With all that in mind, I'll still venture to say that there are real differences in color and DR that can be observed and which some have already pointed out. Whether this is significant depends only on you or your clients.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
That may be true, but let's concentrate for a moment on the
'whether this is significant depends only on you' part of the above quote.
I believe it was you who started a long thread recently questioning the practice and need for ETTR with MFDBs. Some time later in another thread we had a few examples of seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 800 from an apparently highly skilled and knowledgeable photographer by the name of Edmund who was surprised and disturbed to discover striations, banding and noise in the shadows of such underexposed images.
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the larger pixels of DBs, in conjunction with their 16 bit A/D conversion and processing, are going to translate to greater dynamic range. This is especially true considering the differences between the CCD and the CMOS sensor. Even when the pixel pitch is similar, as it is comparing the P45 with the 1Ds3, the CMOS sensor has to make room for additional transistors at each photosite, as a consequence of which the actual light-gathering photoreceptor is smaller than it is on the P45.
So we could expect, even on a pixel-for-pixel basis, that the P45 would have greater DR than the 1Ds3, at base ISO. When you factor in, almost double the number of pixels that the P45 has (compared with the 1Ds3) the DR advantage of the P45 is enhanced even further, comparing equal size prints from each camera.
So there's no doubt, nor should there be any surprise, that the larger sensor will always have (potentially) a DR advantage.
However, when users of DBs start waxing lyrical about the smooth tonalities and extra DR from their MFDBs, I get just a little suspicious that maybe such people are using the same exposure techniques with their 35mm DSLRs as they use with their DBs.
It seems that owning a DB is a bit analagous to having more money or more food than you need. You can be relaxed about wasting it. If, however, you find yourself in a situation where you are a bit short of money or food and you continue with your former wasteful practices, then you are likely to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that you cannot get by with the smaller resources.
I would really like to see a comparison of identical scenes shot with a P21 and 1Ds3 demonstrating this extra rich tonality that you guys are convinced exists. Perhaps someone could provide 3 sets of tests as follows.
(1) The P21 with usual-practice exposure of wasting 2 stops of DR, compared with the 1Ds3 using the same technique of underexposure.
(2) The P21 with usual-practice exposure but compared with the 1Ds3 using best practice exposure for that format, ie. full exposure to the right.
(3) Both cameras using ETTR technique.
From such comparisons we might learn:
(1) if this rich tonality from DBs is actually achievable with 35mm simply by exposing to the right when using the smaller format.
(2) if the even greater tonality possible from DBs by exposing
them to the right is actually apparent or needed, or is it merely overkill.