Dynamic range performance

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by hognisig, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. It has been stated in recent reviews that the new 10 mp Oly DSLR's have worse
    dynamic range performance than the competition. If this is true then how do they
    compare to the older generation 5 and 8 mp models from Olympus (E1, E300, E330
    and E500). I have no experience of the Oly offerings, but by not being tied to
    any one brand name I find the E410 and E510 very tempting considering features
    and prices. My main camera for the past year and a half has been the Minolta
    Dynax/maxxum 5D, which is nice but was not my first choice. I was more into
    Canon d350 at the time but price cuts at the minolta dealership helped me make
    up my mind.
    I have tested dslr's from pentax, canon, minolta and sigma, but nikon and
    olympus only very briefly in the shop so I cannot really judge them. All the
    models I tested are fine tools, my minolta possibly the least performer. I just
    want to see if Olympus is a viable alternative for me to upgrade.

    Best regards
     
  2. As an E-410 user, I'd say the concerns are exaggerated, particularly if you shoot RAW, but I shoot a lot of jpegs and while I need to be mindful of highlights, it's certainly not a big problem.

    At first I bought into the dpreview test, but the more I've used my camera the more I believe DR is just becoming the latest b*tching point next to "noise".

    I do agree there is a bit narrower DR with the E-410, and I notice it in a tendency to blow highlights.. if I'm not paying attention to what I'm doing. It doesn't HAVE to blow highlights. Like we used to say in autocross racing, the first thing to fix is the nut behind the wheel.

    For my part, I find the IQ of the e-410 (as well as its handling) suits my taste 100% more than anything else I've used. Of course YMMV.

    Here's a some pictures that were somewhat DR challenging that I think turned out fine.

    http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6200190-lg.jpg

    http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6200224-lg.jpg

    http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6200141-lg.jpg

    http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6176160-lg.jpg
     
  3. I may be missing something but I find this concentration on dynamic range rather strange. With computer post processing of two or more shots a huge dynamic range is possible.

    http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm

    To me it is a use of all the tools available to one instead of just one, the camera.
     
  4. JC, I've disagreed with you on a number of posts in the past but this one I agree with you 100%.

    As you say, with just two exposures I get as much DR as I need/want.

    One problem though is that some shooters would like all of us to believe that the single "perfect" exposure is the only true way.

    Of course there are other issues such as things that move or if you are hand holding which would make 2 or more exposures very difficult.

    Everyone is entitled to their views and I don't have a problem as long as they don't try to enforce these views on the rest of us.

    Sigurd, don't get too drawn in with mega pixels, DR, low noise and all the rest of it. I really believe that every DSLR today is capable of creating incredible images. Just get the one that feels good in your hands.
     
  5. It isn't that two exposures gets more information.. it's that sometimes you don't have time for two exposures.. or that one exposure takes so long to set up and the conditions are changing to quickly. Dynamic range is still something that should be considered.. as much as it can be. I mean you find a camera that works for you. and it takes pictures.. go for it.. don't let something like a little less dynamic range stop you. that said.. I am always wishing digital had a little more range. but that is ALL digital .. not just one model.
     
  6. > I may be missing something but I find this concentration on dynamic
    <br>&gt; range rather strange. With computer post processing of two or more
    <br>&gt; shots a huge dynamic range is possible.
    <br>
    <br>That's true, but for the majority of my photos, that simply isn't practical. For me, and I would guess for most photographers, having a camera that can cover a wider dynamic range is much more useful than relying on post processing. Even for landscape photographers shooting on a tripod, there are times when taking two shots and merging them together simply isn't workable.
    <br>
    <br>I'm glad camera reviewers are looking at dynamic range and noise.
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>lars
     
  7. I just bought an e500 -- yep now a 510 is out.

    Been shooting for years with a C4040 since it was introduced and cost $700. I have a
    stable of filters, tubes, adaptors you name it for it. It is one of those special cameras that
    just takes the pictures I want with ease. That is why I held on to it for so long.

    I shoot many pictures directly into the sun and always available light. Recently started
    infrared with it and it still does what I want. Many pictures converted to B&W in photoshop
    elements where I want pure black to pure white range. (Been using that too since it came
    out and know all the things each release does. Old release is one I keep because it has it's
    own thing about it.

    The e500 is great. Nice to have quality lenes again (Old OM film shooter.) Lots of pixels
    are right on and I have started to play with raw.

    But-- you got it the e500 handles dynamic range differently. I shot some people shots at
    a horse ranch with it and the bright horse trailers in the background knocked out the
    shadows in my subject. May have to switch to pure spot meter and still have to learn how
    it meters and what kind of range it produces. Just not a flash shooter, fill or otherwise.

    Bottom line -- dynamic range is a big deal for me. I shoot harsh lighting as my most fave
    -- along with foggy days at the beach to catch the heavy sea in winter with the lost litter
    of summer around, or the harsh light of a January day in sun south of San francisco where
    I want the water to be almost black and the sky the same with the splach of color of
    windsurfers and bright white wave tops. The C4040 + elements nails that.

    I just have not decided yet if my e500 can do what I can with the old C4040. No clue on
    the 510/410.

    And, maybe less is more. Bet the old C4040 has less range than the e500 and because I
    push limits at both ends and want stark pictures the e500 is fixing things I don't want
    fixed.
     

Share This Page