Is the dynamic range of digital slrs superior to that of consumer digital cameras suc

[Michael_McKelvey]

Presently I use a Nikon 950 - hopefully to be upgraded to a Nikon 5000 sometime January February. Would I however be able to shoot better images with a digital SLR? My little 950 does not like, and does not cope well with high contrast scenes - however I've used to take truly remarkable shots, would a digital slr be able to deal better with such scenes?

My main problem is as of present limited financial resources, however the New Year will I hope see a change in fortune for http://www.360sphere.com which should allow me a wider choice of equipment.

regards Michael

 

[Ger Bee]

Short answer is NO!

The bright side of the capture is the weakest link in the digital capture of all cameras, even the mighty D1x's of this world. Nikon have “solved” this problem on the D1x by underexposing the files – however, the file contains so much data that this can be brought back again without loss of quality – the same trick on your CP990 digicam or any other cam for that matter would yield a noisy even solarised image of unusable quality for most applications.

The digital class SLRs from all manufacturers all have a greater dynamic range but only a little bit better in the highlights than any cam at almost any price (with a few notably exceptions). Where the digital camera score is in the mid range and shadow capture detail – the dynamic range here is considerably better than most cams.

 

[Michael_McKelvey]

Short answer is NO!

The bright side of the capture is the weakest link in the digital
capture of all cameras, even the mighty D1x's of this world. Nikon

have “solved” this problem on the D1x by underexposing the files –
however, the file contains so much data that this can be brought
back again without loss of quality – the same trick on your CP990
digicam or any other cam for that matter would yield a noisy even
solarised image of unusable quality for most applications.

I have found this with even my 950, and as you say the results are unusable, however one can do is to shoot two images each with the right exposure in each part of the image and combine them with Photoshop. This technique has particular application for those of us shooting virtual tours inside buiildings - though it is time comsuming.

The digital class SLRs from all manufacturers all have a greater
dynamic range but only a little bit better in the highlights than
any cam at almost any price (with a few notably exceptions).

Without tedious, are digital SLRs better than so called consumer grade cameras like the Nikon Coolpix series?

again thanks Michael http://www.360sphere.com

Where

the digital camera score is in the mid range and shadow capture
detail – the dynamic range here is considerably better than most
cams.

 

[Timo Autiokari]

Michael, all digital SLRs (less the S1 and D30) have FAR FAR better dynamic range, and therefore have much lesser amount of noise, than any of the consumer grade digicams (pls note that the secret dynamic range test of DPR is faulty, big time).

Provided that the sensitivity (base ASA) of the imaging sensors are the same and the CCD technology in regards of the fill-factor are similar then the image quality is approximately related to the size of the surface area of the individual sensors on the imager chip.

Nowadays "professional" quality SLRs have sensor size in the range of 10x10 micrometers (100um2) where the consumer grade digicams have very very tiny sensors of 3x3 micrometers (9um2) only, so there is a ratio of about 11.1 or 3.5 f/stops in favor of the DSLR. So... when a good DSLR capture about 9.0 f/stops the consumer grade digicams do about 5.5 f/stops only. I have the "professional" in the quotation since at least some 16x16 micrometers (256um2) sensor size is required for true professional quality.

The fill-factor is mainly a function of backlit/frontlit design, a thinned backlit CCD has 100% fill-factor where the conventional frontlit desing has about 65% fill-factor (the on-chip wiring takes the rest 35%). Therefore the backlit desing is about 2/3 f/stops better. I believe only Kodak high-end sensors are of backlit type.

The much better quality of the DSLR is readily seen in the (far lesser) noise level. In addition to that when the DSLR images are enhanced they:

-only improve when sharpening (USM) is applied even if it is done heavily.
-can be enlarged somewhat.

-can be density masked for the purpose of mapping the large captured dynamic range to the smaller dynamic range of the CRT or a print.

where these operations cause an obvious and sharp quality drop when applied over the images from a consumer grade digicam (better known as digiscam).

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

 

[Lee Rothman]

In two words.....HELL YES! I've worked with Canon's G1, G2, Pro90's, Nikon's 990-995 and Olympus 2500's and going to a D30 Canon was a huge jump in both dynamic range and color rendition/saturation control. Not to mention just pure lack of noise. With a LARGER sensor you gain such things. At this point it would be hard to recommend anything other than a Canon D30-1D, Nikon D1x or a Kodak 760 if dynamic range is what you are looking for (with low noise). There is NO subsitute for a larger sensor, MP's alone don't cut it.

 

[Mike Daley]

The only way around the problem you describe about high contrast scenes is with a camera that utilitizes a 3 CCD chip and I am not aware of any still cameras that use such a configuration. Generally these are found on higher end professional camcorders. I would love to see a mfg take the leap and produce a still camera with 3 CCD chips. The results would be nothing short of amazing. Until then avoid shooting scenes with a high contast if possible.

Mike
http://usa.maxbizcenter.com/

Presently I use a Nikon 950 - hopefully to be upgraded to a Nikon
5000 sometime January February. Would I however be able to shoot
better images with a digital SLR? My little 950 does not like, and
does not cope well with high contrast scenes - however I've used to
take truly remarkable shots, would a digital slr be able to deal
better with such scenes?

My main problem is as of present limited financial resources,
however the New Year will I hope see a change in fortune for
http://www.360sphere.com which should allow me a wider choice of
equipment.

regards Michael

 

[Michael11945]

The only way around the problem you describe about high contrast
scenes is with a camera that utilitizes a 3 CCD chip and I am not
aware of any still cameras that use such a configuration.
Generally these are found on higher end professional camcorders. I
would love to see a mfg take the leap and produce a still camera
with 3 CCD chips. The results would be nothing short of amazing.
Until then avoid shooting scenes with a high contast if possible.

There is of course another 'solution' the dual shot solution. It's pretty simple take two different shots of the same scene and combine them in Photoshop removing the over exposed part. For me application of this technique is unforunately rather tricky as I produce bubble tours.

thanks again for the feedback Michael

Mike
http://usa.maxbizcenter.com/

Presently I use a Nikon 950 - hopefully to be upgraded to a Nikon
5000 sometime January February. Would I however be able to shoot
better images with a digital SLR? My little 950 does not like, and
does not cope well with high contrast scenes - however I've used to
take truly remarkable shots, would a digital slr be able to deal
better with such scenes?

My main problem is as of present limited financial resources,
however the New Year will I hope see a change in fortune for
http://www.360sphere.com which should allow me a wider choice of
equipment.

regards Michael

 

[Jorge Alban]

Digital slr users seems to agree their cameras are capable of capturing a slightly larger dynamic range than their small sensor prosumer counterpart.

Why slightly? because exposure stills needs to be dead on, much like shooting slide film.

With digital slr's you gain a couple of stops in dynamic range while shooting at 8 bits per channel. Now if you shoot in raw format, at 12 bit per channel, you have greater exposure latitude for correction, much like using negative film.

The catch is that only the top digital cameras offer reasonable raw processing and recording speeds. Prosumer models usually take between 20 and 40 seconds to save each shot, making it impractical for anything but static subject.

Jorge Alban

 

[KenEis]

Other posts are accurate, but I've been using the lower contrast mode in Manual on my 950 to take high contrast pictures like snow bright sun images with deep shadows. They look muddy right out of the camera but in Elements or PS you can correct back and get full dynamic range. The compressed image that the camera takes contains more shadow information then the full contrast images. Still trying this on different subjects. Costs nothing.

Presently I use a Nikon 950 - hopefully to be upgraded to a Nikon
5000 sometime January February. Would I however be able to shoot
better images with a digital SLR? My little 950 does not like, and
does not cope well with high contrast scenes - however I've used to
take truly remarkable shots, would a digital slr be able to deal
better with such scenes?

My main problem is as of present limited financial resources,
however the New Year will I hope see a change in fortune for
http://www.360sphere.com which should allow me a wider choice of
equipment.

regards Michael

 

[KenEis]

Not to interject a twist in the forum but wont the new Sony 707 and Nikon 5000s have an intrinsic wider dynamic range because, unlike the nikon 950 with its 8 bit pixels, these cameras have 14 or 12 bit dynamic range, just like the expensive SLRs?

Digital slr users seems to agree their cameras are capable of
capturing a slightly larger dynamic range than their small sensor
prosumer counterpart.

Why slightly? because exposure stills needs to be dead on, much
like shooting slide film.
With digital slr's you gain a couple of stops in dynamic range
while shooting at 8 bits per channel. Now if you shoot in raw
format, at 12 bit per channel, you have greater exposure latitude
for correction, much like using negative film.

The catch is that only the top digital cameras offer reasonable raw
processing and recording speeds. Prosumer models usually take
between 20 and 40 seconds to save each shot, making it impractical
for anything but static subject.

Jorge Alban

 

[Timo Autiokari]

Not to interject a twist in the forum but wont the new Sony 707 and
Nikon 5000s have an intrinsic wider dynamic range because, unlike
the nikon 950 with its 8 bit pixels, these cameras have 14 or 12
bit dynamic range, just like the expensive SLRs?

It is the quality of the imaging sensor that define the dynamic range (as well as the noise level).

When the sensor does not capture more than say 5.5 f/stops (that is typical for todays consumer graded digicams) then no amount of bits in the subsequent analog-to-digital conversion helps anything. 8-bit conversion is good up to 8 f/stops (and this really is very high quality if it is true and honest 8 f/stops or 48dB signal-to-noise ratio).

Todays best sensors (those that are not cooled down way below the freezing point) do not get over 10-bits in quality.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

Not to interject a twist in the forum but wont the new Sony 707 and
Nikon 5000s have an intrinsic wider dynamic range because, unlike
the nikon 950 with its 8 bit pixels, these cameras have 14 or 12
bit dynamic range, just like the expensive SLRs?

No they will not. Their pixel size is actually smaller than the 950's so they may be worse. The exensive SLRs are expensive because of large sensors and they have better dynamic range because of large sensors.

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

The only way around the problem you describe about high contrast
scenes is with a camera that utilitizes a 3 CCD chip and I am not
aware of any still cameras that use such a configuration.
Generally these are found on higher end professional camcorders. I
would love to see a mfg take the leap and produce a still camera
with 3 CCD chips. The results would be nothing short of amazing.
Until then avoid shooting scenes with a high contast if possible.

The only thing a 3 CCD design will do is increase color resolution and reduce/elminate moire. There will still be a color filter over every pixel. a blue pixel is still a blue pixel. There will just be more of them.

 

[Mike Daley]

Well perhaps but the research I have done tells me something different. I don't know for sure not being that versed in engineering. You may be right. Mike

http://usa.maxbizcenter.com/

The only way around the problem you describe about high contrast
scenes is with a camera that utilitizes a 3 CCD chip and I am not
aware of any still cameras that use such a configuration.
Generally these are found on higher end professional camcorders. I
would love to see a mfg take the leap and produce a still camera
with 3 CCD chips. The results would be nothing short of amazing.
Until then avoid shooting scenes with a high contast if possible.

The only thing a 3 CCD design will do is increase color resolution
and reduce/elminate moire. There will still be a color filter over
every pixel. a blue pixel is still a blue pixel. There will just be
more of them.