Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: jpm on February 12, 2009, 04:04:53 am
-
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum, and I am only a casual photographer. I mainly shoot outdoors, usually in the mountains.
I have owned a 10D for many years, and was never fully satisfied by IQ. Mainly because of poor dynamic range. I think I did better images with my non-digital eos.
I went to several shops, and they all told me that the 10D was an old gear, that I should spend again 700 et 1000 euros to buy a 40D.
I am a bit upset because I don't want to spend 1000 euros on a body every 5 years or so...
Then I went to DXO mark and did some comparison. I realised there have been simply no progress at all on dynamic range at 100 iso betweeen the 10D and 40D for example. Of course, at highier iso there is a huge gap, but it does not really matter for me because I usually shoot with enough light.
So I am wondering: who is correct here? Shop dealers or DXO mark?
Should I buy another body or a fast prime lens to shoot at 100 iso with my 10D?
JPM
-
I mainly shoot outdoors, usually in the mountains.
I have owned a 10D for many years, and was never fully satisfied by IQ. Mainly because of poor dynamic range. I think I did better images with my non-digital eos.
I also shoot in the mountains, and I got the same sensor in my good'ol 300d - which I'm also very reluctant to change for marketing reasons.
However, my experience is different : in the past millenia, I shot mainly slides (a bit of negative B&W too though) and digital is a huge improvement in DR for me (and still improvement over negative, at least because I got more control - and more colors too ).
When you refer to film, you may talk about negative film? If not, I'd say it's clearly a post-processing (treatment) problem.
One should fulfill all these three conditions to exploit the full DR of a DSLR :
- you shoot raw, preferably at base ISO (jpeg hasn't any chance here),
- you expose for the highlights, ie to the right (no important highlight blown, other than specular reflections or the sun itself of course), and yes in the jpeg vignette the shadows are plain black, so let's go to the following,
- you do you best with the right tools while treating the image to extract the hidden information in the shadows - eg in LR/ACR the two Fill Light/Blacks sliders are generally quite efficient. When I need more than 100 Fill Light, the noise in the shadows is generally way too intrusive to have a nice image.
Sorry if this sounds like evidence and trivia to you...
If you're still too limited, then the route is a bit narrower : go for HDR. It doesn't necessarily mean the peculiar aspect found in some over-contrasty images, see eg the very natural-looking results results of Enfuse or ZeroNoise. It's way less practical as you need several captures for one image, and therefore a still subject, and preferably a tripod (not compulsory, but recommended).
-
Thanks for your advices.
So you are actually telling me that I ought not buy anything and rather spend more time in front of my computer...
As a software developper, this is not really what I wanted to hear but... I guess I need to become more efficient with the tools.
I like your photos, and they make me confident again that one can acheive good results with slightly outdated DSLR gear.
What lenses do you use?
JPM
PS: I live in France (Toulouse) and practice paragliding ( I noticed the paragliding image in your gallery )
I also shoot in the mountains, and I got the same sensor in my good'ol 300d - which I'm also very reluctant to change for marketing reasons.
However, my experience is different : in the past millenia, I shot mainly slides (a bit of negative B&W too though) and digital is a huge improvement in DR for me (and still improvement over negative, at least because I got more control - and more colors too ).
When you refer to film, you may talk about negative film? If not, I'd say it's clearly a post-processing (treatment) problem.
One should fulfill all these three conditions to exploit the full DR of a DSLR :
- you shoot raw, preferably at base ISO (jpeg hasn't any chance here),
- you expose for the highlights, ie to the right (no important highlight blown, other than specular reflections or the sun itself of course), and yes in the jpeg vignette the shadows are plain black, so let's go to the following,
- you do you best with the right tools while treating the image to extract the hidden information in the shadows - eg in LR/ACR the two Fill Light/Blacks sliders are generally quite efficient. When I need more than 100 Fill Light, the noise in the shadows is generally way too intrusive to have a nice image.
Sorry if this sounds like evidence and trivia to you...
If you're still too limited, then the route is a bit narrower : go for HDR. It doesn't necessarily mean the peculiar aspect found in some over-contrasty images, see eg the very natural-looking results results of Enfuse or ZeroNoise. It's way less practical as you need several captures for one image, and therefore a still subject, and preferably a tripod (not compulsory, but recommended).
-
So you are actually telling me that I ought not buy anything and rather spend more time in front of my computer...
As a software developper, this is not really what I wanted to hear but... I guess I need to become more efficient with the tools.
If you want to fit a high dynmic range scene (say more than 7-8 stops) into the 5-6 stops of a print, you'll have to compress them, and that very seldom only gives satisfactory results when done by a machine. So you'll have to get out those fingers and make it by yourself.
For me, I'm glad I can make it in front of a computer, because with slides this compression was really out of my reach (remember those prints with blown highlights AND blocked shadows? ), and in the darkroom color was gone, repeatability was a guessing game at best, and boy it was dark and it smelled bad!
And btw, if you want to be efficient, try Lightroom if you haven't already.
It's really lightning fast compared to the old one-image-at-a-time Photoshop method.
I like your photos, and they make me confident again that one can acheive good results with slightly outdated DSLR gear.
Thanks!
What lenses do you use?
Forget about it! You've just seen reduced images.
Besides that, there aren't really bad lenses out today (at least if you stay away of the dreaded 500-750mm zoom from ebay ).
If you really want to know, I got a 10-22 for wide vistas (my main lens while ski touring eg), a 50/1.8 for some details and low light, and for tele shots I had a tamron 55-200, replaced last summer by a 55-250IS (stabilisation is a must). All these were chosen mainly for budget and bulk/weight reasons, IQ being third criteria only.
PS: I live in France (Toulouse) and practice paragliding ( I noticed the paragliding image in your gallery )
Le monde est pas si grand, tiens .
Bons vols!
-
So you are actually telling me that I ought not buy anything and rather spend more time in front of my computer...
As a software developper, this is not really what I wanted to hear but... I guess I need to become more efficient with the tools.
I started with a 10D, which if you can put up with some of its weaknesses is a good camera.
Weaknesses that made me want to change to a more up to date model:
1/ Wake up time - in order to conserve battery power the camera would be set to go into low power mode. Time taken to wake up and be ready for the next shot was too long.
2/ Recovering highlights in adobe photoshop was difficult as a magenta cast would appear in blown out or near blown out highlights (this may have been solved with more modern software and camera profiles).
3/ In winter the camera was unable to resolve branches and twigs on trees satisfactorily and would often create wierd effects around trees (or other fine detail which was smudged by the anti-aliasing filter). Again, may have been software problem, but at the time it appeared to be the camera.
4/ The on off switch is inconveniently located and I would frequently catch it either switching the camera off or on. Ergonomics of the camera are not the best.
If you can afford a second hand 20D or 40D that may be your best option for an upgrade. Canon seems to do well on the even numbers, not so well on the odd ones.
-
Canon seems to do well on the even numbers, not so well on the odd ones.
Just like Star Trek movies. Coincidence?
-
Aren't 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 all even numbers? 1, 5 odd?
-
Hi!
Dealers have an incentive to sell. The DxO results are probably the best data you can get if you are prepared to have a "raw" workflow. If you want to maximize DR you probably need to use "raw", expose to the right, and make generous use of "fill light".
The DxO data indicates that the 10D is on almost on par with the 40D on low ISO. So get a good raw converter to save yourself some money.
Apart from DR I would suggest that the 40D is a much better camera than the 10D, essentially in every sense. But if the 10D is good enough for your needs it should be just fine.
I have seen very good A2 prints from a 10D, by the way, but that's probably quite a stretch.
The best option to increase DR is simply to use low ISO and expose to the right (that is maximize exposure so that highlights are just below being chopped off). To be able to do that you may need a tripod or image stabilized lens. Most lenses need to be stopped down a bit to be really sharp and zooms are quite flexible, so I don't know if I'd recommend a fast lens.
I'm shooting with Sony/Minolta stuff, and those cameras have built in image stabilization, that's a good thing. Sonys seem to suffer in high ISO performance compared to Canon and Nikon and other systems having IS built in seem to have the same limitation. This has nothing to do with sensor based IS per se, but a lot with internal signal processing. I have a few high class lenses but I tend to used f/8 normally going up to f/2.8 or don to f/16 if I need to, teeth grinding.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum, and I am only a casual photographer. I mainly shoot outdoors, usually in the mountains.
I have owned a 10D for many years, and was never fully satisfied by IQ. Mainly because of poor dynamic range. I think I did better images with my non-digital eos.
I went to several shops, and they all told me that the 10D was an old gear, that I should spend again 700 et 1000 euros to buy a 40D.
I am a bit upset because I don't want to spend 1000 euros on a body every 5 years or so...
Then I went to DXO mark and did some comparison. I realised there have been simply no progress at all on dynamic range at 100 iso betweeen the 10D and 40D for example. Of course, at highier iso there is a huge gap, but it does not really matter for me because I usually shoot with enough light.
So I am wondering: who is correct here? Shop dealers or DXO mark?
Should I buy another body or a fast prime lens to shoot at 100 iso with my 10D?
JPM
-
I started with a 10D, which if you can put up with some of its weaknesses is a good camera.
Weaknesses that made me want to change to a more up to date model:
1/ Wake up time - in order to conserve battery power the camera would be set to go into low power mode. Time taken to wake up and be ready for the next shot was too long.
2/ Recovering highlights in adobe photoshop was difficult as a magenta cast would appear in blown out or near blown out highlights (this may have been solved with more modern software and camera profiles).
3/ In winter the camera was unable to resolve branches and twigs on trees satisfactorily and would often create wierd effects around trees (or other fine detail which was smudged by the anti-aliasing filter). Again, may have been software problem, but at the time it appeared to be the camera.
4/ The on off switch is inconveniently located and I would frequently catch it either switching the camera off or on. Ergonomics of the camera are not the best.
If you can afford a second hand 20D or 40D that may be your best option for an upgrade. Canon seems to do well on the even numbers, not so well on the odd ones.
I am indeed seeing some color cast in recovered highlights (in Aperture, blown out sky sometimes goes toward magenta or yelowish).
I also experience a lot of purple fringing with my Sigma 15 fisheye on trees in winter. But I thought that was more of a lens problem. And in many other situations, this lens provides very good images (saturated colors, feeling that the air is "full of light") so I will keep using it anyway.
Not sure that these problems are caused by the camera...
JPM
-
Hi!
Dealers have an incentive to sell. The DxO results are probably the best data you can get if you are prepared to have a "raw" workflow. If you want to maximize DR you probably need to use "raw", expose to the right, and make generous use of "fill light".
The DxO data indicates that the 10D is on almost on par with the 40D on low ISO. So get a good raw converter to save yourself some money.
Apart from DR I would suggest that the 40D is a much better camera than the 10D, essentially in every sense. But if the 10D is good enough for your needs it should be just fine.
I have seen very good A2 prints from a 10D, by the way, but that's probably quite a stretch.
The best option to increase DR is simply to use low ISO and expose to the right (that is maximize exposure so that highlights are just below being chopped off). To be able to do that you may need a tripod or image stabilized lens. Most lenses need to be stopped down a bit to be really sharp and zooms are quite flexible, so I don't know if I'd recommend a fast lens.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the advices. Fortunately I don't print A2, and unfortunately, I don't own a stabilized lens.
I am not against shooting raw, and I do it a lot, but I just often don't have time and patience to stay with this worklow.
What about the Highlight Priority Mode in the 40D and 5D?
Is this mode efficient enough to save me the burden of shooting raw and post-process? Or is it just essentialy a marketing argument?
JPM
-
What about the Highlight Priority Mode in the 40D and 5D?
Is this mode efficient enough to save me the burden of shooting raw and post-process? Or is it just essentialy a marketing argument?
JPM
Oups! Seems that this is a vexed question.
jpm
-
I am not against shooting raw, and I do it a lot, but I just often don't have time and patience to stay with this worklow.
As has been previously suggested, give LightRoom a try. You won't even notice you're working with raw images, apart from the improvements in quality.
Jeremy
-
I am indeed seeing some color cast in recovered highlights (in Aperture, blown out sky sometimes goes toward magenta or yelowish).
JPM
Try Lightroom, you'll see that it's possible to recover highlights without color cast !
Even the G10 gives good results !!
Thierry
-
JPM:
Why not return to one of those camera shops bringing your 10D and lenses and a CF Card, and ask if you could test out a 40D or 50D using your lenses, taking shots of things you have identified as problematic (e.g., tree branches in winter, colour shift of skies, etc.). Take comparison shots with your 10D and examine the images at home to see for your self how the 10D stacks up against the 40D, and if some of the problems like purple fringing are due to the camera or the lens. You might even try out some new lenses on both cameras as well to see if the same problems you experience with some of your existing lenses appear when using the different lenses (might help you determine if it is the lens or the camera).
I'm sure a reputable dealer would not have any problem helping you out with this.
Andrew
-
Aren't 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 all even numbers? 1, 5 odd?
Too funny
-
Too funny
I guess an F:2 lens is a prime, but what about an F:1
Edmund
-
I guess an F:2 lens is a prime, but what about an F:1
Of course not! This reminds me of a paper I read in graduate school, "On a general theory of even primes."
-
I think I could answer in french to a neighbour but that would be rude to our english speaking friends....
I have a 300D (the same sensor you have), a 40D, a 1DsMarkII and a 450D.
The main differences between the 300D and its younger siblings are mainly the resolution, and the noise at high iso.
If you don't need these two things you can very well live with your 300D. But as it has already been said by the other posters, shoot raw and buy a good RAW convertor.
I am personnaly using DxO; it is expensive, but according to me worth the price. You have the list of the supported lenses there:
http://www.dxo.com/fr/photo/dxo_optics_pro.../cameras_lenses (http://www.dxo.com/fr/photo/dxo_optics_pro/product_editions/cameras_lenses)
Regarding the so called "highlight mode", it can be usefull but doesn't replace RAW shooting (in fact, it is different; it can be used in RAW mode also).
If you want to buy a new camera, think about the 450D. I am using it regularly when I go hiking in the Pyrénées. Its sensor is better than the one on the 40D, and with a 28mm f/2.8 and a polarizing filter, you will have a wonderful combination of a very light and very good camera+lens system.
Some shots I have made with this system are available there:
http://www.photo-lovers.org/fvenasque.html.fr (http://www.photo-lovers.org/fvenasque.html.fr)
http://www.photo-lovers.org/fmontne.html.fr (http://www.photo-lovers.org/fmontne.html.fr)
They have been shot in RAW, but I have made no special effort in converting them (just ordinary batch processing).
If you want to see a full size picture slightly more processed look there:
http://www.photo-lovers.org/portfolio/priv...divers/0259.jpg (http://www.photo-lovers.org/portfolio/private/divers/0259.jpg)
It is standing as a 100x70cm poster in my office, just near other posters made with my 1DsMarkII, and the difference is clearly visible, but is very seldom noticed by people who are not familiar with photography.
I hope it helps in making your decision.
JMA
PS: and a big hello to Edmund if he is still reading this thread. Haven't seen you for a while, guy...
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum, and I am only a casual photographer. I mainly shoot outdoors, usually in the mountains.
I have owned a 10D for many years, and was never fully satisfied by IQ. Mainly because of poor dynamic range. I think I did better images with my non-digital eos.
I went to several shops, and they all told me that the 10D was an old gear, that I should spend again 700 et 1000 euros to buy a 40D.
I am a bit upset because I don't want to spend 1000 euros on a body every 5 years or so...
Then I went to DXO mark and did some comparison. I realised there have been simply no progress at all on dynamic range at 100 iso betweeen the 10D and 40D for example. Of course, at highier iso there is a huge gap, but it does not really matter for me because I usually shoot with enough light.
So I am wondering: who is correct here? Shop dealers or DXO mark?
Should I buy another body or a fast prime lens to shoot at 100 iso with my 10D?
JPM
-
What about the Highlight Priority Mode in the 40D and 5D?
...
Oups! Seems that this is a vexed question.
Vexed? The feature is often misunderstood.
The effect of HTP is
1. reducing the effective ISO by 1 EV (thus HTP does not work with ISO lower than 200),
2. a. in JPEG: increasing the intensity by 1 EV, except in the highlights, where this adjustment gradually goes back;
b. in raw: recording this fact in metadata.
When processing the raw data by DPP, it does the same as in-camera JPEG. When processing it with ACR: it does increase the intensity by 1 EV, nothing else.
In effect: for raw shooters HTP means an exposure bias by -1 EV.
-
PS: and a big hello to Edmund if he is still reading this thread. Haven't seen you for a while, guy...
I'm making pix with the D3x. Printing with a camera-attached dyesub postcard printer. Don't ask why
My gallerist just made the first sale of a 44" wide print yesterday from my junk Epson 9600. That image was captured from the Canon G10.
This DR discussion is getting very technical. It used to be that shadows in Jpegs were blocked up, highlights burnt out, and if you wanted unblocked shadows and highlight detail you could move to Raw, play with sliders, and then twiddle curves in PS.
The more I use the D3x in-camera conversions, the more I like them. My experience is that the D3x really manages to get some very nice highlight and shadow detail into the Jpegs,and my postcards, by means of the conversions in camera. I had trouble getting such DR into prints from my previous cams, even from MF. I use the D3x at 1600 ISO when the sensor itself is not really better than the competition. So it seems that at this point we already have the hardware, but the software for moving the DR to print will make the difference.
Edmund
-
It seems that we like hiking in the same places! I have a lot of pictures the port de Venasque, but taken before the digital era...
I have considered the 450D, but I have several batteries and compact flash cards that would not fit in it.
I have and old canon EF 28mm f2.8, but I have stopped using it with my 10D because of "ghosting" (purple geometric shapes due to sensor reflections on the lens)
JPM
I think I could answer in french to a neighbour but that would be rude to our english speaking friends....
I have a 300D (the same sensor you have), a 40D, a 1DsMarkII and a 450D.
The main differences between the 300D and its younger siblings are mainly the resolution, and the noise at high iso.
If you don't need these two things you can very well live with your 300D. But as it has already been said by the other posters, shoot raw and buy a good RAW convertor.
I am personnaly using DxO; it is expensive, but according to me worth the price. You have the list of the supported lenses there:
http://www.dxo.com/fr/photo/dxo_optics_pro.../cameras_lenses (http://www.dxo.com/fr/photo/dxo_optics_pro/product_editions/cameras_lenses)
Regarding the so called "highlight mode", it can be usefull but doesn't replace RAW shooting (in fact, it is different; it can be used in RAW mode also).
If you want to buy a new camera, think about the 450D. I am using it regularly when I go hiking in the Pyrénées. Its sensor is better than the one on the 40D, and with a 28mm f/2.8 and a polarizing filter, you will have a wonderful combination of a very light and very good camera+lens system.
Some shots I have made with this system are available there:
http://www.photo-lovers.org/fvenasque.html.fr (http://www.photo-lovers.org/fvenasque.html.fr)
http://www.photo-lovers.org/fmontne.html.fr (http://www.photo-lovers.org/fmontne.html.fr)
They have been shot in RAW, but I have made no special effort in converting them (just ordinary batch processing).
If you want to see a full size picture slightly more processed look there:
http://www.photo-lovers.org/portfolio/priv...divers/0259.jpg (http://www.photo-lovers.org/portfolio/private/divers/0259.jpg)
It is standing as a 100x70cm poster in my office, just near other posters made with my 1DsMarkII, and the difference is clearly visible, but is very seldom noticed by people who are not familiar with photography.
I hope it helps in making your decision.
JMA
PS: and a big hello to Edmund if he is still reading this thread. Haven't seen you for a while, guy...
-
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum, and I am only a casual photographer. I mainly shoot outdoors, usually in the mountains.
I have owned a 10D for many years, and was never fully satisfied by IQ. Mainly because of poor dynamic range. I think I did better images with my non-digital eos.
I went to several shops, and they all told me that the 10D was an old gear, that I should spend again 700 et 1000 euros to buy a 40D.
I am a bit upset because I don't want to spend 1000 euros on a body every 5 years or so...
Then I went to DXO mark and did some comparison. I realised there have been simply no progress at all on dynamic range at 100 iso betweeen the 10D and 40D for example. Of course, at highier iso there is a huge gap, but it does not really matter for me because I usually shoot with enough light.
So I am wondering: who is correct here? Shop dealers or DXO mark?
Should I buy another body or a fast prime lens to shoot at 100 iso with my 10D?
JPM
Fujis are DR kings, they're still ahead of anything else on the market today, including the Nikon D3 and Canon 1ds3, I know this from personal experience. Do yourself a favor and buy a Fuji S5, now reduced to ridiculously low prices too. You'll spend less time in front of the computer, get great colors and very deep tones even with jpgs and DR to die for. I haven't tried the Nikon D3x but I have a feeling that its not going to match Fuji's DR either, irrespective of DXO's figures.
-
Your experience with the 28 f/2.8 is odd. I have been shooting hundreds of pictures with the 450D/28-f/2.8 combination this summer and never had a single ghosting. As old as it is, it's still performing well even on my 1DsMarkII.
What do you use to clean your lens and your sensor?
JMA
It seems that we like hiking in the same places! I have a lot of pictures the port de Venasque, but taken before the digital era...
I have considered the 450D, but I have several batteries and compact flash cards that would not fit in it.
I have and old canon EF 28mm f2.8, but I have stopped using it with my 10D because of "ghosting" (purple geometric shapes due to sensor reflections on the lens)
JPM
-
I don't think it can be a cleaning issue because ghosting appeared since the beginning (before any sensor cleaning). It happens outdoors, when light is coming from a specific range in the frame (neither top nor bottom, but let's say between 70 and 80% up or 70-80% down). This might not happen with the 450D.
JPM
PS: I'll post an example, but next week, because I am leaving home for a few days.
Your experience with the 28 f/2.8 is odd. I have been shooting hundreds of pictures with the 450D/28-f/2.8 combination this summer and never had a single ghosting. As old as it is, it's still performing well even on my 1DsMarkII.
What do you use to clean your lens and your sensor?
JMA
-
I have considered the 450D, but I have several batteries and compact flash cards that would not fit in it.
I understand it's always frustrating to put some functional gear in the drawer because of marketing-related incompatibility, but economically, the price of these does not fill the gap between a xxxD and a xxD, all other things being equal.
Batteries are arount 8-10€ on reputed sites like aboutbatteries and 5-8$ on ebay... And cards aren't that expensive either (even if I don't buy them on ebay).
And I don't know for you, but for me the weight advantage of a 450d vs. a 50d is significant while hiking.
Matters of compromises, definitely.
-
The best way to answer your question is for yourself to look at both medias for yourself but you have to understand DR.
First, if trust a DxO report do it with a very large grain of salt.
Next, understand that your eyes see between 14 and 15.5 stops of light and then understand what each of your media tests should present in terms of DR. Then judge for yourself.
The Megapixel war is a marketing maven, I call it "the great light hype" Camera mfr's will ride this wave as long as they can and then build up another one with DR.
I have a long history of shooting Digital, both Med Format and 35mm dSLR and just traded in most of my digi gear for a wonderful M6. Now I shoot and develop at home and I'm having a ball plus, in my mind, for what I do, and what gives ME pleasure and what I feel is a much better image is Film. Reasons are many.
The best reason of all is that I now have to think about making my picture, I shoot not the camera and every time, I come up with a better picture.
Bottom line, judge for yourself with your 15 stops of light in your eyes.
-
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../FinePix-S5-Pro (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Fujifilm/FinePix-S5-Pro)
I just thought that I'd like to mention the Fuji sensor again, because it appears to have almost 14(13.71) stops worth of DR. The sensor technology makes a huge difference, IME. I just wish they had a full-frame high resolution version of it...
But it does make great looking shots. Very film-like.
S5 Pro
DR: 13.71 (12.96 at ISO800, still!)
Tonal Range: 8.49 bits
Color Sensitivity: 22.2 bits.
Color Response: 81.85
Nikon D3X
DR: 12.84
Tonal Range: 8.67 bits
Color Sensitivity: 22.2 bits
Color Response: 78.68
Amazing isn't it? Other than resolution, this just barely edges out the newest Bayer Sensor toy. Not by much, mind, you - the D3x is by far the closest to the Fuji Sensor to date. The A900, for instance, is a huge amount lower than either:
A900:
DR: 11.18 (ouch)
Tonal Range: 7.97 bits.
Color Sensitivity: 20.8 bits
Color Response: 87.22 (note - about the highest they've tested!)
Just... 6MP isn't enough. Not even close... Love the look of the S5's shots, but its 6MP is noticeable with even a tiny bit of enlargement.
-
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../FinePix-S5-Pro (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Fujifilm/FinePix-S5-Pro)
Amazing isn't it? Other than resolution, this just barely edges out the newest Bayer Sensor toy. Not by much, mind, you - the D3x is by far the closest to the Fuji Sensor to date. The A900, for instance, is a huge amount lower than either:
A900:
DR: 11.18 (ouch)
Tonal Range: 7.97 bits.
Color Sensitivity: 20.8 bits
Color Response: 87.22 (note - about the highest they've tested!)
Just... 6MP isn't enough. Not even close... Love the look of the S5's shots, but its 6MP is noticeable with even a tiny bit of enlargement.
While I agree that jpeg performance w/r/t DR is pretty bad on the A900, the "headroom" in RAW is unbelievable! Using the recovery slider in LR you can totally recover bright white blown out sky completely. I think dpreview also mentioned this.