Hi. If dynamic range can be measured, why don't manufacturers include it with the rest of specs?

John Sheehy said:

Iliah Borg said:

D Cox said:

Iliah Borg said:

Because, after that, they need to explain how to reach it in practice

Click to expand...

Also, it isn't a single figure but varies with the ISO setting, so you need a graph like the ones on the PhotonsToPhotos web site.

Don Cox

Click to expand...

Consider that light spectrum and reflections spectra affect usable dynamic range

Click to expand...

That's only an issue, I think, if you think of camera DR as apples compared to scene DR apples, but they are really apples and oranges. Scene DR is about the range of brightnesses in the scene, and then as contrast is modified by lightpaths approaching the sensor, including random scatter and patterned flares.

Click to expand...

I think this should be called Brightness Range, and refer to the light entering the camera, while Dynamic Range refers to the ability of the camera to record it.

John Sheehy said:

Sensor DR is more about how far below raw highlight clipping the noise meets a certain aesthetic or numerical standard, so the bottom line is that more DR means less noise in the stops well below clipping, and less noise is almost always a good thing (unless it causes posterization), whether you leave blacks greyed, as is, with low contrast, or you adjust levels to regain blacks: there will be less noise.

Yes, you will never get blacks recorded black with a small black circle in a frame that is mostly white, but you get a lot closer to black when the wall is black with a small white circle. So, any monolithic figure for the limits of scene DR through a lens is highly dependent on the key of the subject matter.

DR helps with exposure latitude, too, which is completely independent of lightpath contrast loss.

Click to expand...

Don

John Sheehy said:

sybersitizen said:

Djehuty said:

Because you rarely shoot at base ISO where DR is the highest.

Click to expand...

Even if true (and it's probably not true for a considerable percentage of users), that can't be the reason. For example, a DR specification could be provided as something like 12.5 stops at ISO 100 if a manufacturer wanted to do that.

A camera's maximum frame rate is a prominently referenced number in manufacturers' specifications even though many photographers might only rarely shoot at that rate.

Click to expand...

You can't fudge fps, because there is only one clear, crisp definition and anyone can measure the results in the only one definition of fps. DR is an abstraction at best, and has multiple definitions, and many ways of being measured wrong, or the camera not being able to deliver the quality in shadows that one might expect, through destructive black-clipping and posterization and raw cooking.

Click to expand...

This is true.

However, some cameras certainly do have more DR than others. For instance, the Sigma DP3M that I own has less DR than the Sigma fp that I own. But putting precise figures on them is very difficult, and I'm not sure I care. They both produce good photos, but with a different look.

It's more a matter of picking which camera will give the kind of image I want in various lighting conditions.

Don

John Sheehy said:

Jay Anson said:

I added a 7D to my arsenal this year instead of the 7D MK2. After comparing the images I felt the original 7D edged it in image quality. It might just be my perception but the RAW output seems to have taken a step back in the MK 2. I'm upgrading by downgrading lol.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think that your methodology of comparison is botched, and riddles with illusion. Do you think that the 7D has better IQ than the 90D, too? If so, then that confirms to me what I said.

Click to expand...

Lol here is the proof in the pudding ...

I took this one today, using ISO 400 because it was going to be too dark at ISO 100. I guess I lost some DR and some highlights are blown, but it's not too bad.

JohnSil said:

JasonTheBirder said:

I never thought about it but it's a good question. Maybe cameras of the same sensor size are so close that no one cares.

Click to expand...

NO ONE CARES???

You're kidding right? Jason you're just to busy creating real work but the average camera nerd spends about half of his conscious time glued to DXO pouring over DR numbers so that their next camera will enable them to RAISE the shadows to levels that look so fake that only others of the same could appreciate the efforts of unreal photography!

Click to expand...

Most of the camera nerds I run into are more concerned about image sharpness. I guess we hang out in different circles.

JohnSil said:

Don't worry, those types are currently busy rooting around under the Xmas tree and unwrapping their new ultra high DR cameras and can't wait to go out and shoot so they can raise the shadows to look like they used flashbulbs.

Don't worry, they'll descend on this topic any minute now to set the record straight!!! Lol

John

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that the dynamic range of almost every modern ILC camera is enough for the vast majority of shooters. People who want to absolutely maximize dynamic range are in the minority.

Camera manufacturers are for-profit businesses. This encourages them to focus on features that a majority of their potential customers care about.

If dynamic range was driving purchase decisions for a large segment of the market, camera manufacturers would be trying to maximize dynamic range, even if it caused a loss in other areas (such as resolution). You would also see a wide range in how manufacturers measured dynamic range. This would result in each manufacturer claiming their camera scored better than the competition.

John Sheehy said:

sybersitizen said:

Djehuty said:

Because you rarely shoot at base ISO where DR is the highest.

Click to expand...

Even if true (and it's probably not true for a considerable percentage of users), that can't be the reason. For example, a DR specification could be provided as something like 12.5 stops at ISO 100 if a manufacturer wanted to do that.

A camera's maximum frame rate is a prominently referenced number in manufacturers' specifications even though many photographers might only rarely shoot at that rate.

Click to expand...

You can't fudge fps, because there is only one clear, crisp definition and anyone can measure the results in the only one defintion of fps.

Click to expand...

It is indeed sometimes fudged or, shall we say, approximated in manufacturer specs. The approximation might overstate or understate actual performance. Check some of the fps tests at The Imaging Resource.

John Sheehy said:

DR is an abstraction at best, and has multiple definitions, and many ways of being measured wrong, or the camera not being able to deliver the quality in shadows that one might expect, through destructive black-clipping and posterization and raw cooking.

Click to expand...

Same for the number of shots per battery charge, but there's very often a published spec anyway. Even the deceptively simple spec of ISO is fraught with fine matters of interpretation and measurement, but manufacturers provide one. None of the above prevents manufacturers from providing a DR spec. Fundamentally, they'd just rather not.

Jay Anson said:

John Sheehy said:

Jay Anson said:

I added a 7D to my arsenal this year instead of the 7D MK2. After comparing the images I felt the original 7D edged it in image quality. It might just be my perception but the RAW output seems to have taken a step back in the MK 2. I'm upgrading by downgrading lol.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think that your methodology of comparison is botched, and riddles with illusion. Do you think that the 7D has better IQ than the 90D, too? If so, then that confirms to me what I said.

Click to expand...

Lol here is the proof in the pudding ...

Click to expand...

How exactly do you think these samples show higher dynamic range and image quality in the 7D?

Member said:

Click to expand...

--

FrancoD said:

JohnSil said:

Supisiche said:

Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

EVERY digi camera I've ever seen has it included in the specs!!!

John

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Included where ?

For example I just had a look at the Sony A1 specs and no , I cannot find that figure.

Click to expand...

From Sony's site: plus up to 15 stops of dynamic range

Footnote: Sony's test conditions.

FrancoD said:

Maybe you are thinking of DPReview quoting DXO tests or something like that.

BTW, rom an ex-retailer point of view, most customers (not to be confused with members here) would not know what Dynamic Range is.

Click to expand...

SrMi said:

FrancoD said:

JohnSil said:

Supisiche said:

Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

EVERY digi camera I've ever seen has it included in the specs!!!

John

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Included where ?

For example I just had a look at the Sony A1 specs and no , I cannot find that figure.

Click to expand...

From Sony's site: plus up to 15 stops of dynamic range

Footnote: Sony's test conditions.

SrMi said:

Maybe you are thinking of DPReview quoting DXO tests or something like that.

BTW, rom an ex-retailer point of view, most customers (not to be confused with members here) would not know what Dynamic Range is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey Sony, what are the test conditions? Sony:

Ah, "up to." Right up there with might, may & could.

The colour prints of faces that are included in the DPR test setup tell you absolutely nothing about how a camera will photograph real faces. The pigments involved are completely different.

They might be useful if you have a project to photograph old colour prints for an archive.

Don

D Cox said:

The colour prints of faces that are included in the DPR test setup tell you absolutely nothing about how a camera will photograph real faces. The pigments involved are completely different.

They might be useful if you have a project to photograph old colour prints for an archive.

Click to expand...

Regardless, even if the faces were live and real, his examples would have nothing to do with what was being discussed, and in all cases, most of the differences that you will see in a normal ISO 100 exposure are conversion parameters that are slightly different for different cameras. Actually noise differences become lost in the processing, because they are so small to begin with.

Jack Tingle said:

Ah, "up to." Right up there with might, may & could.

Click to expand...

It's easy enough to get more than 15 stops effective DR if you are after a B&W output, and use color filters to drastically alter the color sensitivity, like a very deep green filter that records relatively low exposure levels well while keeping the red and blue channels from highlight-clipping.

D Cox said:

The colour prints of faces that are included in the DPR test setup tell you absolutely nothing about how a camera will photograph real faces. The pigments involved are completely different.

They might be useful if you have a project to photograph old colour prints for an archive.

Click to expand...

These DPR studio samples can't be used for colour comparison, and in terms of the subject (i.e. dynamic range), the 7DII is slightly better than the 7D - and also slightly sharper, both at base ISO 100 and ISO 3200.



Normalised "Comp" view:









Even in non-normalised "Full" view, the 7DII is still better (it doesn't make a great difference anyway, because the resolution of the 7DII is only slightly higher that the 7D)







The 7D produces grainier noise and less detailed images. "Upgrading by downgrading" from the 7DII to 7D is highly unlikely result in an actual gain in the image quality, given the same lens(es) and settings are used.

D Cox said:

Don

Click to expand...

--

John Sheehy said:

Jack Tingle said:

Ah, "up to." Right up there with might, may & could.

Click to expand...

It's easy enough to get more than 15 stops effective DR if you are after a B&W output, and use color filters to drastically alter the color sensitivity, like a very deep green filter that records relatively low exposure levels well while keeping the red and blue channels from highlight-clipping.

Click to expand...

Probably violet/purple filter, not green filter? The green usually saturates faster and clips sooner.

Supisiche said:

Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

I didn't see it said this way in my skim of the thread, apologies if I'm just duplicating someone else...

Dynamic range is a rather ambiguous quantity. Bounding the high end is rather straightforward, sensor saturation, but the low end is not very definite. If one uses the straightforward definition of engineering dynamic range, the noise floor of a 1:1 signal-to-noise ratio is way less palatable than most folk will tolerate. So then, what number do you use? Bill Claff uses 1:20 in his photographic dynamic range charts, but whose to say that number is palatable for manufacturers to convey?

If a standards body took up the cause, that might be a basis for manufacturers to put out numbers that other manufacturers would use to compare, but I don't see them just picking a definition on their own, knowing that the others might game it for advertising "cred"...

Frankly, I like that Bill Claff just arbitrarily picked a number and then publishes charts for all the cameras for which he can acquire data. Not as an absolute measurement, but a very consistent one for comparing cameras...

ggbutcher said:

Frankly, I like that Bill Claff just arbitrarily picked a number and then publishes charts for all the cameras for which he can acquire data. Not as an absolute measurement, but a very consistent one for comparing cameras...

Click to expand...

So long as you understand that he doesn't have an absolute exposure reference, and that you can not use his data to determine what camera will give more or less noise with the same exposure.

DR becomes a bit semantic for the raw shooter above base ISO; any manufacturer can increase high-ISO DR by using more headroom in their DR assignment, while actually increasing post-gain read noise relative to exposure. Imagine that Canon only offered HTP, and presented it as normal. You'd get higher PDR by up to a stop at high ISOs, but slightly more noise (one stop more post-gain read noise, relative to signal).

ggbutcher said:

Supisiche said:

Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

I didn't see it said this way in my skim of the thread, apologies if I'm just duplicating someone else...

Dynamic range is a rather ambiguous quantity. Bounding the high end is rather straightforward, sensor saturation, but the low end is not very definite. If one uses the straightforward definition of engineering dynamic range, the noise floor of a 1:1 signal-to-noise ratio is way less palatable than most folk will tolerate. So then, what number do you use? Bill Claff uses 1:20 in his photographic dynamic range charts, but whose to say that number is palatable for manufacturers to convey?

If a standards body took up the cause, that might be a basis for manufacturers to put out numbers that other manufacturers would use to compare, but I don't see them just picking a definition on their own, knowing that the others might game it for advertising "cred"...

Frankly, I like that Bill Claff just arbitrarily picked a number and then publishes charts for all the cameras for which he can acquire data. Not as an absolute measurement, but a very consistent one for comparing cameras...

Click to expand...

Since ISO is not normalized, we often do not know whether the PDR curves must be shifted left or right to compare cameras.

There are a few reasons why manufacturers might not include dynamic range as a standard specification for their products:

Dynamic range can vary depending on the type of signal being processed, so a single value may not be representative of the device's overall performance.

Dynamic range is often related to the quality of the analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) or digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) process, which can be influenced by a number of factors such as the quality of the components and design of the circuitry.

Dynamic range can be affected by external factors such as the quality of the source material, the volume at which the device is being operated, and the acoustics of the listening environment.

There is no industry standard for measuring dynamic range, so different manufacturers may use different methods, making it difficult to compare dynamic range values across different products.

In summary, dynamic range is an important aspect of audio quality, but it can be difficult to measure accurately and may not be representative of a device's overall performance. As a result, manufacturers may choose to focus on other specifications that are easier to measure and compare.

--
An engineer who focuses on indoor and outdoor lighting projects.

Michael Fryd said:

The bottom line is that the dynamic range of almost every modern ILC camera is enough for the vast majority of shooters. People who want to absolutely maximize dynamic range are in the minority.

Camera manufacturers are for-profit businesses. This encourages them to focus on features that a majority of their potential customers care about.

If dynamic range was driving purchase decisions for a large segment of the market, camera manufacturers would be trying to maximize dynamic range, even if it caused a loss in other areas (such as resolution). You would also see a wide range in how manufacturers measured dynamic range. This would result in each manufacturer claiming their camera scored better than the competition.

Click to expand...

Camera manufacturers do sell on and do improve on and are concerned with dynamic range. Full frame cameras have the highest dynamic range upwards of 15 stops compared to other formats that are hovering in the 11-12 range.

Any pro or anyone concerned with IQ and DR knows the FF cameras have the highest of both.

I don't see where DR is some dismissable concern. It is a concern to users who its a concern to and it's certainly a concern to manufacturers, it's part of the discussion that manufacturers have with their marketplace.

The new OM-1 certainly was marketed with a discussion that it had 1 stop of higher DR. DR is such a concern that a controversy arose out of this because reviewers and testers could not verify any gain of the 1 stop that OMS stated.

DR is certainly discussed and tested for both by the manufacturer and 3rd parties.

I think the OP's question is extremely valid, no need to dismiss it.