Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...

wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy logic.



The EOS 400D review at DPreview claims that the 400D has a dynamic
range that's roughly 5% better than the D80, 350D, and the Sony Alpha.
The usable range is supposed to be around 8.4EV. In their EOS 5D
review (same author), the measured dynamic range was around 8.2 EV.
These were done in JPEG tests. Both cameras have about one extra stop
of headroom in RAW mode.

The difference in test results is so small, it's probably more accurate
to say that neither the 400D nor the 5D has a real advantage in dynamic
range --- at least based on this one test. Which is interesting,
considering all the hoopla about the big bad full frame sensor having
better dynamic range than a tiny sensoor in an entry-level digital
rebel. Maybe I misunderstood the articles? Read for yourselves:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page19.asp

See also this link from Roger Clark:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

where the 5D is vastly superior to all other cameras.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy
logic.



The EOS 400D review at DPreview claims that the 400D has a dynamic
range that's roughly 5% better than the D80, 350D, and the Sony Alpha.
The usable range is supposed to be around 8.4EV. In their EOS 5D
review (same author), the measured dynamic range was around 8.2 EV.
These were done in JPEG tests. Both cameras have about one extra stop
of headroom in RAW mode.

Those who are concerned about the minutia of dynamic range differences are
unlikely to shoot in jpeg. Has it occurred to you that jpegs are far more
limited than the range that can be pushed/pulled from a RAW file?

Once you convert to jpeg, you've given away a tremendous amount of data and
potential dynamic range.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Colin_D wrote:
wrote:

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy
logic.



The EOS 400D review at DPreview claims that the 400D has a dynamic
range that's roughly 5% better than the D80, 350D, and the Sony Alpha.
The usable range is supposed to be around 8.4EV. In their EOS 5D
review (same author), the measured dynamic range was around 8.2 EV.
These were done in JPEG tests. Both cameras have about one extra stop
of headroom in RAW mode.

The difference in test results is so small, it's probably more accurate
to say that neither the 400D nor the 5D has a real advantage in dynamic
range --- at least based on this one test. Which is interesting,
considering all the hoopla about the big bad full frame sensor having
better dynamic range than a tiny sensoor in an entry-level digital
rebel. Maybe I misunderstood the articles? Read for yourselves:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page19.asp

See also this link from Roger Clark:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

where the 5D is vastly superior to all other cameras.

Colin D.

And note that Figure 4 in digital.sensor.performance.summary
all the DSLRs real dynamic range bump up against the
12-bit A/D limit (the pink horizontal line at about 11.6 stops).
Thus, it would be expected that the 400D and 5D would measure
out to the same dynamic range at low ISO. But they
would diverge as the ISO increases (similar to Figure 5:
the D200 would be close to the 400D, and the 1D Mark II would
be essentially the same as the 5D).

Roger