Which camera has the most dynamic range in your opinion?

I believe it's 24 stops.

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8993370
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!

Tom W wrote in post #8992926
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.

Thanks for the link.

From the link;

Conclusion...

bbss wrote in post #8993453
I put DR before resolution. Does that mean I'd be better off with 5D classic?

Hard to say - technology has advanced since the 5D. If all things were equal, the 5D would be the choice (and it's still a great camera). But newer sensors have made some improvements - gapless microlenses and cleaner processing for example.

I'd look at all the measured data, from a variety of sources. I don't think you'd be disappointed with a 5D classic, but if there's a better choice, then you want the opportunity to take it.

bbss wrote in post #8993453
I put DR before resolution. Does that mean I'd be better off with 5D classic?

No. The 5D2 is better even pixel-wise, and much better after downresing.

AJSJones wrote in post #8993170
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....

Well it's not the same sensor is it? They don't take a slab of CMOS and cut it to size, they do however make film in large sheets and then cut it to size.
A 21 mpix 35mm camera has different size photosites than a 40 mpix 6x6 didital back, now as far as a 4 year old mf back's DR performance, that was just a rash generalization.
I was trying to make a point on the fact that with different generations of gear comes improvements in performance.
So in theory a Large or Medium Format, should have the best DR in digital, provided that FF sensor's dont get ahead of the game.

Panopeeper wrote in post #8993345
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.

chino79 wrote in post #8994554
Well it's not the same sensor is it? They don't take a slab of CMOS and cut it to size, they do however make film in large sheets and then cut it to size.
A 21 mpix 35mm camera has different size photosites than a 40 mpix 6x6 didital back, now as far as a 4 year old mf back's DR performance, that was just a rash generalization.
I was trying to make a point on the fact that with different generations of gear comes improvements in performance.
So in theory a Large or Medium Format, should have the best DR in digital, provided that FF sensor's dont get ahead of the game.

A larger piece of film captures more light too!
Of course, as I accepted in my original comment, different sensors have different stages of technology and that's what affects the dynamic range. Take a 100 pixel square crop from a MF back or a low end sensor and you can make a valid comparison of DR, just like taking a 5 mm square out of a sheet of 8x10 film or a 35mm frame. It's the properties of the pixels that distinguish different sensors - not their size.
The degree of geometric enlargement from capture to print affects print quality for both digital and film. I agree bigger capture area is better - but disagree about that not applying to film

Not to sure if we are on the same page here mate, Are you suggesting that a larger format takes in more light?
The image circle covers a larger area due to the lens design and size, it does not make extra light.
If I take a light meter reading of a subject and it reads, ISO100 1/500th f5.6, it will not change if I use 35mm or Large format.
Or have I read your comment wrong?

Mr. Clean wrote in post #8993353
Fujifilm S5 pro

I tried saying that one. Nobody seems to realize that the S5 makes all other DSLRs look like toys when it comes to DR.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9001237
I tried saying that one. Nobody seems to realize that the S5 makes all other DSLRs look like toys when it comes to DR.

WOW, then we have to sell our 1Ds3 and 1DIII and Hasselblad and Mamiya and more and just get Fujifilm S5 due to its superior in DR?

Tareq wrote in post #9001270
WOW, then we have to sell our 1Ds3 and 1DIII and Hasselblad and Mamiya and more and just get Fujifilm S5 due to its superior in DR?

Yes! Infact, all your dSLRs aren't worth anything anymore Tareq. But you can send them all over to me.. I'll even pay for the shipping.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9001237
I tried saying that one. Nobody seems to realize that the S5 makes all other DSLRs look like toys when it comes to DR.

Tareq wrote in post #9001270
WOW, then we have to sell our 1Ds3 and 1DIII and Hasselblad and Mamiya and more and just get Fujifilm S5 due to its superior in DR?

If you want the most dynamic range, yes! Of course that's probably the only thing the S5 does better than our current cameras but hey, the thread was "Which camera has the most dynamic range in your opinion"
Shoot, that's not even opinion I don't think. I'd go call it fact

Tareq wrote in post #9001270
WOW, then we have to sell our 1Ds3 and 1DIII and Hasselblad and Mamiya and more and just get Fujifilm S5 due to its superior in DR?

If all you care about is DR...

The highest dynamic (called brightness range when I was shooting film) was Tri-X 320 4x5 rated at 250 ISO and pulled by 15% during develop,,developed in D-76.. I managed to get 7 1/2 stops.. Shot using a Linhof Technika/Schneider Symmar 150mm f/5.6..

I shot this under very careful studio conditions using diffuse tungsten lighting,,exposure if I remember rightly was 3 seconds @ f/11.. I set up a still life and each item in the shot was chosen for its tonality.. The negative was checked under a densitometer and measured at the shadow areas with detail and highlights with detail.. A graph was drawn of the exposure curve and the results assessed from that..

Kodak Tri-X is renowned for its tonal range, exposure latitude and brightness range..

This exercise was part of a practical assignment when I was studying commercial photography in the late 1980s..

chino79 wrote in post #9000571
Not to sure if we are on the same page here mate, Are you suggesting that a larger format takes in more light?
The image circle covers a larger area due to the lens design and size, it does not make extra light

Let's simplify it to the comparison between FF and APS-C cameras using the very same, FF lens. The lens projects an image with FF size, but the APS-C camera does not use the entire image. The area used by the APS-C camera has the same luminosity for both formats. Isn't it obvious, that the FF camera utilises more light, than the APS-C?

From a different perspective: the larger format cameras' lenses are larger; the front glass too is larger, it captures more light (we have to think of the same angle of view, not of the same focal length, to achieve the same framing).

The result is, that the level of illumination of the film (or sensor) is the same; however, now we are talking about a larger surface, i.e. the same illumination level means more light.

Facit: the amount of captured light on the entire film or surface area is larger with the the larger film or sensor. Its relevance with film is, that the degree of magnification for a given size of result is smaller if the film is larger (and that means better quality result). With sensor: if we fix the number of pixels, the sensels are larger, the noise becomes less. If we fix the sensel size, we end up with more pixels of the same size (same pixel "quality"), and that allows for larger output or cropping of for dowresing, anyway better than the smaller sensor.

Of course all this is reasonable only when comparing otherwise identical technologies, and that is very seldom the case in the digital domain. The smaller sensors are not crops of the larger ones.

Then we have to wait the technology, maybe in the future we can see a camera with better DR than all current DSLRs and even better than S5.