Dynamic Range of DSLR

Which DSLR is suppose to or has the best dynamic range right now?

 

What is holding them back from making a sensor that can capture more

dynamic range?

 

Thanks!

If I recall the Canon 1D MK II is supposed to have the highest at 9 stops but I really am not sure. I have definitely noticed its better than some previous gen DSLRS.

 

For the most part sensor technology holds them back. The sensors can't output a clean enough image (even with filtering) to result in an image with anymore than a certain amount of dynamic range. While the 1D MK II is 9 stops, the 1Ds MK II and 20D are both a little over 8. Pixel size helps, but process refinement will continue to have a big impact.

 

Fuji has tried to expand dynamic range with their new Super CCD SR (I think that's the right mouthful) that has one large sensor and one small at each pixel site. At least that's how they describe it. The small sensor reads highlights better while the larger one reads shadows better. How much better the sensor is has yet to be determined since as it is I think both sensor are smaller than any given sensor on a lot of other cameras. That fuji camera is called the S3 Pro, I haven't used it and I wasn't that enthused about the S2 or S1 so I don't know how well it performs. Wait and see if someone here has used it.

If I'm reading the website correctly, the D70 looks like it has a range of 20 stops.

You're not reading the website correctly.

Hehe, if the D70 had a 20 stop dynamic range everyone else would have given up by now and they'd charge a whole heck of a lot more for it.

Heck, if any camera had a dynamic range of 20 stops, you could go blind by staring at a picture of the sun!

I thought that Digital camera have a dynamic range of about 5-6 stops. With shooting in RAW you can blend under and over exposed copies of the same image to extend this range maybe up to 8 stops. See this link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Or this link:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

Fuji S3 Pro.

<p><i>if any camera had a dynamic range of 20 stops, you could go

blind

by staring at a picture of the sun</i></p>

 

<p>well that would be the dynamic range of the paper you print

on ;)</p>

While Fuji S3 Pro currently has the best dynamic range, the ultimate

image quality (in domains often associated with dynamic range, such

as shadow detail) also depends on the bit depth the recording

apparatus is capable of. Don't know about

Fuji, but Canon DSLRs (including the 1Ds) only record 12 bits of

useful information per

color channel in

the RAW mode, even though RAW conversion normally produces

16-bit TIFFs. To get true 16 bits, you would have to use something

like an Imacon or Phase One digital back.

Canon's current D-SLR's are suppose to "all" have either nine or ten stops. This according to Canon's official representative, Chuck Westfall, over at Rob Galbraith's web site.

The expensive digital backs (Leaf, Phase One, etc.) claim to have a dynamic range of 11-12 stops.

But the digital backs you mention wouldn't qualify as a D-SLR:)

Probably the 1Ds II at around 8-9. The Fuji S3 is probably very close at around 9. Here is a trick I came up with 2 years ago! I have since seen variations posted on different sites. I think it works better than the Luminous way. Using an ISO of 100 with the S2 I can get an honest 10 stops that are pretty noise free. See scientific explanation at the bottom of the page. Noise is always the limiting factor. That's why the Fuji S2, S3, and Canon 1Ds II do so well. They are the no-noise kings. Of course the 1Ds II has far superior resolution.

 

http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

An additional 9 bits of dynamic range has been demonstrated using US Patent 6,600,471. Taking advantage of that technology in an imager on a DSLR could raise bit depth from 12 to 21.<p>

Does paper have a range of 20 stops as indicated above? What range is possible with DLP projection? Will some people wear sunglasses in future theaters?

Olympus E-1: 11 stops

Olympus E-300/E-volt: 10.5 stops

 

These are per the specifications Kodak (which manufactures the sensors) gives. Sorry,

Canon lags behind in this department, along with automatic dust removal.

That`s all BS, I haven`t seen the output from any digital back and from the S3 Pro, but ALL the others DSLR are in th 5 to 6 stops range i.e. as is slide film (except Velvia perhaps).

A negative color film has cce 8 to 10 stops DR and B&W film has 8 to 12 stops DR.

Anyone that can squeeze 8 stops from a DSLR is in heavy post production (blending etc.)

In one image only (even if RAW) You can get at best 6 stops of DR.

I`m a 10D user and hardly get 6 stops, more like 5.

Ray lurks quietly in the shadows, waiting for someone to post something relating to dynamic range... then out he springs, like a cuckoo clock, with the old patent number and reference to "Smal" technology again!

 

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Good grief, is that the time?

"I`m a 10D user and hardly get 6 stops, more like 5."<p>

 

I'm sorry to read your above. Maybe your sensor is defective as easily, even in either the dynamically challenged D30 or 10D I'm getting seven and eight stops with minimum effort in post. I'll do a selective mask and level of some areas and draw out dynamic range that's already there (can't put detail in what's not there) giving me dynamic range that I'd have no chance getting with color negative film. Once you know how to do it, it takes only a few seconds.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2192278">What Comes After</a>. This image was captured in direct, hard, hot afternoon sun. Make note of the landscape detail, through the windows, on the other side of the building.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2531354">You Decide</a>. Again, this image is an example of the D30's capability in harsh, extremely contrasty lighting where shadows are hard and the sky is bright blue. Even with harsh reflective sunlight on the wall you can see the blue of the sky and that the sky was fully lit by dramatic side lighting. Easily, I was able to get the full range of dynamic range, from the blue of the sky to the harsh reflected sunlight on the wall and still bring out the detail in the deep shadows of the canyon walkway floor. Both images were captured with a D30. I can not get this sort of latitude (dynamic range) with color film.<p>

 

This is a 10D sample, where you have detail in the clouds, the blue of the sky and the shadows of the overhang;<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2872646&size=lg">Earmarked For Demolition, Del Monte Plant</a>. Very little has to be done to bring out the shadow detail as digital sensors capture and have captured an amazing amount of detail in the shadows just waiting to be brought out into the light of day:)<p>

 

The 1D, 20D, 1DmkII and 1DsMkII have improved slightly to nine or ten stops: an extra stop or two. This is easily shown daily by wedding photographers and how they're now able to handle the latitude between the detail in a bride's white dress and the detail in a groom's black tux. This bride/groom situation has always been a challenge for the digital wedding photographer.<p>

 

In order for your above comment to work, everybody in the camera, wedding, fashion photography business would have to be wrong in their pronouncements as to current dynamic range in Canon's top end D-SLRs and you'd have to be the only one that's right.<p>

 

Wishing you well as my above are just my thoughts based upon my digital/film experience in response to your above.<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3040040">What Dynamic range does this have</a>. I do not know! Convince me that it is less than 8 and I will not post another claim for extended dynamic range. Please ignore that it is a 1.3 mp taken with a fixed focus $10 low quality camera. The issue here is dynamic range from bright sun flares to ice block shadows to rock shadows - click on larger for more detail. Please saturate my mind with intelligent responses.

<i>Olympus E-1: 11 stops Olympus E-300/E-volt: 10.5 stops

 

These are per the specifications Kodak (which manufactures the sensors) gives. Sorry, Canon lags behind in this department, along with automatic dust removal.</i><br><Br>If the E1 really got 11 stops, then every single one of the 20 so we have used has not lived up to that.

The only thing worse than cameramakers with inflated specs is their credulous

followers.

Thomas: You`re saying exactly the same thing as I - You can get increased DR by post-processing (even if minor).

What is the DR of un unmasked file You get from a DSLR?

I took a photo in a cave (actually 3 captures) and then combined them, and in the final print i managed to get the equivalent DR of cca. 12-13 stops, but that`s by post-processing, You can even get between 8 and 10 stops of DR from the same RAW file but with post-processing i`m aware of that and i know how to do such thing.

I was talking about a straight out of the camera image.

"I was talking about a straight out of the camera image."

 

Even film has to be worked to get full benefit of it's potential in the darkroom.

 

Neither film nor digital is immune from the post-processing blues.

 

In film, one needs to first choose the right film for the job and then you're stuck with that film for the duration of the roll. As you know, there's no, all inclusive film for all possibilities and film lacks ISO flexibility. Besides, how many folks really understand the differences between different available films?

 

Next, ya have to selectively expose your scene. Proper exposure does make a difference in how the film will react to shadows or highlights. How many retail users understand latitude issues of the film they do choose, let alone know about properly choosing the area of the scene in which to meter?

 

You've chosen your film and made your exposure for the shadows/highlights. Now ya have to develop the film; are you using positive or negative film? How much do you over develop the film to allow for your shadows or highlights? Is your developer fresh, at temperature or old and cold?

 

Now we're in the printroom. The negative/positive is loaded into the film holder; are you using an interneg? I'm partial to internegs, against conventional wisdom. The head of the enlarger is raised, how large is the image, the paper is being exposed to, being enlarged? Can we say; "Contrast issues anyone?" Are you using a densitometer and filters/dichroic head or winging it for color correction? What paper are you using; matt, satin, pearl, RC, glossy? Ya dodge, ya burn and now the paper goes into the soup. Again, how fresh and at what temperature are your print developing chemicals? Now you FINALLY get your print. Where's the simplicity in the color print making wet process "straight out of the camera?"

 

I can assure you, if you've not done your due diligence in the darkroom, you'll not get the full potential of "any" film based product.

 

It's not as cut and dried as some like to, in simplicity, suggest.

 

One can walk outside, and within five minutes have a full dynamic ranging image posted to the web. Try doing that with film. Delivering a roll of fill to the local drug store, aquiring the monies to purchase/process the film and picking the film back up is part of the post-processing process. Can we say "scanner?"

 

In my case, the effort is minimal. I get the capture, load the files into the computer, bring the image of question up into BreezeBrowser, convert, load into Adobe Photoshop, take a few seconds in post, save for web and cause I have DSL in the background, load the image to the web. This all takes maybe five or ten minutes at the most, not counting airbrush time:) Everything is paid for and I don't have to stand in line.

 

Sometimes we forget that purchasing the film, loading the film, unloading the film, driving the film down for processing, driving down and "paying again for the film" (ya had ta work ta get the money) after processing and scanning the image into the computer is all part of the post-processing process for film today. And when compared to the simplicity of post-processing a digital image, digital is much simplier.

 

So in review; one has to work to make the spare money to buy the film, understand how film works, work to make the spare money to pay for the gas to drop off and pick the film up, work to pay for the development of the film and after all that, one still needs to take the time to understand film and scan the image to take full benefit of the film's potential.

 

As to the computer, one still needs a computer and postprocessing programs if one is gonna post the film image of little Joey/Suzy to the web for Grand-Ma.

 

Yepper's, no inconvenience in post here:)

 

The point, even film isn't immune from "The Post-Processing Blues."

 

Wishing you well as you struggle with this issue:)