Hello Fellow Photozoners,
I read a while ago that the Nikon D800 had a higher dynamic range than other camera's.
Does anyone have the D800 already? I like to hear the comments if it the difference is worthwhile or not. Does the D800 have a more sensitive sensor or is this extended dynamic range a 'software trick'?
Maybe it is an old question, if so I missed it.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Reinier
The D800 has a wider DR than the D300 (I have both). I'm not a scientist so I can't tell you exactly how much more there is.
What is not talked about so much is the amount of details that are in the shadows. This is really impressive.
I doubt that there is much of a difference between the D800 and the top Canon models, especially in real world situations.
Also, you really need the best of the best lenses to get the most out of cameras like the D800.
01-31-2013, 08:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2013, 08:35 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1359656312' post='21673']
Hello Fellow Photozoners,
I read a while ago that the Nikon D800 had a higher dynamic range than other camera's.
Does anyone have the D800 already? I like to hear the comments if it the difference is worthwhile or not. Does the D800 have a more sensitive sensor or is this extended dynamic range a 'software trick'?
Maybe it is an old question, if so I missed it.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[/quote]
The D800 has a sensor that has low read noise. That means that especially at base ISO, the noise floor is very low. Same with the 16mp, 24m APS-C sensors from Sony and the 24mp FF sensor from Sony.
The higher the ISO setting, the more that low read noise advantage disappears.
If you take normal photos with a normal tonal curve, you will not notice it. Only when you pull shadows several stops (never get the why for that) or lower contrast (flatten the tonal curve) by a big amount, you will get to see the extra dynamic range. Some people like it because it allows them to kinda rescue badly messed up exposures.
By ISO 800 or so the advantage is gone, and with high ISO's other cameras can give better results even.
To me, good enough DR is good enough DR. My camera does not have good enough DR from ISO 800 and up btw <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />/>
The DR talk is mainly a thing for specs liking forum lurkers, it is a less big issue than some think it is.
To put things into perspective.... Colour positive (slide) film has a dr of about 5 to 6 stops. Colour negative film has a dr of upto about 10 stops.
BW film usually has also quite low DR, but a few types go up all the way to 14 stops (if you know how to exposure them, and know how to develop them to get such a high DR out of them). The result is then a totally flat, awful to look at image. It then takes a lot of skill and experience to compress that super high DR into some sort of pleasant image. Photo prints have a DR of about 6 to 8 stops.
If you normally take photos, the 5D mk II, 5D mk III, 6d, D600, D800 all make very similar images with similar DR, because they have a very similar tonal curve. The high DR is only found in the unprocessed RAW data.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1359664118' post='21677']
The D800 has a sensor that has low read noise. That means that especially at base ISO, the noise floor is very low. Same with the 16mp, 24m APS-C sensors from Sony and the 24mp FF sensor from Sony.
The higher the ISO setting, the more that low read noise advantage disappears.
If you take normal photos with a normal tonal curve, you will not notice it. Only when you pull shadows several stops (never get the why for that) or lower contrast (flatten the tonal curve) by a big amount, you will get to see the extra dynamic range. Some people like it because it allows them to kinda rescue badly messed up exposures.
By ISO 800 or so the advantage is gone, and with high ISO's other cameras can give better results even.
To me, good enough DR is good enough DR. My camera does not have good enough DR from ISO 800 and up btw <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />/>/>
The DR talk is mainly a thing for specs liking forum lurkers, it is a less big issue than some think it is.
To put things into perspective.... Colour positive (slide) film has a dr of about 5 to 6 stops. Colour negative film has a dr of upto about 10 stops.
BW film usually has also quite low DR, but a few types go up all the way to 14 stops (if you know how to exposure them, and know how to develop them to get such a high DR out of them). The result is then a totally flat, awful to look at image. It then takes a lot of skill and experience to compress that super high DR into some sort of pleasant image. Photo prints have a DR of about 6 to 8 stops.
If you normally take photos, the 5D mk II, 5D mk III, 6d, D600, D800 all make very similar images with similar DR, because they have a very similar tonal curve. The high DR is only found in the unprocessed RAW data.
[/quote]
Hi Brightcolours,
The Pentax K5 has the Sony 16Mb sensor and the detail that can be recovered in the shadows is amazing! The K20 started that trend even though it had a Samsung sensor,I wonder if the algorithms of modern cameras play a large role in this!
Dave's clichés
[quote name='dave's clichés' timestamp='1359710719' post='21684']
Hi Brightcolours,
The Pentax K5 has the Sony 16Mb sensor and the detail that can be recovered in the shadows is amazing! The K20 started that trend even though it had a Samsung sensor,I wonder if the algorithms of modern cameras play a large role in this!
Dave's clichés
[/quote]
I know one can pull up shadows with any DSLR, Dave. Even with mine (450D). But Why do you want to do that? I do not find it attractive at all, to pull up shadows. So I do not care about those hidden details... I like photos to have contrast, and almost always make them a bit more contrasty that the standard tonal curve, in PP.
Hence: "Enough DR is enough".
It's questionable if base ISO DR is important to someone or not but it's very nice if you have it. Also there are some users like landscape photographers who benefits from sensor like in D600 or D800, they are more desirable for tone mapping than say a 6D sensor. All APS-C or FF sensor designers have better base ISO DR than Canon and it's price Canon is paying because of outdated FAB process which deny a possibility to put column parallel ADC on sensor. Right now theht is not Sony, Nikon or Canon who has the best sensor, it's Toshiba with sensor in Nikon D5200. Characteristics are just amazing, high base ISO DR and record breaking DR for APS-C sensors on high ISO which is according to DxO even on par with D600 Sony FF sensor. DR on high ISO is very important because not only SNR have a impact on apparent noise in on high ISO. It's almost one stop better than D5100/D7000 sensors on high ISO so it's a kind of revolution. I only can hope that Nikon will soon introduce FF model with Toshiba sensor.
The low read noise at base ISO is there, obviously. That statement is my subjective (non scientific) opinion. The shadow recovery with decent resolution and color fidelity is remarkable concerning the D800 raw files taken at base ISO. I personally like DR (when viewing raw files). The human eye has the capability of seeing high dynamic ranges, but of course this is useless when we view jpegs.
One thing to mention here about the DR measurements is that there are many methods for that purpose and I'm not sure which one is the best. And furthermore, of course DR alone at base ISO is not that much of a valuable KPI.
Serkan
I used to shoot with slide film (Fuji Sensia II 100, Velvia Velvia 100), but when I bought my first Dslr (first the 40D and sold it to buy a 2-hand 5D 3 years ago) I was pleasantly suprised by the higher tonal range. Because of the higher DR I was able to take photographs which I wasn't with slide film, because it would have been to dark.
Just recently I was photographing mute swans here on a man-made lake. Although the sun isn't as powerful as in the spring or summer, the white feathers in combination with the dark water was not easy to get a right exposure. In theory you can't get the right exposure, because when you want to see detail in the feathers, you get in trouble with the water, which will become to dark.
So, I am interested in more dynamic range.
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1359885192' post='21719']
I used to shoot with slide film (Fuji Sensia II 100, Velvia Velvia 100), but when I bought my first Dslr (first the 40D and sold it to buy a 2-hand 5D 3 years ago) I was pleasantly suprised by the higher tonal range. Because of the higher DR I was able to take photographs which I wasn't with slide film, because it would have been to dark.
Just recently I was photographing mute swans here on a man-made lake. Although the sun isn't as powerful as in the spring or summer, the white feathers in combination with the dark water was not easy to get a right exposure. In theory you can't get the right exposure, because when you want to see detail in the feathers, you get in trouble with the water, which will become to dark.
So, I am interested in more dynamic range.
[/quote]
Every camera will do the same thing, exposure wise. The all have very similar tonal curves.
The standard tonal curves give between 8 and 9 stops of DR, if I remember correctly. You can lower the contrast way down in the camera/RAW converter, to give a bigger DR tonal curve (upto 9-10 stops I think).
RAW does contain more headroom, and you can take "advantage" of that when you know how. The 5D mk II has about 12 stops DR (at low ISO settings) hidden in its RAW depths. To get that out you need to know what you are doing. Just linearly showing 12 stops DR gives a VERY flat, unattractive image. Same goes for for instance a D800, which has a DR at base ISO of about 14 stops, due to lower read noise. 14 stops "lineary" will give a super flat, super unattractive image. So, you have to find a way that matches what you are after to harness extended DR.
I have read several times on forums that with the camera tonal curves and exposure metering, Canon files tends to have more headroom to recover highlights, while Nikon files have more room in the shadows. What truth lies in there I do not know, as it is not a hobby of mine to plough through the depths of RAW files from different cameras.
The 5D mk II will give you quite some room at lower ISO settings to get a wider DR compressed into the smaller DR of screen view and print. A camera like the D800 gives you even more room at lower ISO settings.
Personally, I tend to never need that, not with with white swans and geese on dark waters either. Unless I shoot in JPEG with a contrasty tonal curve, obviously. But I happen to find contrasty images attractive. Your personal views may differ.
I agree that spending all the DR "linearly" will produce a flat image. The more DR, flatter image. But this is not the way someone actually wants to spend the DR. Is more to get "compressed" highlights, so, close to the points of light, for example, instead of getting an abrupt cut to a 255-255-255 white, you can get a soft and subtle fade.
I do a lot of photography of interiors, and you don't want burnt walls close to lamps. With a D800 is more probably you can avoid that with just a single exposure and don't need to mix different shots. (In fact, underexposing and recovering). So, the extra DR can be very time saving, both while shooting and retouching.
For me, I will never have enough: the more, the better. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
|
