Which camera has the most dynamic range in your opinion?

This is true. I just love the 5d II. I am just siding with it. No doubt I love the photos my mark III captures in the studio. I didn't do my homework though, they both have the same sensor?

40D, 5DMKII and 1DMKIII

Absolute largest dynamic range of any digital camera? Probably the PhaseOne P65+ or PhaseOne P45+ Achromatic - depending on your needs.

Tareq wrote in post #8992154
Large Format
Medium format
Film 35mm
DSLRs
P&S
iPhone
Blackberry

From what I understand about film, it does not matter about the format size for DR (dynamic range), for instance a piece of 10x8 Ilford FP4 125, will have the same DR as a 35mm Ilford FP4 125. It's the same film only larger.

Digital is dependent on sensor size though so LF and MF digital should have better Dynamic range due to the larger photo sites, except a 35mm dig camera from 09 will have better DR than a 4 year old MF dig Back.

I was told however by a Canon rep that a 5D II has 11 stops of DR, not to sure about it though. Have not done any tests.

chino79 wrote in post #8992542
From what I understand about film, it does not matter about the format size for DR (dynamic range), for instance a piece of 10x8 Ilford FP4 125, will have the same DR as a 35mm Ilford FP4 125. It's the same film only larger.

Digital is dependent on sensor size though so LF and MF digital should have better Dynamic range due to the larger photo sites, except a 35mm dig camera from 09 will have better DR than a 4 year old MF dig Back.

I was told however by a Canon rep that a 5D II has 11 stops of DR, not to sure about it though. Have not done any tests.

I don't care about that, just i want to believe in that arrange, doesn't matter it is correct or not!

chino79 wrote in post #8992542
...a 35mm dig camera from 09 will have better DR than a 4 year old MF dig Back.

Really? I don't think so - both 35mm and APS-C SLRs have been hanging around 10-11 stops for years now, whereas MF digital is supposedly around 12.

RLD wrote in post #8988531
I've always referred to dxomark for data on sensor performance and their extensive database of testing results includes the comparison of the dynamic range of different cameras. (They rate the 5DII as considerably better than the 5D, by the way.)

What's the general feeling about that site?

A website that rates MF digital as only marginally better (if not worse) than the best 35mm or APS-C SLRs is, frankly, full of crap.

Or you can look at it a different way: look at the low-light ISO ratings. Compare the 1DIII, 1DsIII, 5DII, D700, and D3. First, I'm pretty sure the 1DIII was regarded as the best low-light Canon SLR before the 5DII. Second, people can argue all they want about 12 vs 21MP, but the low-light performance of the 5DII is not that much worse than the D700 and D3.

CombatCamera13 wrote in post #8992301
This is true. I just love the 5d II. I am just siding with it. No doubt I love the photos my mark III captures in the studio. I didn't do my homework though, they both have the same sensor?

They do not have the same sensor. The 1DsIII still has the "better" sensor - slightly more detail resolution and (supposedly) better DR. Most 1DsIII users, I would gather, find it has better DR than the 5DII, or at least better at retaining highlights.

toxic wrote in post #8992729
Really? I don't think so - both 35mm and APS-C SLRs have been hanging around 10-11 stops for years now, whereas MF digital is supposedly around 12.

It probably depends a lot on how you measure it. You're basically measuring the range between clipping the highlights and the so-called noise floor (which is somewhat up to subjective interpretation). I've seen the 11-12 range quoted for some full-frame DSLR bodies but I don't know - one man's 12 is another man's 10.

..... (I probably should have phrased that differently) .....

There is some interesting evidence that puts the 1Ds3 (and by extension, the 5D2 which should be pretty close) on the same level, noise-wise, with the D700/D3. See this link...

http://cyberphotograph​er.com/megapixelmyth/

It's a comparison that "Brainiac" on Fred Miranda's forum often cites. I personally can't afford to buy both systems to compare directly.

Some have claimed lower noise on the 5D2, though I doubt that considering the supposed pattern noise that people can extract from 5D2 files if they push the shadows up too far. I think that the processing system is different (Digic III vs. Digic IV), but it would surprise me if Canon actually manufactured two different processors when tooling up for only one would be more financially prudent.

The one that God made...you.

chino79 wrote in post #8992542
From what I understand about film, it does not matter about the format size for DR (dynamic range), for instance a piece of 10x8 Ilford FP4 125, will have the same DR as a 35mm Ilford FP4 125. It's the same film only larger.

Digital is dependent on sensor size though so LF and MF digital should have better Dynamic range due to the larger photo sites,

Sorry, but to me, that logic makes no sense at all - I agree about the size of the film not being relevant but ou could just as easily say : "It's the same sensor only larger" You might possibly make an analogy between grain size (of different films and generations of films) and pixel size (of different sensors and their different technological generations) etc but the size of the whole sensor is just as irrelevant as the size of the piece of film....

The 5D Mark II has slightly better overall DR (8.4ev vs. 8.2 ev). They have the same highlight DR, but the 5D Mark II is a little better in the shadows. See DPReviews test results: http://www.dpreview.co​m …noneos5dmarkii/​page25.asp

Fidelity wrote in post #8993202
The 5D Mark II has slightly better overall DR (8.4ev vs. 8.2 ev). They have the same highlight DR, but the 5D Mark II is a little better in the shadows. See DPReviews test results: http://www.dpreview.co​m …noneos5dmarkii/​page25.asp

Those numbers are measured with JPG images - they're subject to the contrast curve that has been applied by the manufacturer. You'll gain at least a stop or two with a RAW image, and can probably work out even a little more.

AJSJones wrote in post #8993170
the size of the whole sensor is just as irrelevant as the size of the piece of film....

A larger sensor captures more light all together. This may not help when the pixels are small and viewed in 100%, but looking at a given presentation size, the result is better.

The logic with film is simpler: to get a certain size of print, the larger film requires less magnification.

Fujifilm S5 pro

maverick678 wrote in post #8992953
The one that God made...you.

True!

The human eye has an amazing range that digital technology has a long way to go still before it equals what our eyes can see.

Does anyone know how many stops of light our eyes can take in?

Cheers!

The 1DsMkIII has the same DR as the 5D2 with ISO 100, but the 5D2 has the ugly pattern noise. The 5D2 is better than the 1DsMkIII at ISO 1600.