Dynamic range of some model cameras

Camera (ISO 100) Shadow range Highlight range Usable range
Canon EOS 5D -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II -4.6 EV 3.5 EV 8.1 EV
Canon EOS 20D -5.1 EV 3.4 EV 8.4 EV
Nikon D2X -5.5 EV 2.7 EV 8.2 EV


From time to time, you see posts that discuss dynamic range in various cameras. The above information was taken from dpreview's updated review of the Canon 5D (which I happened to be reading in an effort to verify that camera's minimum aperture for AF function). The above information was added in an update in Feb 2006. Since I recall seeing some posts claiming improved dynamic range of newer camera models better than older models, I found the chart intriguing in dispelling that belief.

--wilt

Yeah, for the most part all DSLRs have about the same stops of Range, some have more range in the shadows and some have more range in the highlights.

I think the only cameras that have a significately higher range are the Fuji s5 and the 1D MkIII, but I havent seen anything that demonstrates beyond all doubt yet.

IIRC, DPReview's DR tests are performed with JPG images. I've found that RAW gives you a substantial amount of additional useful headroom (more than a stop) on the two bodies I've tested.

wilvoeka wrote in post #3649712
Yeah, for the most part all DSLRs have about the same stops of Range, some have more range in the shadows and some have more range in the highlights.

I think the only cameras that have a significately higher range are the Fuji s5 and the 1D MkIII, but I havent seen anything that demonstrates beyond all doubt yet.

Agreed Welvoeka, however I doubt the Mark III's DR is much wider then all the other EOS DSLR's. Some make the mistake of equating bit depth (14) with wider DR and this is just not so.

Now all the EOS DSLR's have more or less the same DR, however the 5D shows shadows with less noise, so in a way noise comes into play in regard to "usable" DR.

Tom W wrote in post #3649973
IIRC, DPReview's DR tests are performed with JPG images. I've found that RAW gives you a substantial amount of additional useful headroom (more than a stop) on the two bodies I've tested.

Sure RAW provides a wider DR over JPG, but you use the word "substantial"...what does that mean?

Wilt wrote in post #3649551
Camera (ISO 100) Shadow range Highlight range Usable range
Canon EOS 5D -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II -4.6 EV 3.5 EV 8.1 EV
Canon EOS 20D -5.1 EV 3.4 EV 8.4 EV
Nikon D2X -5.5 EV 2.7 EV 8.2 EV


From time to time, you see posts that discuss dynamic range in various cameras....
Since I recall seeing some posts claiming improved dynamic range of newer camera models better than older models, I found the chart intriguing in dispelling that belief.

--wilt

I guess sit depends on your idea of what an "older model" is,..
I consider the 5D, 1Ds MkII and 20D to all be of the same generation.. they are all the current models in there class (well 20D is now 30D but the specs are the same, virtually the same camera)

I don't have the actual numbers so maybe I can still be proven wrong, but I recall the 10D to have about 6-7 EV.. and that was an improvement over previous models.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3650033
...

I don't have the actual numbers so maybe I can still be proven wrong, but I recall the 10D to have about 6-7 EV.. and that was an improvement over previous models.

Well, I think I just did, but not sure on the source, this page has enough gobbledygook to convince me he's on to something, he found the 10D to have 8.6 ev!

http://www.imatest.com​/docs/q13.html

I have a headache.

So does this mean I can sell my 'obsolete' 10D for a huge profit with Superior Dynamic Range as my marketing fluff? IE bigger numbers = better?

cdifoto wrote in post #3650070
I have a headache.

So does this mean I can sell my 'obsolete' 10D for a huge profit with Superior Dynamic Range as my marketing fluff? IE bigger numbers = better?

While you're taking an aspirin, let me just say that the 10D is long obselete, but not because of DR issues....it's just too noisy at ISO 800 and faster, and less responsive, and the list goes on...

Steiglitz wrote in post #3650180
While you're taking an aspirin, let me just say that the 10D is long obselete, but not because of DR issues....it's just too noisy at ISO 800 and faster, and less responsive, and the list goes on...

Yeah it totally sucks like that. Sometimes I wish it was a 1D III. But then I remember...oh yeah I paid $350, not $4500. Ironically the 1D II sits in the bag most of the time...unless I need the speed. Makes me appreciate it more.

cdifoto wrote in post #3650189
Yeah it totally sucks like that. Sometimes I wish it was a 1D III. But then I remember...oh yeah I paid $350, not $4500. Ironically the 1D II sits in the bag most of the time...unless I need the speed. Makes me appreciate it more.

Your experience illustrates the dilemma that many should anticipate in making purchases of expensive digital bodies that are not for professional purposes.

Having a $3000-8000 brick that no one wants to buy, due to newer technology making the thing undesirable to others on the used market, is not what I would want as a hobbist. FF needs to drop to consistent $2000 or less before I make that jump as a hobbyist when my camera isn't making me income any longer.

Wilt wrote in post #3650311
Your experience illustrates the dilemma that many should anticipate in making purchases of expensive digital bodies that are not for professional purposes.

Having a $3000-8000 brick that no one wants to buy, due to newer technology making the thing undesirable to others on the used market, is not what I would want as a hobbist. FF needs to drop to consistent $2000 or less before I make that jump as a hobbyist when my camera isn't making me income any longer.

Are you saying you think I consider myself in a dilemma?

Heck I'm glad I got the 10D for so little. It's still capable and was almost as cheap as a new Elan 7NE! And my 1D II I got for a song as well...a shade over $2K with only 6000 clicks. I got a 1D original because I was frustrated with the 30D for some of the faster sports. Happy with the AF, I ditched the 30D and grabbed the 1D II to get my higher ISO performance back. Then I sold the 1D original and got the 10D as a super cheap backup to put some cash back in my pocket.

I agree about FF though. An entry price of $2500 for a consumer grade body is too steep, in my opinion.

Steiglitz wrote in post #3649988
Sure RAW provides a wider DR over JPG, but you use the word "substantial"...what does that mean?

Well, with my 5D, it means that I can overexpose a test image by 2 stops in RAW, and pull down the exposure in DPP and retain good fidelity to the original in terms of color and detail , correctly-exposed test image. With 1 stop of overexposure, I can retain excellent fidelity.

When shooting JPG, I could not even get good fidelity when overexposing by 1 stop.

I didn't find much difference at the low end of the exposure scale, but I really didn't test that thoroughly.

Steiglitz wrote in post #3649988
Sure RAW provides a wider DR over JPG, but you use the word "substantial"...what does that mean?

at least 4092 levels of luminosity vs 256 levels And to keep at the horse.....even if the MarkIII were to have 1 stop more range then say the 5D, that is extra range. And with the extra levels, it would have better luminosity in the darker stops.

JPEG is like photographic paper: it's 8bpc and can not have much tonal range past 4 stops.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3650059
Well, I think I just did, but not sure on the source, this page has enough gobbledygook to convince me he's on to something, he found the 10D to have 8.6 ev!

http://www.imatest.com​/docs/q13.html

That's the thing.....when doing searches on dynamic range, I notice every reviewer gets different results for what eV a given camera has

One review says the 1D mkII gets up to 11.6 stops......>> This one actually makes a correction to say that the 5D actually does have more range then the 20D. I guess testing for it is a hard cup of noodles.