«

A friend and I were recently shooting the same event, me with my D100
and he with his new D70.
With cameras at same manual settings AND using auto on some of the same
test shots, his were very underexposed and mine were dead-on. We had
comparable-quality lenses.
Any discussion on this issue? Other than that, there went my mullings
about upgrading to the D70.
thanks

In article <9Smrc.21804$>,
nck <> wrote:

> A friend and I were recently shooting the same event, me with my D100
> and he with his new D70.
> With cameras at same manual settings AND using auto on some of the same
> test shots, his were very underexposed and mine were dead-on. We had
> comparable-quality lenses.
> Any discussion on this issue? Other than that, there went my mullings
> about upgrading to the D70.
> thanks
>

Well given that some cameras (film) experience the same kind thing
when compared, why would one wonder if its not so for digital cameras.

Maybe the internal meters are off, using a seperate hand held meter and
one reading for both cameras would find if it was an issue beside
the internal meter being different.

The nice thing about these cameras, you can adjust your contrast, saturation
film speed etc to compensate for little differences. I would ask was the metering
mode set to the same preference in both cases and did your tests encompass a grey
card for ref. Also in manual mode did your meter bars indicate the same exposure?
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

<<<For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution>>>>>

Welcome 1005 color matrix pixel

If you asked your friend to over by around 1 stop .. you'll see his details
is much better than your D100.

Same question as yours arises when I tested my D1H against my friends S2 Pro


=bob=

"nck" <> wrote in message
news:9Smrc.21804$.. .
> A friend and I were recently shooting the same event, me with my D100
> and he with his new D70.
> With cameras at same manual settings AND using auto on some of the same
> test shots, his were very underexposed and mine were dead-on. We had
> comparable-quality lenses.
> Any discussion on this issue? Other than that, there went my mullings
> about upgrading to the D70.
> thanks
>

"nck" <> wrote in message
news:9Smrc.21804$.. .
> A friend and I were recently shooting the same event, me with my D100
> and he with his new D70.
> With cameras at same manual settings AND using auto on some of the same
> test shots, his were very underexposed and mine were dead-on. We had
> comparable-quality lenses.
> Any discussion on this issue? Other than that, there went my mullings
> about upgrading to the D70.
> thanks

This is something of a sore point with my colleagues- the underexposure has
put several of them off the D70 completely.

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

In article <c8lji6$g13$>,
"Martin Francis" <> wrote:

> This is something of a sore point with my colleagues- the underexposure has
> put several of them off the D70 completely.

Then they are what,..... morons?

"Any Moose Poster" <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote in message
news:Bullwinks-...
> In article <c8lji6$g13$>,
> "Martin Francis" <> wrote:
>
> > This is something of a sore point with my colleagues- the underexposure
has
> > put several of them off the D70 completely.
>
> Then they are what,..... morons?

No, they are camera store employees.

Roses by any other name...

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

In article <c8lktc$9nr$>,
"Martin Francis" <> wrote:

> No, they are camera store employees.

"Experts" LOL.

"Any Moose Poster" <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote in message
news:Bullwinks-...
> In article <c8lktc$9nr$>,
> "Martin Francis" <> wrote:
>
> > No, they are camera store employees.
>
> "Experts" LOL.

One of them even turns up for work sober. No, it's not me.

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

I've heard the issue of underexposed shots. But as one who shoots people
a lot ... I welcome that. Nothing worse than all those shiny foreheads
and noses that have clipped out detail without any hope to recover.

A slight under exposure allows you to use PS or Elements (or whatever)
then to tweak it to perfection. While underexposed ... it still records
great details in the dark areas that will come out using curves. And
retains details in highlights.

JMHO,
Edward

>With cameras at same manual settings AND using auto on some of the same
>test shots, his were very underexposed and mine were dead-on.

How do you define "underexposed" ? Did you analyze the histogram ?

-Michael