO 1600 was 1250 on their 410s, but I don't remember hearing anything like that about 510s.

    I just checked my 510 and was surprised to find that there was only about half a stop between ISO 100 and 200, but now that I think of it, it seems like I've read posts to the effect that ISO 100 was really 125 on the 510?

    ISO 200, 400, 800, and 1600 are each a full stop apart on my camera, according to the buit-in meter. I shot a white wall at 800 and 1600, and the histograms are the same, too.


  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by cstirlingbartholomew View Post
    I did all my tests in manual mode. But when I set the exsposure to +-0 then it was 2/3 of a stop underexposed. The tests were all at 100 ISO with a blank wall for a target. The reference exposure was 1sec at f8.

    Clay

    So then I need adjust a little. Do you think that this would change at different lighting situations. ISO's and with different lenses? I know the 14-54mm lens is a totaly different lens than the kit. It is 67mm and the kit lens is 52mm. it would naturally let more light in. I am just curious. I would like to see the test done with about four or five different lenses. I think a camera can get the blame for all sorts of problems, focus, sharpness, noise, when the real problem is the lens.


  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by windsprite View Post
    I've heard people say ISO 1600 was 1250 on their 410s, but I don't remember hearing anything like that about 510s.

    I just checked my 510 and was surprised to find that there was only about half a stop between ISO 100 and 200, but now that I think of it, it seems like I've read posts to the effect that ISO 100 was really 125 on the 510?

    ISO 200, 400, 800, and 1600 are each a full stop apart on my camera, according to the buit-in meter. I shot a white wall at 800 and 1600, and the histograms are the same, too.
    I've found there's just 2/3rds of a stop difference between ISO 100 and 200 too. But my E-500 gives exactly the same readings (I was using centre-weighted metering for both) and I don't recall anyone kicking up a fuss about that. It's the same with the factory default for ESP being ESP+AF. That was the factory default on the E-500 too (and probably the E-330 and E-400 too). I don't recall any fuss about that either.
    Best wishes

    Paul

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default E-510 Exposure Issues

    After using the E-510 for two weeks my anecdotal experience has revealed:

    1. the LCD is dark when viewed outside and is therefore a misleading indicator of exposure when used for this purpose

    2. the LCD RBG graph background blends into the overall LCD background rendering the graph end points difficult or impossible to assess unless the exposure is stacked to one side (that would be grossly overexposed)

    3. using ESP in uniformily lighted scenes about 1/3 underexposure

    4. frequently blown highlights in brightly lighted scenes

    As to the fourth issue, I suspect the number of reviews pointing out this issue has me looking for it more than I might otherwise. The DPR review and others are showing graphs with less dynamic range, particular to the highlights, than in prior sensors. This has me considering HDR techniques for the first time in demanding scenes.
    E-1, E-300, E-330, E-420, E-510
    www.pbase.com/jtsmall

    'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    West Monroe, Louisiana
    Posts
    1,066
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    I'm confused. I always have thought my E-300 tends to overexpose. Lately, I almost always have it set at -1/3 or -2/3. Even shooting jpeg's I can normally then bring out enough detail from the shadows and mid-tones to get a good image without a bunch of blown out highlights.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    I think it easy to be confused over this issue. The fact is, as has been pointed out, that we have only 5-7 f/stops to play with in a scene that is typically more than this (except oddly, in the test photos the OP used where the lighting was relatively flat it seemed to me). So, depending on what exposure method we used and where we took our reading we will finding wildly differing results.

    Film did not show this. It has a gentle hightlight roll off and it was a given that it wouldn't perform in low light situations to begin with, that is, without flash. So in general, I shot color positives with caution or went to b&w. Those shooting negative film had even less problems because the print operator 'corrected' the final image!

    I was endlessly befuddled with the E-300 (my first dSLR and foray into RAW) exposures which caused me to question my knowledge and skill; I have attempted to increase both of course!

    Hope this helps some.

    PS. My wife still complains about the E-300 metering even while she's shooting with her 400D/XTi!
    E-1, E-300, E-330, E-420, E-510
    www.pbase.com/jtsmall

    'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by windsprite View Post
    I've heard people say ISO 1600 was 1250 on their 410s, but I don't remember hearing anything like that about 510s.

    I just checked my 510 and was surprised to find that there was only about half a stop between ISO 100 and 200, but now that I think of it, it seems like I've read posts to the effect that ISO 100 was really 125 on the 510?
    .
    Julie,

    This really undermines my previous statements about underexposure. I did another batch of living-room tests with both the E500 and E510 (all the same settings) mounted on tripods with the lenses (14-54, 14-45 at F8) about about 2 inches apart pointed at the same target which I use for all my tests. I used my RM1 to release both shutters at the same time (rm +2sec delay).

    After studying the results it appears that the so called 100ISO on the E510 actually produces a histogram about 1/3 to 1/2 a stop to the right of the E500 set to 100ISO. This means that the effective under exposure would be reduced to about a 1/3 of a stop at 100ISO. If what you say about the distance between 100 and 200ISO is true then there would be a whole different ball game at higher ISOs. Since I shoot for highlights and read histograms none of this will really have any impact on my standard procedures but it could be real confusing for those who put the camera on auto exposure and shoot. Every time they switch from 100ISO to 200 or 400 they will need to adjust the exposure compensation.


    This test also revealed how different the two sensors are in terms of color balance. Both cameras were set to cloudy skies WB. The images were quite different.

    I was trying to determine with these tests what the difference would be in the distribution of the histogram. Some folks are saying the E510 has dynamic range "issues". This isn't real obvious so far. I need to give it more thought.

    Due to negligence on my part all these tripod mounted E510 tests were taken with IS in mode-1. The edge sharpness for the E-510 was slightly softer than the E-500 but not really anything to get upset about. I had sharpening turned completely off. The level of degradation was subtle not glaring.

    Clay

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by cstirlingbartholomew View Post
    ... these tripod mounted E510 tests were taken with IS in mode-1. The edge sharpness for the E-510 was slightly softer than the E-500 but not really anything to get upset about. I had sharpening turned completely off. The level of degradation was subtle not glaring.
    PMJI, this past week I also checked for image degradation with IS on with the E-510 mounted on a tripod with the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko ED lens, using the lens foot. What you describe is exactly what I saw too. At magnification of 10X - 14X the edges were soft. Not drastic but definately present. Gone when IS1 turned off.
    E-1, E-300, E-330, E-420, E-510
    www.pbase.com/jtsmall

    'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido, Japan
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 510 underEXPOSURE

    Quote Originally Posted by cstirlingbartholomew View Post
    After studying the results it appears that the so called 100ISO on the E510 actually produces a histogram about 1/3 to 1/2 a stop to the right of the E500 set to 100ISO. This means that the effective under exposure would be reduced to about a 1/3 of a stop at 100ISO. If what you say about the distance between 100 and 200ISO is true then there would be a whole different ball game at higher ISOs. Since I shoot for highlights and read histograms none of this will really have any impact on my standard procedures but it could be real confusing for those who put the camera on auto exposure and shoot. Every time they switch from 100ISO to 200 or 400 they will need to adjust the exposure compensation.
    I don't think it's necessary to change the exposure comp if you're shooting auto, Clay. My tests were done in aperture priority, and the camera adjusted itself, meaning that the shutter speeds were less than one stop apart when comparing ISO 100 and 200. At the time I didn't check the histograms because I assumed (unscientifically) that the camera was wired to give identical exposure regardless of ISO. I just tried it now, and in aperture priority the histograms are the same between ISO 100 and 200, and again, the shutter speeds are less than a full stop apart.

    This seems more like something you have to watch out for when you're shooting in manual.


Similar Threads

  1. E410 - underexposure?
    By delaneyb in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 02:12 PM
  2. E-410 Underexposure--maybe for real?
    By windsprite in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-08-2007, 07:55 AM
  3. FL 36 underexposure
    By Leo Reinhard in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 09:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •