What frustrates me is that I don't capture colors and light exactly as I see it

[Light Guru]

Hi.

I only have a point and shoot Cybershot (DSC-H20) right now, but will soon be getting either the D5100 or D7000 and am frustrated that my camera doesn't capture the colors and lighting that MY eye sees even on "EASY" or "AUTO". What I mean is that the lighting may be brighter in the picture than what I'M seeing, etc.

Is there a way to capture EXACTLY what I'm seeing with regards to color AND lighting? Shouldn't EASY mode do this?

"EASY" mode is meant to take all control away from you, and when you want to take color accurate photos you want all the control.

What are you shooting that needs to be so color accurate. Most things exact color accuracy is not needed.

But if you insist upon it it will mean a lot of work EVERY time you take a photograph.

When shooting you will have shoot a accurate color chart like this.
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

And it is critical that you have properly calibrated monitors on your computer. To do that you will need something like this.
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1513&catid=149&action=overview

And then if you want your prints to be color accurate you will have to calibrate your printer.

Now remember if your photo is ever viewed on a non color calibrated display it will NOT be color accurate.

So like I said it is a lot of work to obtain color accuracy across everything, and considering you are currently using a point and shoot its definitely not worth it.

So I will ask again what exactly are you shooting that needs to be so color accurate.

 

[TCampbell]

It isn't so much the "mode" you choose, but rather the dynamic range of the camera and how that compares to the dynamic range of the shot. Automatic mode might work sometimes, and wont work other times. Manual mode gives you more control IF you know how to leverage it.

Suppose we were to say (and I'm making this up... this isn't a realistic example) that if you take a photo of a 50 watt light bulb that your camera will get a good exposure of it. Also... if we add a 40 watt light bulb and a 60 watt light bulb next to the 50 watt light bulb, your camera will get a good exposure of all three. BUT... if you try to take a photo of the 50 watt light bulb along with a 25 watt light bulb and a 75 watt light bulb that the 75 watt light bulb will be blown out and the 25 watt light bulb will be black.

My example is wrong, but it makes the point that once you select the exposure settings for the shot, the sensor can only accurately capture things which are a certain amount brighter or dimmer than that exposure and it wont be able to accurately capture anything significantly brighter or darker in the same shot.

That range is called "dynamic range".

A "stop" on a camera represents either a doubling or halving of the amount of light, depending on whether it's getting brighter or darker. Most any camera should be able to handle 2 stops bright and 2 stops darker than the selected exposure. But they may NOT be able to handle, say, 3 stops bright or darker.

To compensate, we identify how much dynamic range the shot is going to require. This is hard to do with a point & shoot camera, but a DSLR with a "spot" metering mode can do it reasonably well. You'd put the camera into "spot" metering mode, look (with your eyes... not with the camera) and find the point in the scene you're about to shoot which you think is probably the brightest thing in the scene. It might be a highlight on a white puffy cloud. Point the camera at that highlight and take a meter reading. ALSO... find the darkest point you can find in the scene... some deep shadow, etc. and take that meter reading as well. You want to manual set the camera's exposure to the point which is half-way between the two.

Note that when you identify that "middle" exposure... if you then put the camera back to an automated exposure mode and allow the camera to do "matrix metering" or "evaluative metering" (where the camera sizes up the whole scene), the camera tends to go for "average" exposure which is not the same as "middle" exposure. That means that the camera may not pick the same exposure you picked when you worked it out manually. That's because the camera is trying to make "most" of the scene look about right. Whereas the manual method is trying to make sure nothing is clipping off the ends of the camera's dynamic range. That may mean the bulk of the exposure is a little under or over-exposed, but if it was shot in RAW and it didn't "clip" then that can easily be adjusted in post processing and at least you wont have lost any critical detail.

I have a special light meter which simplifies this. It allows me to build a profile of my camera so that the meter knows the dynamic range limits of my camera. It displays a line which represents the exposure levels required for the image, with added arrows to indicate the limits of my camera's dynamic range, and shows me where the middle exposure is to capture the range necessary for the image without any clipping.

A high end camera typically will have better dynamic range than a budget camera... but we're usually not talking about anything drastic. Sometimes the difference between two different bodies is 1/10th of a stop -- not really enough for you to notice. MORE important is learning to identify the range your camera can handle and how to find the middle exposure that keeps the shot from clipping. This is generally not something you do while in a hurry.

 

[ph0enix]

How much of a pain is it to have to go into the menu to adjust ISO, white balance, etc, on the D5100?

It can be fairly painful and cause you to miss some actions shots since you'll have to take your eye off the viewfinder and look at the LCD screen/menus. With the D7000 you don't have to take your eye off the subject to adjust exposure. You can do it with the dials on the front and back of the camera.

 

[DebSturm]

Check this out: https://www.lytro.com I don't think the pictures are easily printed yet, you have to go through quite an ordeal to switch their format to JPEG or TIFF to print. BUT these cameras are amazing and gives us hope that one day, our pictures will look like exactly what we see. It's gonna be GREAT!!! Deb

 

[o hey tyler]

Check this out: https://www.lytro.com I don't think the pictures are easily printed yet, you have to go through quite an ordeal to switch their format to JPEG or TIFF to print. BUT these cameras are amazing and gives us hope that one day, our pictures will look like exactly what we see. It's gonna be GREAT!!! Deb

Just because you can alter the focus after you take the photo doesn't mean that you'll be able to capture light exactly as you see it. This camera does not have a vast dynamic range that is capable of capturing what the human eye can see. It's pretty much a novelty item at this point, as it's not ergonomic and lacks a lot of functionality. Additionally, the sensor is so tiny that the DoF changes don't really drastically change the photo as far as I am concerned.

 

[sm4him]

Nobody can really tell you which camera is *better*, because it just depends on what you want--but, having gone from a D5100 to a D7K just recently, I can share my insights about it.

I bought the D5100 in August 2011--I went back and forth about whether to get it or the D7000, but the 7000 was just a little too far out of my budget, meaning I'd have to wait another 2 or 3 months before taking the plunge, and in the end I decided that the things the D7000 had over the 5100 just weren't that important to me.

I was right.
And I was wrong.

I *loved* my D5100; it was everything I needed, and probably just about all I could handle learning at the time. But because I did have a reasonably extensive film background, it didn't take that long to get it mostly figured out, and that's when the "little" things started to bug me. Largest among them--the desire to be able to purchase older, non AF-S lenses and still be able to auto-focus. Because the D5100 doesn't have a focus motor in the camera, it will only auto-focus with lenses that have the motor in them. I didn't think that would matter to me, but it did.

The other two major things that made me want to make the leap to the D7000--the sturdier, more "weather proofed" build and the rockin' two-sd card-slots!

The fact is, NONE of those things were all that critical, and I could easily have kept using my D5100 for another year or more without getting to where I was at the limit of its capability. I just happened to come upon a really great deal on one right after Thanksgiving, so I made the leap.

I am SOO glad I didn't wait a year or two to have this camera! The additional focal points, the easier command and setting dials, and so much more. All little things that I didn't really "need" and certainly wasn't pining away for, but now that I have them, I find it somewhat limiting to go back to the 5100. I will say, however, that if you don't really have any SLR experience (either digital or film), the D7000 could provide a VERY steep learning curve! But once you make it around that curve, you'll still have a camera you can be happy with for years, whereas with the D5100, if you really get into photography, you'll likely want to upgrade sooner rather than later.

My opinion: If you can afford it, get the D7000. But if not, go for the 5100, you won't be disappointed either way.

 

[DiskoJoe]

So I do like the larger viewfinder on the d7000, but don't know if that justifies the extra mula for me right now (I am a beginner also). How much of a pain is it to have to go into the menu to adjust ISO, white balance, etc, on the D5100?

Thank you all!

P.S. I did try the 7000 at a local store here in Maine and I really liked it over the 5100, BUT I think I could live with the 5100 for a couple years .... maybe.

Long run the d7000 is cheaper. With the d5100 you have to buy powered lenses where as the d7000 has an internal focusing motor and you can get lenses that cost less. A friend of mine found that out the hard, expensive, way.

 

[emdiemci]

I once had this issue. My advice, learn exposure & don't shoot with flash.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Learn exposure - I agree, that's a good suggestion. I think knowing how to use your meter and how to set the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture will help with getting good pictures. Being a longtime film photographer I'm used to using all manual settings but I think it took lots of learning and practice.

You could think about getting something used from a reputable seller like KEH, then at some point sell/trade that in and upgrade (or maybe consider used from your local camera store).

My camera is DNG which automatically produces a RAW and JPEG image; I rarely use the automatically generated JPEG because the RAW image has more information recorded and is better quality with better color most of the time. Probably whatever DSLR you choose will give you more options than what you currently have in being able to get the type pictures you want.

 

[enzodm]

Apart from the specific camera you will buy, put in the budget also time to learn and time to process your RAW pictures... no Auto button will give you what you want even on a dSLR. So before any purchase, think seriously at how much time you want to invest.

 

[jasonkip]

One positive about buying the D5100 first would be that when you do upgrade, you'll then have a less expensive backup body. Then when you upgrade again and are really getting into it, you can sell/gift it to someone who has been admiring your work and wants to learn. The first dslr I started with had passed through many hands before me!

 

[cynicaster]

My $.02 to the OP:

• Make sure you understand and correctly use white balance settings. I think this gets dismissed by a lot of beginners as some technical mumbo-jumbo that “doesn’t matter too much”, but in truth it’s extremely important for getting true colors.
• In my experience, “auto” settings only work well in “easy” shooting scenarios (strong and reasonably uniform lighting, low to medium contrast, no quick movement of subject matter, subjects of interest close together, etc.). Whenever you have a more challenging situation—i.e., where the opposites of any of the above listed conditions are in front of you—it takes a photographer who understands exposure to manually apply appropriate settings to capture the best result possible, as the camera won’t be smart enough to do so on its own.
• You didn’t say so explicitly, but I’d be willing to bet one of the main examples of disappointment for you has come in the form of skies that look beautiful and blue to your eye but look drab and grey in your photos. Learn about dynamic range, and how to use tools like HDR and ND grad filters to fight against such technical challenges.
• Stick with it, as there is no “silver bullet” catch-all technique and you won’t become a pro overnight. The best you can hope for is that every shoot you do gives you at least one small eureka moment where you start to understand something that you didn’t before. I’ll close by mentioning that, aside from leaving your camera in the closet, the best way to ensure the latter does not happen is to constantly rely on your camera’s automatic modes.

 

[12sndsgood]

Now that D7100 's are coming out that should push the price of the D7000 lower and you will start to see a lot of used D7000 popping up used as well.

 

[hirejn]

You expect the camera to do better on auto mode because you trust the camera knows more than you about photography. You paid a lot of money for it, and you've heard about the advanced features, so when you point it at a fantastic scene and shoot and don't get what you want, you wonder why the equipment isn't performing up to par. That's because as Ansel Adams said, the most important piece of equipment is six inches behind the camera -- your brain. Getting light to look how you want it is the whole pursuit of a photographer's career. It can't be answered in a forum post. But, perfect exposure is not a mystery to the professional. Exposure is subjective, as is the meaning of "silver bullet." But there is a silver bullet -- a light meter. When you know how to use a light meter, you will get perfect exposure. You still have to know photography. You don't simply click the light meter and get a perfect image. But IMO it's the supreme tool for getting it right every time. Everything else is guessing.

Color is also a mystery, until you understand it. No camera can capture accurate color without some help. Sometimes they get close, and occasionally they might be on the mark, but you can't count on them. RAW is not the answer either, on its own. To get accurate color, you must use a reference target, create a camera profile, and do custom white balance in post or set custom WB in-camera before you shoot. Technical, I know, but it's the answer. This is why most amateurs simply avoid color management. You could spend hours fiddling with saturation and sliders. But even if you do, how do you know when you get back to your computer what the exact color in the scene was, and how could you adjust for it if you don't know? If your monitor isn't calibrated, you're just guessing anyway because it's not showing you an accurate representation of the file. Does your brain have perfect color memory? Do you really know what hue the blue should be or how much orange should be in the skin tone? I don't know anyone who does. My profiles do it for me automatically.

You need to learn from a professional, a few hours of video for the basics, or experience.

 

[JackBurton]

I agree with cynicaster on this one. A lot of the beginner photographers think ignore all of the stuff that doesn't make sense at that certain moment because they just want to get straight to taking pictures with their brand new camera, when in reality you need to take time to learn all of that stuff to become a successful photographer. Best of luck!