2008/6/26 DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The guy > who was claiming this had a look at my K20D files and found lack of > details in the same areas that had highlight warnings on the camera. > He claims that his method works on K20D but I´m not convinced.
Oh. I got it wrong from memory then... I thought it was your K10D files he'd looked at. But anyway it would be interesting to do some experiments with both K10D and K20D. I think also it might be worthwhile to repeat the post processing with at least two or three different raw converters. > In my experience the exposure meter on K20D goes more to the right > than K10D (and thus follows some of the recommendations in the > mentioned thread) and it has a little better dynamic range in RAW. A > very rough test based n the chimping method shows that the range > between higlight and low light warnings on K20D was 10EV... Interesting observation. I'll try to follow your example first, and hopefully get down to some kind of quantification over the week-end. I will not bring a PC to Runde... :-) But re: dynamic range, I remember my own amazement when I realised how much more latitude I had with the *istD raw files, coming from slide film... :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
