I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=61105
The starting point for the discussion was if the data stream from the Panasonic GH2 raw files already were adjusted with regards to lens distortion. Now we are getting to a definition of what a sensor dump is. I wish we were sitting at that pub talking about it instead, I don't think I can take this any further by sporadic forum posts.
The GH2 RAW files contain metadata indicating the distortion corrections (and CA corrections). This metadata is not "baked [irreversibly] into" the RAW files. in other words, a RAW converter can be designed to ignore and/or optionally apply these corrections. However, Adobe and others are playing ball with Panasonic such that the option to disable corrections is not enabled in those RAW processing apps. Meanwhile, other apps like Raw Developer ignore the correction metadata altogether, so you can see the images without correction. That's why I showed crops from both Lightroom 3 and Raw Developer earlier in this thread.
There have been cases when sharpening and/or noise reduction has been irreversibly baked into the RAW files. The Panasonic LX2/D-LUX3 was a well publicized case of this. It can be hard to detect such manipulations.
In the case of the Oly/Pana cameras which share the same sensor (all Micro 4/3 models except GH1/2), the RAW data looks the same to me with regards to color, signal/noise, etc, when processing in 3rd party apps like Lightroom, Raw Developer, etc. Any differences I see are explainable on the basis of differences in AA filter strength/quality and nominal ISO relative to highlight headroom.
I don't have the GH2 but am interested. There are several long threads on dpreview (yes, I know.....LOL) which are showing some issues with more noise than expected in GH2 images. It appears to be a strange pattern also. BUT i'm curious, to get back to the original thread subject, of impressions of the GH2 for still shooting by those here who have one.
Are you sure it was the LX2?
I tried to find information about it by googling. I came up with a lot of reviews and checked some of them (DPR, photographyreview, Steve's digicam and DCResource). Processed or manipulated raw files weren't mentioned anywhere and I also failed to find anything at the other hits I got.
I also wonder a little about several odd statements over at DPR and like you, I guess, I have seen several posters mentioning they love the camera for video but don't use it for stills (..as their xx APS-C is better at that). I don't think the GH2 is a bit worse than the old G1 which I find working very well for stills.
But, I often get puzzled by reading forums, this one included, btw.
No, I found the lens correction conversation interesting, but since I'm mostly interested in stills hope there will be more input from that viewpoint. So far I'm not sure if I gain enough to upgrade from G1 and GF1. I'm leaning to just waiting %>) but I'm always open to being persuaded LOL.
I had lot of DSLRs over the past years (E1, D2X, D200, D300, E3, A900, D700, K5, 5D2) and I also bought into M43 last year with the EP2. I think I said that already earlier, the best high ISO performance of all these cameras has the D700 - no wonder - right? I also can attest that there were issues with higher ISO especially with the E1 (of course) and the E3, as there were with all the older designs like D2X, D200 etc. But from the range of current "state-of-the-art" DSLRs the GH2 performs very well - I would say it is in the top range WRT high ISO - I am talking of high ISO in a range between 1600 - 3200. And I only am using RAW - NO JPEG out of camera.
With that in mind you should not be disappointed with the GH2 I guess. Are there better performers in high ISO? Sure there are. But for a small and handy and light weight cam like the GH2 the results are stunning.
If Olympus had incorporated the GH2 sensor in the E5 instead of the older 12MP chip all together with their new "xyz-picture engine" and weak AA filter, I would have switched back to Olympus without any further thought - so excellent I find this new sensor in the GH2.
I can say nothing negative about this camera and I am usually very picky! Will there come a better camera in the future? Sure! Will I then buy this one? Most probably!
But for now the GH2 is the absolute optimum in my eyes WRT size, weight, usability, IQ and price ... did I forget something?
Everyone always said don't touch the noise reduction leave it all to me....well they have and now people say eeeeeeeeew it has noise
Thanks. I guess i'm wondering if its worth the upgrade right now from the G1. I also shoot with a 5D and mostly fast primes but I've been transitioning more and more to m4/3 over the past 2 years (I no longer shoot commercially and don't print larger than 16 x 24 and mostly print in range of 13x19). I'm glad to hear others here being well pleased with it considering performance, price and size.
I see nothing wrong in linking to your blog.
I read it and I also read about a third or so of the comments. Unless I missed something this was a case about on-board noise reduction circuits. I didn't see any other pre-raw "processing" mentioned.
I "know" from sources I have forgotten about now that Canon does this. I think I mentioned it up-thread somewhere. As it was described to me the Canon implementation is clever and without, or close to without, side effects. Panasonic were less successful.
I don't know if this is anything I would call processed raw files. If clever on-chip hardware sensor circuits does something then it is far from distortion correction or sharpening and everything else we usually do in post.
Again, I would be happy to learn about any other form of "processed" raw files.
Thank you for the link and the further links!
Amin, as I told Jonas, I was also interested in the conversation about the processing. I was just hoping to nudge folks into continuing to post ongoing impressions of still shootng with the GH 2 into the thread. All's good. %>)
I had a GF1, a G2 and now a GH2. Yes I switched around a bit and made the GF1-G2 switch due to always wanting the viewfinder and preferring the grip on the G2 to the flatter GF1. My thoughts are that the GH2 does have a nice step up in the image quality in stills over the G2. Higher ISO performace is more usable. I would not use over ISO 400 on the G2, but feel I can use even 1200 on the GH2. I would not do that for images I plan on printing large, but it is there for smaller sizes. I also feel there is a bit more dynamic range on the GH2. So overall, I am very happy with it. I have to admit that I have not taken a ton of images with the GH2, but with those that I did, I am very happy with what it produces.
I should add that autofocus is vastly improved over the GF1 and G2. Very usable. Also the EVF is even better. Lastly, the touchscreen is actually quite cool if you are on a tripod and doing macro work. Very nice for picking your focus point. That is the same as in the G2, but you are comparing to a G1, so that feature would be new to you.
coming from a G1, i'm forever trying to use the front thumbwheel on the GH2.
it's going to take a while to retrain the muscle memory!!
i really do like the usability of the higher ISO values, since most of the places i tend to shoot disallow the use of a tripod.
I think there are no OT parts to this thread so far. It's all on target even if varied somewhat.
Diane, Read back through the thread. Some people think it's worth the upgrade (for stills) and some do not. I'm one of the ones who don't - at least not at the current price point - there's just not enough difference between the GH2 and GH1 for me to justify a $700 price increase over the current GH1 ($500 if you live in the west as the GH1 is about $500 there and about $200 here - new).
This particular sub-forum is where you want to be if you want to be convinced to buy the newest Panasonic gear though. This is the most pana-positive crowd I've run into on-line so far. They even like what most others think is low grade, mediocre, and/or over priced. It's all good tho. It takes all kinds of folks to make the world go round and I'm all for that - but just a heads up as to where you are. And I'm not saying it's a bad place to be either. I haven't read the other sub-forums enough yet to know if this is the case for the entire site or just this sub-forum though I suspect it's only us M4/3'ers. If nothing else the positivity keeps us enthused about our hobby and purchase decisions! I think it's not an ideal place for critical objective equipment analysis tho. Of course, few are...
I do know where I am LOL--been here for over 2 years. I'm asking for ongoing impressions as people continue to shoot with it. Some people have immediate impressions based on what they are looking for specifically, others have impressions or opinions that build as they shoot with a camera. I thihk its a pretty new camera for "writ in stone" impressions quite yet. So--I hope people will continue to discuss their experiences shooting with the camera, pro and con..
Lets see. Direct comparison of a GH2 with 100-300 to a Canon 1DsII with 100-400L. Cost: $950 for the GH2 body (what I paid) and $600 for the 100-300mm (note there are better prices out there) for $1550. Used on the 1DsII is $1800 and the 100-400L around $1100 for $2900. Comparison images indoors on tripod there was better shadow detail on the GH2/100-300 but better highlight control on the 1DsII. So given the reputation of the 1DsII and real prices (I just sold mine so I know what one can get) my Panasonic gear was half the price for very similar performance in that range.
This forum has users of the equipment. Unlike other forums where the forums are overrun by people with an axe to bury, this one tends to get enthusiasts who use the equipment. That said, the only person I see posting that Panasonic gear is low grade, mediocre and over priced is you. So please provide links to those other posts from people actually using the equipment who think it is low grade, mediocre, and overpriced. To the contrary, I see other sites, for example Michael Reichmann, a frequent critic of equipment, who regularly posts images with a GH1 and now a GH2. That said, the GH2 has significant limits. I think action photos are difficult. The GH2 is better with its noticeably faster autofocus, but not as good as a dedicated higher speed camera such as a 7D.
I do not think that a GH2 is in the same league as 1DsIII or top line Nikon. I also think they are not as good as a M9. But if you feel the Panasonic m4/3 equipment is overpriced, do not go looking at a M9 and it's lenses! Personally, I think it is a good balance between capability, portability and price. But that is my opinion.
You know Tesselator, while you don't have a brand-name to preach the constant "my manual focus, legacy, used prime lenses are a better price point than your auto focus, native, zoom lenses" refrain is just a brandless form of fanboyism. If you'd read this forum in its whole I think you'd find most of the members here use a wide range of equipment and are very familiar with the concept of different tools for different jobs each with different sets of benefits and limitations. The only one with an apparent ax to grind is you. We keep hearing the same completely out of context comparisons coated with a thick layer of hyperbole. A fisheye prime compared to a rectilinear zoom?
Purchasing the 100-300 before Xmas really did expose the limits of the GF-1 even further, especially in low light - which you get a lot of in the UK at this time of the year
It is also interesting to note that I won a reasonably pretigious photographic competition with a photograph from my GF-1 and PL 45/2.8. So, I'm not complaining - just outgrown the body.
OK, well I've been slow at giving my impressions because I've been really waiting for the weather to get better so I feel inspired to take pictures. The short time I have used the GH-2 I can report:
- Beautifully made (but so is the GF-1)
- Screen is fantastic (better than the GF-1)
- Viewfinder is outstanding. Bright, clear, full of information. I don't know what it is like on the GH1 but if this is the state of the art for EVF then the optical viewfind is dead, imho. It's like looking through an optical viewfinder but you can see the impact of adjusting your EV compensation. What could be better?
- Speed autofocus: very fast, much much faster than the GF-1 with my 20/1.7
- Speed capture: for this type of camera? Nothing short of amazing. Have to be careful not to put it onto burst mode or it just bangs away and you've suddenly captured half a dozen frames
- Results: not sure. Definitely better than the GF-1 but exactly how much? Does it even matter? If, like me you've reached the limits of what a GF-1 can do then I can definitely state the GH-2 does it better.
- Features: still working out how to use the touch screen. Was expecting it to be a help with street shooting but not entirely convinced - again, may find with more use it turns out to be either indispensible or a waste of time. An ariculated screen is definitely a bonus over the fixed screen of the GF-1 but then is that a fair comparison?
- Ergonomics - much easier to hand hold than the GF-1. Found myself holding it by the grip down at my side with the 100-300 on it - which I wouldn't dare do with the GF-1 for fear of dropping it. A lot more like a DSLR than a P&S in that respect.
- Noise - don't know why but I think the shutter is quieter and smoother than the GF-1.
I wish I could give you a list of negatives but until I do a proper analysis of captures, I am going to find this hard to do. I'd like to go back and test of the camera against a subject I used about 18 months ago when I was evaluation a D700 with the 24/2.8 against my M8 with the 28/2.8. In that case the M8 won only by a small margin and then on microcontrast which would be unperceptible for most purposes. If I do conduct a similar test then I can post all three samples, D700-M8-GH2.
Hope that helps
I am glad to read all user impressions of the GH 2, thanks much. I got mine w the 14-2 only last week, but already having a great fun time with it. Panasonic has thrown everything into this model and it seems a useful and improved successor to my G-1. Complex enough re adjustments and personalizing, --- for almost any temperament. Yes, a 208! page manual and Panasonic throws in full hard copy Spanish etc versions.
I kind of miss having the right finger front wheel but I think that will be something I will get used to. I had read, year ago, a quick draw view that these cameras were at once too plasticky and would die on the trail. Didn't happen to my G-1. I can live with those who sniff at any micro or 4/3 product. There is still a camp that won't accept anything from Olympus or Panasonic. Okeedokee...so buy a Pentax,and enjoy life.
Sure we know, It is on line sport,...Has nothing to do with picture making still or video and raises no hackles.
BTW,Has anyone seen photos of the thousand buck German made video "cage" rail set up for the GH-2...
Someone must have adopted the GH 2 for such fancy accessorizing layoug.
Check it on the EOSHD forum when you get time.
Last edited by hawaiigent; 25th January 2011 at 11:51. Reason: post spell check
I also have a Canon 5DII that I use with specific lenses like the TSE's, some fast primes and teles but I now use it more like I used to use MF with film, and use the m4/3 cameras like I used to use 35mm SLR's with film. I've largely given up using lenses wider than 35mm on the Canon unless it's the 17 or 24 TSE. The optical quality of the Panasonic m4/3 7-14 is such that on the GH2 it puts the output of the Canon 5DII and 16-35 to shame, except in special circumstances.
When I don't need SLR type features I use M8's and 9 preferentially with wider and faster lenses. I sometimes use the M's in conjunction with the M4/3's, with the latter for tele and macro. The image quality is not really comparable, but neither is that of the Canon. Still, it works for me.
Wow, those posts above are just what I was hoping to read. You gave information relative to cameras I know--the GF1, the G1 and the 5DII (though I shoot with the 5D). Having slogged my way through many Canons from D30 (and an Oly E10 and Canon G1 and G9 thrown in there) to the 5D, I added the m4/3 a bit over 2 years ago. I do rather feel its time to move up from the G1 and GF1 with better bodies available but am not in a hurry thinking there's more coming this year but do have my eye on the GH2. Since its not generally shipping anyhow I keep reading and always prefer real live shooting input from people using the camera. Thanks so much.
Much nicer that the double button dance on the other G's.
(Little things like that make me happy.....)
E-M1/GH2/G1 Full Spectrum & lots of lenses
Boy, you guys sure put a lot of meanings into my words that weren't there.
But I'll shut-up just the same. It's all good.
Sorry if I caused any hostilities...
Someone wrote that the GH 2 had such a good implementation of the adjustable Program Mode that it almost made sense to use that most of the time. Was wondering if experienced users chose P mode, or is that too oversimplified an approach?
Another question , sort of, not a big puzzler just something on the old mind. I have two so called kit lenses now, the 14-45 and the 14-42 which came with the G-1. I like the stainless steel mount face of the 14-45. Do you think there might be some difference in implementation of auto focus by Panasonic on the 14-42 that I didn't catch in the literature? Yes, I will test them both but I plan to plop the 14-42 onto the G-1 and return it to my spouse whom I originally bought it for but glommed on to it.
I am also checking out the 4/3 lenses I own, the 50mm, the 12-60 and the 50-200mm SWD on the GH 2. I do get some AF, in a herky jerky fashion. I didn't actually expect any compatibility with the contrast detection mode, so that is interesting. The 50-200 is a big one but it would be on a monopod. I have not urge to get a FD to micro 4/3 adapter after a brief flirtation with a Chinese made adapter. Too klutzy. If Novoflex can come down by a hundred USD I would get one of their machined gems, we will see...
All in all, a pleasant fun machine, and going to be a lot of fun. And with video HD capability a blast indeed. ( PS. I have a presence on photo.net four thirds and most of my pictures will be there. You understand. So many forums, so little time and all..) gs
i would love to hear your experience on the 12-60 with the GH2.
I did play with that combo for a whole five minutes in a camera store in the bay area,
so it does work with contrast AF.
fotodiox I have two of these and they are good quality and reasonable at ~$40 + $5 shipping.
If I were decided to stick with the m4/3 format, I'd invest in a heart beat in the Novolfex adapter if it guarantees that infinity means infinity, and not beyond.
Panasonic GH1/G1, Canon FTb(n)/F-1, Mamiya C330F/RB67 Pro SD, Chamonix 45N-2, Nikon F5 + Assorted Lenses
After using the GH2 for over one week and on couple shootings, I think that I made the right decision to buy the GH2.
I have been quite happy using my G1 and hacked GH1. Most of the time I used my Panasonic M4/3 in conjunction with my Canon 1 series gears. A lot of time shot both system side-by-side. While I used my Panasonic mostly for video, I did use it for stills too.
So far, I am quite impressed with the 24H video quality of my GH2. Addition features like the audio monitoring bar, three custom settings, function buttons, one click focus assistance with the wheel (with non Panasonic lens), nicer EVF, ETC, etc, make shooting with the GH2 much more enjoyable and with more confidence. I haven't found anything that bothers me yet, while there must be more goodies waiting for me to find out.
I believe that the GH2 helps me to settle down more on the Panasonic M4/3 system, and makes my decision to go for the Voigtlander 25f0.95 much easier. Tomorrow I will pick up my 100-300 lens and I will almost complete my M4/3 system. Finally, I think it is about time for me to set up a gallery for the Panasonic M/43 system: http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/panasonic_g1
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
One of my adapters is used on a FD 200mm Macro, so I am virtually never at infinity. The other one is on a FD 300mm F4,and again I use it primarily for hummingbirds and am typically near the close focus distance. So I guess I have not had this issue. Clearly, the demands of the user will dictate if an inexpensive adapter is good enough. If mine were off, they would be a piece of cake to shim, so I would probably go there first rather than shell out hundreds for the Novaflex adapter.
So what happened to m? I ordered and tried a Fotodiox adapter. After a week trying it on all of my FD lenses I just sent it back.
All I can report is that my sample of the adapter would not go on and off with any reliable feel. It actually felt stuck on at times... I had trouble lining up the slot for sure. Or getting the ring on top to move and stay put and not slide around to off position.
I am an impatient sort I suppose. I want to hear a click and a solid click..
Or else I got a bum unit made on a Monday during Tet . I know there is more than one China and other country maker out there, and I have not tried them all.
OK, what about the value of buying a Novoflex even at two bills and using it with my nice clean FD 50mm 1.4? Well, what do I gain over using my ED 50mm F 2 and I lose f stop control. See what I mean. My FD 100 mm F 2.8 is not going to give me more than my ED 12-60mm. I may be missing something of course, still open to a try on one day with Novoflex if they go on sale, not likely of course, unless Euro tanks.
I would love to have the viable option of employing old lenses, even other brands, and even my wonderful beloved FD 200mm F 2.8.( But it won't do more for me than the 50-200 mm SWD.)
So, Novoflex nor Fotodiox wins no cigar for me personally. For others starting out w micro four thirds, sure, it gives one a battery of prime lenses missing in the lineup. Until one decides to get the full automation treatment if that is important to one.
A personal experience which I know is a minority one.
FD lenses for me had their day and it was a great one. I will still keep them for my Canon T90. And old friend, that baby still one of the all time wonders..
Interesting. The problems you mention hawaiigent are what I had with a cheapo adapter from China that I got free with a lens I bought. I have not had these issues with my Fotodiox adapters. Sorry to hear yours did not work out.
Sure, why would you bother with a FD 50mm f/1.4? The only lenses I was interested in adapting were the longer telephoto ones, 200mm macro and 300mm f/4 (along with a 2x if really long reach is needed). If you have the ED lenses, I agree that there are better adapters and options. In no way was I saying that FD lenses are a mainstay, I use a series of m4/3 lenses that I like with AF, OIS, and auto aperture. There are places where I find that a FD or other legacy lens can be useful. In those limited cases the less expensive adapters fit my needs. What I am very eager to see is one of the m4/3 consortium to make more fast fixed focal length lenses with exceptional quality. Possibly Voightlander will either do this or push Panasonic and Olympus to up their game.
I just looked at the latest Luminous-Landscape article in which DXO ratings are used as the basis for a discussion of image quality progress. I noted that the GH1 is rated higher than the GH2. In fact, the GH1 sensor is rated as being quite close to that of the Leica M9.
Now I have, or rather have had all these cameras. I don't have the GH1 anymore. I got rid of it shortly after acquiring the GH2, as the GH2 clearly gave better results, with lower noise levels especially at higher ISO's and a greater dynamic range. And yet, DXO gives the GH1 higher marks in these areas, or at least about the same.
I also fail to see how the GH1 is give a score very close to that of the M9, which in my eyes has a hugely better output than the m4/3 cameras.
This makes me distrust the DXO ratings even more. For many pairs of cameras, their scores seem to describe the differences correctly, but for the above 3 cameras they seem to be wide adrift of experience.
OK, had a bit more time this week to play with the GH-2. Actually, I was forced into using it because I wanted to capture an old victorian London Underground station, Whitechapel, before major rennovation works begin on the 31st January.
I've always been disappointed with my M8 in low light and I was getting rather tired of the almost good but not quite good enough high iso settings in the GF-1. I can report that shooting at iso1600 I think is perfectly good enough on the GH-2 and I would even go so far as to say the iso3200 is very usable.
For these shots I used my 7-14 for the first time on the GH-2. I also extensively used the touch controls because... ahem... photographing on tube stations is probably not allowed. Holding the camera at my side it was a lot less obvious what I was doing.
I can report the touch controls are worth using. In fact, using them reminded me a lot of using the optical viewfinder in my M8. You are able to look at the whole scene and then glance down and see how the segment in the LCD screen fits in, rather like a rangefinder viewfinder. I also like being able to touch the area you want to focus on. I can foresee that as you become more fluent with the touch controls they can be more than just a gimmick and a valuable addition to the camera. The LCD is also beautifully bright in daylight (although I've not tried it in bright sunlight as I haven't seen any sunlight for about 4 weeks).
Once again, while using the camera I was very impressed by the ergonomics. I've stopped using my strap and started using my wrist strap because this camera wants to be held by your side. The grip has a nice, comfortable rubberised covering which is very easy on the finger tips.
I'm really beginning to like this camera. Mind you, I really liked my GF-1. I could even be persauded to keep my GF-1 (currently up for sale) but I know deep down that with the advantages in sensitivity, performance and ergonomics of the GH-2 I probably won't use it much again.
This first shot was in very low light conditions, at iso1600, f4, 1/25, 12mm
This shot shows the virtues of using the touch screen. Very discrete, no sudden movement of the camera going to your eye and hunting out the subject. Just a subtle press of your finger on the part of the frame you want to focus on. Also iso1600, f4, 1/30, 14mm
Off topic but I have to ask; Are you still there in the UK with a general feeling you aren't allowed to take images inside a tube station, at a railway station, of a public building? Is it really forbidden?
Hmm. I thought these two ways of operating a camera were anti-poles. How can tapping a touch control be remotely reminding about a rangefinder viewfinder? I tried a G2 (again... and waiting for a GH2 to arrive) in a shop close to me. I like the touch control and don't understand those making jokes about it at all - but "classic Leica style" didn't cross my mind while operating the G2 that way.I can report the touch controls are worth using. In fact, using them reminded me a lot of using the optical viewfinder in my M8.
From using the G2, I too really like the touch screen. Being able to touch for the focus point is really nice and once using that for a bit you graduate into using (trusting) the touch to both focus and take the shot. It is much faster than moving the focus point on the previous generation of cameras.
Louis, i'm guessing I'll keep my GF1 as a second body as I do now for both a backup and for those times I can mount different lenses on the 2 bodies and not have to remount. Not always practical and if I see enough difference in the files, maybe not even wanted. I do actually prefer shooting with my G1 with grip, tilt screen and good EVF so I'm guessing I will shoot primarily if not all the time with the GH2 if I buy it so this may all be moot
Thanks for the comments.
Just to clarify there are no restrictions on taking any photographs in a public place in the UK. There are circumstances where the police may want to ask you what you are doing if you are acting suspiciously. What I was referring to is that any London Underground station is private property and therefore the requirement to ask permission probably exists.
I was trying to communicate the different feeling of shooting using the LCD rather than a viewfinder. The closest analogy I could think of is the way you can see round your frame lines in a rangefinder.
Still getting to know my new GH2, but so far, I'm really liking this camera!
• My camera tends to underexpose by about 1 stop when using the internal meter in a wide variety of settings.
• I can't seem to make good use of the histogram... seems wonky. Perhaps I need to study the manual more?
• The GH2 sensor has a much more limited dynamic range than the sensor I am accustomed to (5DMkII). I can adjust a 1-stop underexposed RAW image from the 5DMkII with no noticible loss of quality. But with the GH2, adjusting a 1 stop underexposed RAW image results in noticibly degraded image quality.
• Give the GH2 sensor enough light and the results are wonderful, even at ISO 2500. But under expose it even 1 stop and there is a real price to be paid in IQ.
• Huge thumbs up on the flip screen, touch controls, and video.
• 1080i video is unfortunate in that the camera throws away half of the frames... needs to be 1080p next time around!
• Use with legacy lenses is really nice... I love this camera!!!
• The 20/1.7 is staggeringly sharp... amazing lens!
glad to hear you love the GH2! I shoot it now for almost 4 weeks and became really friend with it. It got the everyday no brainer camera for me. Just take it out switch it on and shoot - and the results are stunning!
Keep enjoying this wonderful tool,
I have found that when using in-camera metering, with legacy lenses, shooting aperture priority, that I typically need to increase exposure about +1 EV when editing the images in LR3.
This didn't seem right to me so as a test, I made some images at meter indication and also some adjusted to +1 EV from meter indication to see how things looked in LR3. Again this is A priority with legacy lenses.
I found that not only did the +1 EV exposure compensation bring the images where they needed to be exposure-wise, but that IQ was noticibly better on the +1 EV images than those shot at meter indication. On the images which were shot at meter indication, there was a bit of a texture (noise, it would seem) visible at 100%. With the +1 EV images, this texture went away. I have found that with a variety of subjects and settings, that dialing in an extra +1 EV gives a much better result than not doing so... even when using a grey card as a target for the camera's meter to read.
Use of an external incident meter with the camera on Manual settings yields proper results, without any EV compensation needed.
Has anyone else experienced this or does it seem that I have a defective camera?
Also, when trying to use the histogram to determine proper exposure while adjusting EV comp, the histogram doesn't seem to respond as one might expect... it seems a bit erratic and as such, is not very useful as a guide to exposure adjustments. Again, can anyone else comment on their experience with this?
I do need to do more varied and exhaustive testing (also with native lenses) to try to figure out if this is only with legacy lenses, or a setting I am overlooking, or something I'm doing wrong, but wanted to ask if others have experienced this.
What metering mode is your camera set for?
Can you provide an example of a typical shot?