K20 Dynamic Range comparison

[Proch]

The result of tests published on http://www.diwa-labs.com are very interesting if you compare dynamic range of different brands:
The avarage value (avarage from all colour channels) of DR at ISO 100 is:
K20D 10,53
A700 10,88
40D 10,55
D300 8,96

at ISO 1600:

K20D 9,17
A700 10,81
40D 9,64
D300 8,44

I am no table to say if it is correct or not, but I am surpried by DR of K20D comparable with 40D and much better than D300

 

[MightyMike]

how is it that the A700 and D300 which use the same sensor are so far off? is this jpeg dynamic range????
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=121&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[*isteve]

They are not the same sensor, never were, never will be!

The chip architecture of the D300 is very similar to that on the D3 - Nikon proprietary design. I dont know who makes it, Nikon are not telling.

Now I know the Sony Nikon thing is accepted wisdom but I was told this by a local Nikon rep who had come back from the briefing in Japan just after the annouce last year and he was adamant that the two sensors are totally unrelated.

I can only pass that on.

(Note the frame rate of both cameras is also quite different and the images look nothing like each other)

how is it that the A700 and D300 which use the same sensor are so far
off? is this jpeg dynamic range????
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a
telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=121&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

--
Steve
When I can master technique I'll be a photographer.
When I can realise a vision I'll be an artist.
When I get paid I'll be a professional.

 

[Douglas Film]

I did not see the D300 test on the site. I do know that the D300 has a lower dynamic range at ISO 100 than at ISO 200.
Douglas Film

 

[Gareth_R]

I did not see the D300 test on the site.

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_overview.epl?product=6384

--



Annular grooved nails, ribbed for the wood's pleasure.

 

[GordonBGood]

Comments as follows:

The result of tests published on http://www.diwa-labs.com are very
interesting if you compare dynamic range of different brands:
The avarage value (avarage from all colour channels) of DR at ISO 100
is:
K20D 10,53
A700 10,88
40D 10,55
D300 8,96

at ISO 1600:

K20D 9,17
A700 10,81
40D 9,64
D300 8,44

I am no table to say if it is correct or not, but I am surpried by DR
of K20D comparable with 40D and much better than D300

I, too, as surprised, as my measurements put the K20D behind the 40D and the D300 (I haven't measured the A700). Does the article say how the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement calculations (Imatest?)?

Regards, GordonBGood

 

[vortout]

I think they measure jpeg dynamic range what makes nonsence for me

how is it that the A700 and D300 which use the same sensor are so far
off? is this jpeg dynamic range????

I think they

--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a
telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=121&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

--
http://www.photomiks.com
Regards, Dmitry

 

[vortout]

Hi,
Can you please share your results? Did you compare to k10d?

I, too, as surprised, as my measurements put the K20D behind the 40D
and the D300 (I haven't measured the A700). Does the article say how
the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement
calculations (Imatest?)?

Regards, GordonBGood

--
http://www.photomiks.com
Regards, Dmitry

 

[MightyMike]

you know what... now i do recall hearing the same thing
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=121&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[Lance B]

Interesting results to say the least.

I knew the K20D DR was good, but these results look exceptional.
--
Lance B

Originator of the term 'LBA'.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +11hours

 

[Douglas Film]

K20D does well compared to the D300
Douglas Film

 

[Russell Evans]

Does the article say how
the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement
calculations (Imatest?)?

DxO Analyzer

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/detail.epl?cat=8009

Thank you
Russell

 

[Stratario]

How about the K200D? Looks pretty good in dynamic range and noise.

--

Fujifilm F31fd - Pentax K100D , DA 35mm F2.8 , FA 50mm f1.4 , Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 , Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 , 18-55mm kit lens , 50-200mm kit lens

 

[GordonBGood]

I, too, as surprised, as my measurements put the K20D behind the 40D
and the D300 (I haven't measured the A700). Does the article say how
the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement
calculations (Imatest?)?

Dmitry, yes I always compare to the K10D. In looking at the link to the review of at the same site for the Nikon D300, it seems that they use the DXO test suite, about which I don't know very much, but if these are the results I can't really believe them. Perhaps the testing puts more emphasis on highlight recovery than on true full range Dynamic Range (DR) into the deep shadows, much as to the reviews on this site, DPReview.

DR numbers can be influenced by how much recoverable highlight "headroom" there is in the images as well as the noise floor in the raw readings. Since I do my analysis based on raw images and the highlight "headroom" can be adjusted by making proper "expose to the right" exposure settings in the first place, I base my judgements on the noise floor. Both Oleg_V and I have measured the noise floor of the K20D and agree more or less on the results and that they are higher than those of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 by about a factor of three or four at the lowest ISO sensitivities and also has somewhat higher noise than either at higher ISO's.

Compared with the K10D (and the K200D), the K20D has quite a bit higher noise flloor at lowest ISO's but that is somewhat compensated in that it does not have scanline pattern noise VPN (or much less). It has about the same noise floor as the K10D (and the K200D) at higher ISO's, but that is confused a little bit by the small amount of noise reduction that is applied to raw image data for ISO's of 1600 and up for the K20D.

I would expect that a DR test on raw data for the K20D using Imatest will show that the K20D has about a stop less DR than the top cameras right across the range and somewhat less DR than the K10D at low ISO sensitivities.

Of course, high DR in the deep shadows only matters to those who push process their images by several stops or compress a wide scene DR by boosting the tone curve in the shadows, and the K20D produces excellent image qualtiy otherwise. Also, many confuse wide DR with the ability to capture highlights without either clipping or too much roll off of highlight detail due to too contrasty a tone response curve in JPEG processing, and the K20D has taken steps to try to avoid this.

Regards, GordonBGood

 

[Joe Franek]

K200D.

On the same website:

Average @ ISO 100 10.85 (10.53 for K20)
Average @ISO1600 9.49 ( 9.17)

Joe

 

[Joe Franek]

I would expect that a DR test on raw data for the K20D using Imatest
will show that the K20D has about a stop less DR than the top cameras
right across the range and somewhat less DR than the K10D at low ISO
sensitivities.

But that would mean that raw DR is worse than jpeg DR, wouldn't it? Do you think this would be unique to K20?

Joe

 

[Zvio]

The emphasis on highlight preservation rather than shadow detail makes a BIG bucket of sense to me... to give the two equal weight makes sense for technical issues like science, not for general photography... the visual perception is quite forgiving for noise in shadows but complains heavily for blown highlights!
Well, mine does. Perhaps to technically minded persons things are different.

 

[Rupert60]

Interesting indeed, but I a really not impressed with the DR on any of the DSLR's at the current time. I think this will be an area of major improvement in the not so distant future, after the MP wars die off. I think it is possible, from what I have read to use in-camera software to make large gains in DR, but st the current time space is the main constraint. As thinks shrink, we will see this in most top cameras. There was an article from MIT last year that was very impressive concerning DR, but the size required was as big as a shoe box. and very expensive. That will change.
BTW-It is an area of research that has Samsung very interested, I've been told.

--
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!

 

[RPulley]

I, too, as surprised, as my measurements put the K20D behind the 40D
and the D300 (I haven't measured the A700). Does the article say how
the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement
calculations (Imatest?)?

Dmitry, yes I always compare to the K10D. In looking at the link to
the review of at the same site for the Nikon D300, it seems that they
use the DXO test suite, about which I don't know very much, but if
these are the results I can't really believe them. Perhaps the
testing puts more emphasis on highlight recovery than on true full
range Dynamic Range (DR) into the deep shadows, much as to the
reviews on this site, DPReview.

DR numbers can be influenced by how much recoverable highlight
"headroom" there is in the images as well as the noise floor in the
raw readings. Since I do my analysis based on raw images and the
highlight "headroom" can be adjusted by making proper "expose to the
right" exposure settings in the first place, I base my judgements on
the noise floor. Both Oleg_V and I have measured the noise floor of
the K20D and agree more or less on the results and that they are
higher than those of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 by about a factor
of three or four at the lowest ISO sensitivities and also has
somewhat higher noise than either at higher ISO's.

Compared with the K10D (and the K200D), the K20D has quite a bit
higher noise flloor at lowest ISO's but that is somewhat compensated
in that it does not have scanline pattern noise VPN (or much less).
It has about the same noise floor as the K10D (and the K200D) at
higher ISO's, but that is confused a little bit by the small amount
of noise reduction that is applied to raw image data for ISO's of
1600 and up for the K20D.

I would expect that a DR test on raw data for the K20D using Imatest
will show that the K20D has about a stop less DR than the top cameras
right across the range and somewhat less DR than the K10D at low ISO
sensitivities.

Of course, high DR in the deep shadows only matters to those who push
process their images by several stops or compress a wide scene DR by
boosting the tone curve in the shadows, and the K20D produces
excellent image qualtiy otherwise. Also, many confuse wide DR with
the ability to capture highlights without either clipping or too much
roll off of highlight detail due to too contrasty a tone response
curve in JPEG processing, and the K20D has taken steps to try to
avoid this.

Regards, GordonBGood

So, they are wrong and you are right, or is it that they did not use the correct software?

I seem to recall that you predicted that all reviewers would affirm that you were right in declaring the K20D to be lagging in dynamic range. As i recall, there was no mention of needing to use only Imatest to confirm your conclusions.

Some of your quotes:

"it looks likely that the K20D actually loses a full stop of DR range in the shadows as compared to the K10D, even on a sensor area basis, in spite of not having the K10D's problems with Scanline Pattern Noise (SPN, Vertical Pattern Noise -VPN - in the K10D's case). I'm afraid that much is going to be made of this in upcoming reviews from all the sites, although it won't affect most people's use of the camera."

"No matter what causes the problem, and we will not likely ever know, it puts a restriction on the deep shadow DR of the K20D at low ISO's that isn't there for some of its competitors."

You are 0-1 right now, but don't worry, there is still hope that some reviewers will agree with you about how bad the K20D compared to the D300 or 40D, or even the K10D. At that point those of us actually shooting with the K20D will still have to judge for ourselves who is right.

Ray

 

[vortout]

Thank you Gordon,

Your point is taken. I think DR in shadows is important for everyone who shoots handheld in dark conditions. However I am not sure about 1 stop advantage. I will try to test it myself. I will publish the results when i have it.

I, too, as surprised, as my measurements put the K20D behind the 40D
and the D300 (I haven't measured the A700). Does the article say how
the DR was measured, as from JPEG or raw and using what measurement
calculations (Imatest?)?

Dmitry, yes I always compare to the K10D. In looking at the link to
the review of at the same site for the Nikon D300, it seems that they
use the DXO test suite, about which I don't know very much, but if
these are the results I can't really believe them. Perhaps the
testing puts more emphasis on highlight recovery than on true full
range Dynamic Range (DR) into the deep shadows, much as to the
reviews on this site, DPReview.

DR numbers can be influenced by how much recoverable highlight
"headroom" there is in the images as well as the noise floor in the
raw readings. Since I do my analysis based on raw images and the
highlight "headroom" can be adjusted by making proper "expose to the
right" exposure settings in the first place, I base my judgements on
the noise floor. Both Oleg_V and I have measured the noise floor of
the K20D and agree more or less on the results and that they are
higher than those of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 by about a factor
of three or four at the lowest ISO sensitivities and also has
somewhat higher noise than either at higher ISO's.

Compared with the K10D (and the K200D), the K20D has quite a bit
higher noise flloor at lowest ISO's but that is somewhat compensated
in that it does not have scanline pattern noise VPN (or much less).
It has about the same noise floor as the K10D (and the K200D) at
higher ISO's, but that is confused a little bit by the small amount
of noise reduction that is applied to raw image data for ISO's of
1600 and up for the K20D.

I would expect that a DR test on raw data for the K20D using Imatest
will show that the K20D has about a stop less DR than the top cameras
right across the range and somewhat less DR than the K10D at low ISO
sensitivities.

Of course, high DR in the deep shadows only matters to those who push
process their images by several stops or compress a wide scene DR by
boosting the tone curve in the shadows, and the K20D produces
excellent image qualtiy otherwise. Also, many confuse wide DR with
the ability to capture highlights without either clipping or too much
roll off of highlight detail due to too contrasty a tone response
curve in JPEG processing, and the K20D has taken steps to try to
avoid this.

Regards, GordonBGood

--
http://www.photomiks.com
Regards, Dmitry