New king of D.R.?

[mr purdy]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/483%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/585%7C0/(brand3)/Hasselblad

As of today, the D800 scores a best-ever 14.4 DR srore, beating every camera, including all the backs. Hmmm...

I am waiting for someone with this camera and a high end back to do some real world testing and let us know if it is as it seems.

I know that for me, DR is the only real spec which I am willing to pay extra for. In every other category (resolution, color accuracy, etc. I can get what I need from many of the current offerings.)

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Me and my IQ180 are ready and waiting for the challenge in Fairfield, CT. Anyone can hit me up if you want to get together and test the difference.

[BJL]

The DX0 "Tonal Range" measure might be better indication of something close to photographically useful dynamic range [PDR], by emphasizing data more at levels where SNR is high enough to be useful, reducing the relevance of a few stops of very noisy deep shadows where SNR is just barely above 1:1. I look forward to PDR measures from bclaff and others too.

On that tonal range score, the H3DII with its 50MP sensor is still about even or slightly ahead in the more relevant "print comparison", even though it is behind in the "screen" (per pixel) measure. So the 60MP and 80MP sensors might have even more tonal range breathing room in the "print" comparison. However, the marginal utility of PDR relative to price difference is getting very slight!

P. S. I replaced that wimpy 5DII with a real man's camera, the IQ180, which has a clearer though still modest lead in Tonal Range: click to Measurements, and look at Tonal Range as well as Dynamic Range:
D800 vs H2II 50 vs IQ180

[mr purdy]

It would be nice to have this much DR in s package as small and light as the D800 I shot with a few of the Mamiya bodies, and was not pleased with the feel, focus speed, or shutter delay.

One thing I wonder though: are the Nikons reliable now? I remembr when the F100 film camera came out - I was pumped. However, I went through 4 of them! (the first 3 stopped working properly within weeks of purchase. I then sold the 4th because I just couldn't trust the damn things. Also, I found the lenses to be very inconsistent in termf of color rendition. For example, on the same roll of fil, the 50mm had a bluish tone, and the 85mm had a much warmer look. Not good IMO.

On the other hand, I have found my Canons to be the most reliable cameras I have ever owned - including various Hasselblads, Mamiyas, etc.

We shall see how the 5D3 does when DXO finishes testing it. It seems to have MUCH better shadows - I can raise levels in Photoshop 4 or 5 stops, without any of the banding that the 5D2 had.

Anyone here care to comment on the real world DR of the Pentax 645D?

[marcmccalmont]

Both my Pentax K5 and IQ180 are neck to neck in real world DR, my 5DII is lacking.
I'm looking forward to the D800E so all 3 (travel camera, FF DSLR and MFDB) will have excellent real world DR
Marc

[Wayne Fox]

As of today ...

Today?  this has been bantered all over the web for about 2 weeks ... it was announced on the March 23rd.

I think you can even find some threads here that talk about why DxO dynamic range estimates don't line up with real world results.  Not saying it doesn't have impressive dynamic range ...

It's not like those of us that own MFDB's don't know about any of this stuff, heck most of us shoot dSLR too and some of us will probably have a d800 soon.  But this certainly isn't a MFDB killer or anything like that ...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I essentially agree with Bill's argumentation, except I would say shot noise dominates the "tonal range" evaluation, and shot noise follows number of pixels x FWC (Full Well Capacity). It seems that FWC is strongly related to the area of the pixel. So tonal range is essentially decided by sensor size, although it seems that Nikon could have pushed the FWC/square micron factor a bit further.

The DR at SNR equals one, that DxO normally uses says about the noisiness in the darkest shadows. It's hard to measure as flare from highlights interferes with shadow detail.

A simple way to measure DR would be to first find an exposure that is fully to the right at minimum ISO (that is, holds the sensor just below saturation) and than reduce exposure and fix the underexposed image in Lightroom. The sensor that can take most underexposure is the one having the best DR.

This is pretty much the same as increasing ISO, but the camera may boost gain (signal amplification) at higher ISOs and that may falsify the measurement.


Best regards
Erik

The DX0 "Tonal Range" measure might be better indication of something close to photographically useful dynamic range [PDR], by emphasizing data more at levels where SNR is high enough to be useful, reducing the relevance of a few stops of very noisy deep shadows where SNR is just barely above 1:1. I look forward to PDR measures from bclaff and others too.

On that tonal range score, the H3DII with its 50MP sensor is still about even or slightly ahead in the more relevant "print comparison", even though it is behind in the "screen" (per pixel) measure. So the 60MP and 80MP sensors might have even more tonal range breathing room in the "print" comparison. However, the marginal utility of PDR relative to price difference is getting very slight!

P. S. I replaced that wimpy 5DII with a real man's camera, the IQ180, which has a clearer though still modest lead in Tonal Range: click to Measurements, and look at Tonal Range as well as Dynamic Range:
D800 vs H2II 50 vs IQ180

[Dustbak]

Are you kidding? The F100? That came out in 1998 AFAIK (I opted for F5's). A lot has happened since then.

I have owned nearly every Nikon body after that (with the exception of the D2h) and whatever I did I did not seem to be able to get them to quit on me. The only exception was a D200 where I changed the OLPF filter for an IR filter by myself and was not able to reconnect the flat cable for the sensor (Thank you Nikon service point for doing that for me).

The older lenses indeed could draw differently, the newer versions seem to be pretty consistent (24, 35, 50, 85 but also the zooms). Now, personal preference is important on how lenses draw so you might not like it but consistency is not an issue IMO.

This is just my experience. In general I am pretty sure both C as well as N can have their problems. Both have had issues over the years but one being less reliable than the other in a big way? That is something new for me.

[BJL]

... I would say shot noise dominates the "tonal range" evaluation ...

Yes, the weighting seems to go that way. This is why I would prefer a "PDR" measure akin to the little used S10 version of noise based sensitivity defined ISO standard 12232: measure how many stops down from highlights you can go and still have a SNR of 10:1 or better. Yes, 10:1 is somewhat arbitrary, but it is an established guideline for "barely acceptable", and so might indicate acceptability when a deep shadow region is brought up in level to appear on print/screen at a moderate shadow level, several stops below the mid-tones. Also, even if changing to threshold a bit, say to 5:1 or 20:1, would change the absolute results for a given sensor (adding/subtracting a stop of so of PDR), my hope is that it would not produce much difference in the relative results when comparing two sensors.