Ah, so about another four months then?!

John K

What I suspect does have quite a major influence on the images being viewed is the contrast ratio of the monitor. Some are as low as 300:1 whereas others claim 30,000,000:1. Clearly images won't look the same on both. Also one has to take into consideration the quality of the display. While I am sure there are exceptions, a budget monitor is unlikely to have the same contrast and colour fidelity as another costing many times the price. So if an image is made to look right on a budget monitor, it may look somewhat flat/wrong colour etc. on a better one. And the reverse would also be true. I am surprised DrO reckons out of camera jpegs look off however, one would think that these are a good starting point.

Mind, doesn't the appearance of a scene depend on other factors too? With film, a scene shot on Kodachrome looked quite different from the same scene shot on Agfa, and different again to say, Ektachrome, Fuji, Perutz, Barfen or any other brand one might care to mention. Didn't we each have our favourite brand?

If one is preparing an image to print rather than to view on a monitor or project it, it would need appropriate processing to achieve the best possible result. A lower contrast image is needed to print onto paper, and even different papers cope with contrast differently, hence the range of paper options given by a printer driver!

Black and white photo printing papers come in different grades to allow for differing contrast in the negatives, so at the end of the day it is all about compromise, and as DrO says, we all see things differently.

Regarding image size ration (16:9, 4:3 etc.) I believe it is a bit of what we are used to. The 16:9 TV screens looked very odd when I first came across them, but now we have got used to them 4:3 seems strange!

John K

Nigel's road scene looks to me to have some odd colour banding in the sky. Overall the scene seems a bit too bright again. Could it be the brightness setting on the monitor being is a little too dark? How does a jpeg from the camera without any external processing look? The clock tower one seems to lack contrast.

MrB's building above looks right to me.

John K

This K-m shot I originally linked to in another thread recently looks normal to me.




John K

How about posting an image or two so we can see what you are trying to achieve? Then any recommendations can be more considered.

John K

Why not go for a Pentax (Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7)? Or do you really want a toy?

John K

Are you sure? Some praise the CCD sensor over the CMOS found in newer bodies. What they like is the colour rendering. Why anyone should consider the sensor to be of a lesser quality I do not understand. This was taken with my K-m last year with a kit 18-55 lens:



The only processing of the in camera jpeg was to reduce its width to 800 pixels wide.

For what it is the sensor quality is great! Personally I like the K-m because it is one of the lightest Pentax DSLRs should every gram count so great to carry on rides/hikes.

So if the price is right and it is a good one, don't discount getting one.

John K

Why does the EXIF show the focal length of these as 35.0mm (35mm equivalent: 52mm)?

John K

Axel, are you sure the theft of you camera etc. is not covered by your household insurance?

John K

I actually would prefer to set the aperture on the lens. One can be setting up the camera while getting into position to take the shot. Yes, I know there is an aperture readout on the LCD screen, but setting an aperture on an M lens is much more instinctive, it can be done by feel without having to look at it so one is ready to press the shutter that much sooner.

I never changed to a more modern film body (ie stayed with a K2, ME & MX) for that very reason. The newer ones appeared so much more fiddly beside looking more plasticy; I'd be more than happy now with a digital equivalent to an ME that worked well with M lenses. The only other features it would need are a preview button for depth of field, an ISO button coupled with an exposure override. Not worried about shake reduction, fancy filters (but a digital red/yellow/green wouldn't go amiss) and a colour/mono setting. Also the ability to take RAW / JPEG / TIFFS. That's about it. A super version might also include an LCD screen!

John K