R-D1 Exposure Question

[MCTuomey]

New R-D1 user here, courtesy DwF's sale (thanks, David).

Just starting to learn the camera, I'm seeing "left-sided" histograms using AE in a number of test shots. Lens: Canon 35/2.8. Does the R-D1's meter consistently underexpose in your experience? Anyone setting exposure compensation for this on a regular basis?

Shots are in varying light: from bar lighting to window light to tungsten.

Btw, I'm feeling guilty for not having touched my film RF at all in the last couple weeks ...

 

[ampguy]

Usually set right on, or one notch below AE

Usually set right on, or one notch below AE

However, I've also noticed that the meter may be underexposing a bit. When using an R72 IR filter, I add 2 stops, and a couple of times after taking the filter off, forgot to switch back, and was surprised that the +2 images were not completely blown and the histogram showed them them centered or only slightly to the right, where on my other digital cameras +2 would be extremely blown highlights.

I think the blinking highlights indicator may be more useful than the histogram. Also, on other digicams, I regularly underexpose by 2/3 of a stop, to balance shadow detail and highlights, but with the RD1 am always fine with shadows and highlights right on the AE mark with the rd1.

I wonder if the bit of underexposure was by design? I might compare with my M6 on a blank wall when I get time.

New R-D1 user here, courtesy DwF's sale (thanks, David).

Just starting to learn the camera, I'm seeing "left-sided" histograms using AE in a number of test shots. Lens: Canon 35/2.8. Does the R-D1's meter consistently underexpose in your experience? Anyone setting exposure compensation for this on a regular basis?

Shots are in varying light: from bar lighting to window light to tungsten.

Btw, I'm feeling guilty for not having touched my film RF at all in the last couple weeks ...

 

[mani]

Just starting to learn the camera, I'm seeing "left-sided" histograms using AE in a number of test shots. Lens: Canon 35/2.8. Does the R-D1's meter consistently underexpose in your experience? Anyone setting exposure compensation for this on a regular basis?

Yes - even a preproduction model reviewed by LFI a couple years ago suffered slightly from slight underexposure.
I tend to manually compensate for this when the scene doesn't contain very great dynamic range with highlights that might be blown out. Then I find it best to keep the detail in the highlights.

Btw, I'm feeling guilty for not having touched my film RF at all in the last couple weeks ...

I hear ya!

 

[pphuang]

If I remember correctly, the sensor in the R-D1 is the same as the sensor in the Nikon D100. Nikon DSLRs (at least the older models, I don't know about the newer ones) tended to under-expose to avoid blowing out the highlights, and I wonder if Epson carried this over when designing the R-D1.

For the R-D1, I actually like to set my exposure compensation up to a full stop lower. The shadows are quite recoverable if you are shooting in RAW, and it allows you to keep your ISO in the 200-400 range, giving you extremely clean files.

 

[pphuang]

BTW, the Canon 35/2.8 R-D1 combination is a killer, isn't it?

 

[MCTuomey]

thanks for all the replies, everyone. i'm going to experiment with +1 stop EC and see what happens.

paul, about the canon 35/2.8, yes i am really liking its tonal rendering with the R-D1. lovely, smooth transitions. much more pleasing than my first shots with a pre-asph 50/1.4, at least to these old eyes. i'm now considering hunting down a canon 50 ... maybe rob's 50/1.5

 

[ampguy]

Just did a quick test with my RD1s and it matches my M6 meter. I used a 28/2.8 Zeiss lens across the aperture range on both cameras, on an even and dark wall with window lighting, with both at ISO 200 (no ev comp on rd1) and they matched perfectly.

 

[MCTuomey]

ted, thanks for that. i'm surprised they are the same, esp since i don't think the M6's meter is known for underexposure. my R-D1 seems about one stop under judging from the histogram. i haven't shot enough to see any pattern to it. more to follow as i experiment with EC.

 

[ampguy]

No problem

No problem

I've also never heard of the M6's meter underexposing, and my M6 had a recent CLA.

However, I typically overexpose film by 1/2 stop or so, usually the budget Fuji 400 Superia and get better results, but underexpose a bit on digital, but I know other folks are known to do the opposite.

Let me know how going by the histogram works for you.

Another informal guide I use for metering is if in evenly distributed images, the "I feel lucky" button doesn't do anything in picasa, then I feel my metering is pretty accurate. If it makes a lot of correction, I can often see I didn't compensate for certain lighting, or in a few cases, I had my EV set off of 0 and forgot about it.

ted, thanks for that. i'm surprised they are the same, esp since i don't think the M6's meter is known for underexposure. my R-D1 seems about one stop under judging from the histogram. i haven't shot enough to see any pattern to it. more to follow as i experiment with EC.

 

[DwF]

New R-D1 user here, courtesy DwF's sale (thanks, David).

Just starting to learn the camera, I'm seeing "left-sided" histograms using AE in a number of test shots. Lens: Canon 35/2.8. Does the R-D1's meter consistently underexpose in your experience? Anyone setting exposure compensation for this on a regular basis?

Shots are in varying light: from bar lighting to window light to tungsten.

Btw, I'm feeling guilty for not having touched my film RF at all in the last couple weeks ...

Thanks Mike,

Happy to see you have that pup up and running! Here I was worried about sending my R D1 off with a problemed rangefinder and all along it was the histogram that was out of alignment oops!

I never got to compare the M8 and R D1 but not long ago did run a comparison with the R D1 w/ '50 Summicron and my Pentax Ist w/ FA50 f1.4 The exposure was right in there between the two (I think the senor is that same one Nikon used as well). What was really evident was the extent to which the Epson controlled clarity in saturated areas, partiuclarly reds! This was a comparison shooting JPEGs but both cameras dialed where I like them and the JPEGs on the Epson are really good.

I have been more mindful recently about not blowing out highs and find that while I used to expose for shadows in film, it seems easier to work with shadow detail in this medium when I underexpose (1/2 - 1 stop). If in doubt and when I can I bracket.

Enjoy that camera!

David

 

[MCTuomey]

Hello David, thanks again for all the help with the camera (which is in great shape). Lotsa questions, that's where I'm at. One thing I'm noticing is that my small stock of more modern lenses doesn't seem to render as well with the R-D1 as older glass, like the little canon 35 i picked up off the B&S Board. Too harsh.

I'm hampered or helped (not sure which) by several years of digi sportshooting, so i'm mindful of the relation between underexposure and digital noise. My sports bodies are often semi-permanently EC'd +1/2 or more to avoid noise and reduce facial shadows.

I need to lose that habit, i guess, and think out of *my* box with the R-D1. I'll play around with exposures and see what I can learn.

 

[DwF]

Interesting that you find modern glass harsh on the R D1. For me the 35mm Summicron Asph did really well on the Epson and now on the Leica. But I also liked results I got with my older Wetzlar Summicron (1st of the black ones . I have yet to put an Elmar 3.5 on there but maybe it is time!

I definitely have work to do balancing the noise and highlight factor!

Cheers,
David

 

[sirius]

I read that it errs on the side of underexposure on purpose so that your highlights are not clipped. It is easier to dig things out of shadows with digital. Once a highlight is blown, it's just gone. This means you have to be careful with exposure if your subject is dark or shadow detail is very important.

 

[MCTuomey]

i've attached a snapshot taken inside a local sushi bar: RAW (mono), ISO 1600, 1/15, f2.8, using AE, no EC. i would say, judging from the original file's appearance and histogram, that the shot was about 1.5 to 2 stops underexposed. i brought the file up nearly 1.5 stop in post (Epson RAW), making separate channel level adjustments, then in PS boosted contrast very slightly, and ran my usual sharpening. not that the pic is any good, but i'm now wondering whether a "better" exposure would have put the highlights at camera left out of reach, per sirius' and others' comments.

then again, maybe i'm thinking too much.

 

[DwF]

i've attached a snapshot taken inside a local sushi bar: RAW (mono), ISO 1600, 1/15, f2.8, using AE, no EC. i would say, judging from the original file's appearance and histogram, that the shot was about 1.5 to 2 stops underexposed. i brought the file up nearly 1.5 stop in post (Epson RAW), making separate channel level adjustments, then in PS boosted contrast very slightly, and ran my usual sharpening. not that the pic is any good, but i'm now wondering whether a "better" exposure would have put the highlights at camera left out of reach, per sirius' and others' comments.

then again, maybe i'm thinking too much.

Wow! I like that Mike.

There is an "uncoated" lens look to it where the sweater shows some flare (imho it's good flare) on the right arm and the area not lit is low in contrast, but you captured the moment beautifully and the eyes are superb!

David

 

[MCTuomey]

thanks david. the lens is a canon 35/2.8. i'm looking for smoother tonalities rather than higher contrast, which amounts to a retro "uncoated" look. must be advancing age.

it may be that my first shots with my 50/1.4 were jpgs in pretty contrasty indoor window light - images were very harsh. i'm really not so crazy about the camera's jpg engine based on my first impressions.

just getting myself around the R-D1, lots of fun, yup.

 

[__hh]

I have not read all of the above responses. However, have just tested my new R-D1s against the Pentax Spot Meter V recently bought from ChrisN. My results indicate that the R-D1s exposure is in agreement with the spotmeter.

 

[sirius]

I think the meter reads like any other, but the actual camera takes an underexposed picture. I seem to remember Epson has actually said they did this on purpose somewhere on the net...

I'm not that experienced with this camera yet. I have noticed that, like most digital cameras, it has a fine "grain" in the highlights but can have a lot of noise in the shadows. This is different response than the all-over grain of a higher speed film.

I have noticed a "Long Exp Noise Reduction" setting on the camera. The camera takes noticably longer to process my raw+jpg images with this, but seems to produce a beautiful file since I turned it on. Before, there were a couple of photos ruined by aggressive noise on shadowed faces, etc...

I hope this helps and look forward to hearing other's expereinces...

 

[sirius]

Hey, Hung...you have almost the same set-up and signature as I do! I have the same kind of kit except an M2 instead of an M3!

 

[__hh]

Yes, we are getting off topic.

Sirius... nice choice of gear and great taste

I did have an M2, but sold it when the M3 arrived Either option is still great.