Reading mode: Light Dark

I want camera with wide dynamic range

Go to last post
N

Newbie-Man

Well-known member
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Location
ES
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my budget, though)
 
The best dynamic range I've seen in this kind of range seems to be the Sony 717. Seems to retain more highlights while keeping shadow detail. I've seen them priced as low as $600 on the internet, which can then be price matched at Sears.

I love my C3000Z, but I was out shooting last afternoon, and the highlights got blown pretty badly, even with a -1.3 setting for exposure. Not a great time to go out, but still I think some cameras would have done better.

Brianos 2.1
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio:
http://www.adigitaldreamer.com/photography/website/
------------------------------------------------------------------
'THE' graphic design directory...
http://www.adigitaldreamer.com
 
Hi Brian:

after watching the 717 samples at IR, I see:
-The far-field test has indeed a very wide dynamic range.

-The outdoor portrait has also fabulous dynamic range, although I don't like how the face texture looks.

I won't purchase the Sony because:

I think the 717 has no contrast adjustment, and no possibility of PC control, I guess.
The best price in Europe for the 717 is.... 835 Euros. OUCH! no way!

The Olympus C4000's samples at IR, with the contrast adjustment at -5, have very good dynamic range.

But later, I realized of one subtle matter:

the outdoor portrait, and the far-field shots for the C4000 were made with the sun very high above. For the rest of the cameras, the sun is lower, and I think that the sun is more violent when it is low. Am I correct on this?

For example, when the sun is lower, the faccade of the house is illuminated harder, and the white portions get easily overexposed.

The C-4000 house shot was made with the sun very high and thus, the faccade is less violent. Also, the roof is black, so no problem.
So, I believe the target is easier to manage.
Is this reasoning correct?

Take a look at these 2 photos:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C40/C40OUTAP2CONM5.HTM
contrast -5, exp comp +0,7

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C40/C40FARCONM5.HTM
contrast -5, exp comp 0

as you see, the result is very good, contrast is kept under control. These photos were shot in the summer (august 27).
but the position of the sun is too high, and I am worried.

Any idea?

p.d. in the 717 portrait shot, the sun is very high, and the result is comparable to the C4000's. But the 717's far field (house) shot was taken with lower sun, and the result is again comparable to the C4000. So maybe the position of the sun is not as important as I am thinking.
BrianOS 2.1 said:
I love my C3000Z, but I was out shooting last afternoon, and the
highlights got blown pretty badly, even with a -1.3 setting for
exposure. Not a great time to go out, but still I think some
cameras would have done better.

Brianos 2.1
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio:
http://www.adigitaldreamer.com/photography/website/
------------------------------------------------------------------
'THE' graphic design directory...
http://www.adigitaldreamer.com
Click to expand...
 
Best choice is one with RAW combined with Adobe RAW converter. This is THE best way to give you control. The Reindeer Graphics blending plug in makes that task easy on PC. Think the 5050 is the only one with RAW. $565 at buydig.com. May drop when 750 pops up.
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
C2100,C-2020, D-40, PS6
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


 
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.
Click to expand...
The newly announced Fuji chip will improve the situation, read about it at...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp

But Fuji has announced a delay, so a little patience is in order.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0304/03040701finepixf700delay.asp

Eventually digital cameras will be better than film for dynamic range, but it will take a few more years.

Regards................. Guy
 
here are some samples:

http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/digitalcamera/fxf700/sample.html

these samples look very good, but I can't have an oppinion until I see the test shots at IR.
Guy Parsons said:
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.
Click to expand...
The newly announced Fuji chip will improve the situation, read
about it at...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp

But Fuji has announced a delay, so a little patience is in order.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0304/03040701finepixf700delay.asp

Eventually digital cameras will be better than film for dynamic
range, but it will take a few more years.

Regards................. Guy
Click to expand...
 
it seems that this CCD is equivalent to a 30 bit CCD
instead of 24 bit CCD.

And the camera is not very expensive (565 eur).

I will think about it... thanx
Newbie-Man said:
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/digitalcamera/fxf700/sample.html

these samples look very good, but I can't have an oppinion until I
see the test shots at IR.
Guy Parsons said:
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.
Click to expand...
The newly announced Fuji chip will improve the situation, read
about it at...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp

But Fuji has announced a delay, so a little patience is in order.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0304/03040701finepixf700delay.asp

Eventually digital cameras will be better than film for dynamic
range, but it will take a few more years.

Regards................. Guy
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Newbie-Man said:
RAW gives you more dynamic? mmmhh
explain, please.
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is cropped during 12 to 8 bit conversion (for each colour channel). While on your pc you can choose whatever part of the 12 bit dynamic range you want (for example, you can create two different "exposures", then combine them) or store as a 16 bit per colour image. But I doubt the usefulness of RAW in C5050 is equivalent to the corresponding mode on SLR cameras. Increased noise (due to the smaller pixel size) reduce the lower part of the dyn. range.
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
 
So, the RAW file has 36 bit instead of 24 bit?
I didn't know this!

So, the 36 bit are "downsampled" to 24 bit JPEG, and you lose some of the quality, isn't it?

you are saying that the RAW image has a lot of noise.
I have seen a comparison between RAW and TIFF in the 5050,
and the TIFF has much less noise.

Also, a friend at Powershot forum (Joerg) did a comparison between RAW and JPEG for the Canon G3, and the JPEG also has much less noise, (but also less detail).

Now I see the possible cause: when you downsample 36 bit to 24 bit, you lose detail, and also, noise. Is that correct?

thanks for the tip. very enlightening.
Dimitrios said:
Newbie-Man said:
RAW gives you more dynamic? mmmhh
explain, please.
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is cropped during 12 to 8 bit conversion (for each
colour channel). While on your pc you can choose whatever part of
the 12 bit dynamic range you want (for example, you can create two
different "exposures", then combine them) or store as a 16 bit per
colour image. But I doubt the usefulness of RAW in C5050 is
equivalent to the corresponding mode on SLR cameras. Increased
noise (due to the smaller pixel size) reduce the lower part of the
dyn. range.
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
Click to expand...
 
some days ago, a guy here told me that ND (neutral density) filters may help me to widen the dynamic range, reducing the contrast of the incoming light.

But later, a guy at the powershot forums, Tore Lund, noted that these are split ND filters. These filters have a obscured portion and a clear portion.

Only are useful when you have e.g. a bright sky against a darker terrain. But they are very unconvenient to use, and not always useful in other circumstances.

Is there any "uniform" (not split) filter that serves the purpose of expanding the dynamic range of the camera?
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
 
Technically that is impossible, since RAW is - as the word implies - RAW output from the CCD sensor. Both TIFF and JPEG output are generated from that RAW data.

If you end up with more noise than TIFF or JPEG from an image initially saved as RAW, then the problem is your conversion process compared to whatever algorithm is being used in the camera for TIFF and JPEG, and not the RAW itself.

That said, it quite possibly might be true than the Olympus supplied RAW converter program does a poorer job than the camera with respect to noise when performing conversions.

But that's the great thing about RAW. As better conversion software and techniques become available, you can revisit you old images and get better results out of them. Images converted in-camera to TIFF to JPEG cannot offer that ability.
Newbie-Man said:
you are saying that the RAW image has a lot of noise.
I have seen a comparison between RAW and TIFF in the 5050,
and the TIFF has much less noise.
Also, a friend at Powershot forum (Joerg) did a comparison between
RAW and JPEG for the Canon G3, and the JPEG also has much less
noise, (but also less detail).

Now I see the possible cause: when you downsample 36 bit to 24 bit,
you lose detail, and also, noise. Is that correct?

thanks for the tip. very enlightening.
Dimitrios said:
Newbie-Man said:
RAW gives you more dynamic? mmmhh
explain, please.
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is cropped during 12 to 8 bit conversion (for each
colour channel). While on your pc you can choose whatever part of
the 12 bit dynamic range you want (for example, you can create two
different "exposures", then combine them) or store as a 16 bit per
colour image. But I doubt the usefulness of RAW in C5050 is
equivalent to the corresponding mode on SLR cameras. Increased
noise (due to the smaller pixel size) reduce the lower part of the
dyn. range.
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Newbie-Man said:
some days ago, a guy here told me that ND (neutral density) filters
may help me to widen the dynamic range, reducing the contrast of
the incoming light.

But later, a guy at the powershot forums, Tore Lund, noted that
these are split ND filters. These filters have a obscured portion
and a clear portion.
Only are useful when you have e.g. a bright sky against a darker
terrain. But they are very unconvenient to use, and not always
useful in other circumstances.

Is there any "uniform" (not split) filter that serves the purpose
of expanding the dynamic range of the camera?
Click to expand...
A filter can't expand the dynamic range. It's a set characteristic of the sensor. There's a maximum level of light it can register, and a minimum level, and that's it. What a split ND filter will do for you is to "collapse" the range of the image you're attempting to capture by reducing the amount of light coming in from the brighter area so that the difference between the darkest and lightest points now falls within the range the camera can deal with. A non-split ND filter simply reduces the overall amount of light. This can be useful in situations where you want to use a slower shutter speed but stopping the lens down all the way still isn't enough to get you there, or you want to use a wider aperture but your fastest shutter speed isn't fast enough.
 
No, Iñigo, you got it wrong.
I said the RAW has more noise.
Inigo Montoya said:
  • RAW output from the CCD sensor. Both TIFF and JPEG output are
generated from that RAW data.

If you end up with more noise than TIFF or JPEG from an image
initially saved as RAW, then the problem is your conversion process
compared to whatever algorithm is being used in the camera for TIFF
and JPEG, and not the RAW itself.
That said, it quite possibly might be true than the Olympus
supplied RAW converter program does a poorer job than the camera
with respect to noise when performing conversions.
But that's the great thing about RAW. As better conversion
software and techniques become available, you can revisit you old
images and get better results out of them. Images converted
in-camera to TIFF to JPEG cannot offer that ability.
Newbie-Man said:
you are saying that the RAW image has a lot of noise.
I have seen a comparison between RAW and TIFF in the 5050,
and the TIFF has much less noise.
Also, a friend at Powershot forum (Joerg) did a comparison between
RAW and JPEG for the Canon G3, and the JPEG also has much less
noise, (but also less detail).

Now I see the possible cause: when you downsample 36 bit to 24 bit,
you lose detail, and also, noise. Is that correct?

thanks for the tip. very enlightening.
Dimitrios said:
Newbie-Man said:
RAW gives you more dynamic? mmmhh
explain, please.
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is cropped during 12 to 8 bit conversion (for each
colour channel). While on your pc you can choose whatever part of
the 12 bit dynamic range you want (for example, you can create two
different "exposures", then combine them) or store as a 16 bit per
colour image. But I doubt the usefulness of RAW in C5050 is
equivalent to the corresponding mode on SLR cameras. Increased
noise (due to the smaller pixel size) reduce the lower part of the
dyn. range.
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
then, bye bye to the 740.
According to the photos I have seen, the dynamic range of the 740
is worse than the C4000's. I hoped to solve this with a lens....

Also, the 740 has no focus assist light (at first, I thought this had an easy home-made solution, but now I am not sure I want to risk it),
and macro is less consistant-powerful.

I think I am closer to the C-4000.
Inigo Montoya said:
Newbie-Man said:
some days ago, a guy here told me that ND (neutral density) filters
may help me to widen the dynamic range, reducing the contrast of
the incoming light.

But later, a guy at the powershot forums, Tore Lund, noted that
these are split ND filters. These filters have a obscured portion
and a clear portion.
Only are useful when you have e.g. a bright sky against a darker
terrain. But they are very unconvenient to use, and not always
useful in other circumstances.

Is there any "uniform" (not split) filter that serves the purpose
of expanding the dynamic range of the camera?
Click to expand...
A filter can't expand the dynamic range. It's a set characteristic
of the sensor. There's a maximum level of light it can register,
and a minimum level, and that's it. What a split ND filter will do
for you is to "collapse" the range of the image you're attempting
to capture by reducing the amount of light coming in from the
brighter area so that the difference between the darkest and
lightest points now falls within the range the camera can deal
with. A non-split ND filter simply reduces the overall amount of
light. This can be useful in situations where you want to use a
slower shutter speed but stopping the lens down all the way still
isn't enough to get you there, or you want to use a wider aperture
but your fastest shutter speed isn't fast enough.
Click to expand...
 
This is my view is still the way to go.

From the RAW guide.

Reduces noise—extraneous visible
artifacts that degrade image quality. Photographing
with a higher ISO or less-sophisticated camera can
result in images with objectionable noise. Image noise is
made up of chroma (color) noise and luminance
(grayscale) noise. The Smoothness slider affects both
types of noise. Setting the slider to zero turns off the noise reduction

--
Stinson
C2100,C-2020, D-40, PS6
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


 
Dynamic range, at the very front end of the camera, is dependant of how resolute its analogue to digital converter is. Many cameras use an 8-bit converter (which then translates to 24-bit colour) with some higher-end models going to 10, 12 and 14-bit. Currently, I know Sony uses a 14-bit A-D converter (at least in the F7x7) which should in theory give 42-bit graduation from the raw CCD data.

All this raw data is no use if in-camera processing loses some of the dynamic range. My current Oly C-2100 (8-bit) appears to provide as much dynamic range out of camera as my old Sony F505 which had a 10 or 12-bit A-D.

Try looking at the Sony S-85 pictures from the web and determine if this is what you want. They may be going for a discount since it has been discontinued. Factor in the additional cost, if any, for memory stick vs. xD card/Smartmedia.

Rgds
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
 
Newbie-Man said:
No, Iñigo, you got it wrong.
I said the RAW has more noise.
Click to expand...
I got nothing wrong, however I may have done a poor job of explaining myself.

TIFF, JPEG, any viewable output of a digital camera image comes from the original RAW data - the actual data captured at each pixel site on the CCD. RAW is not exactly a "human readable" format. To view the RAW data as a full color image it must be processed. The in-camera converters for TIFF and JPEG are two such processes, and may include some noise reduction algorithms. But those are just two of a myriad of possible conversion routines that could be used on the RAW data, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Let me put it another way -- in film terms, to say "RAW has more noise" is to look at a 4x6 print and a 5x7 print and claim that "the negative has more noise".

RAW is your negative. It's useless for viewing without processing. Different methods of processing may yield more or less noise in the final result. It's fine to say something like output from the Olympus RAW converter shows more noise than TIFF from the camera, or output from the Adobe RAW converter shows less noise than JPEG from the camera, but "RAW has more noise" is sort of irrelevant because the RAW file is the root source of each and every one of the final output images.
 
From what I've seen, the C-4000 delivers good bang for the buck, provided you're not planning on a lot of long range shooting where the zoom of the 740 would be needed (e.g. prefer landscapes to wildlife/birding), and you're ok with the rangefinder vs EVF differences.
Newbie-Man said:
then, bye bye to the 740.
According to the photos I have seen, the dynamic range of the 740
is worse than the C4000's. I hoped to solve this with a lens....

Also, the 740 has no focus assist light (at first, I thought this
had an easy home-made solution, but now I am not sure I want to
risk it),
and macro is less consistant-powerful.

I think I am closer to the C-4000.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top