Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

Is there a significant difference between a typical consumer dSLR
(400D, D80, A100) and a midrange point & shoot camera?

I've tried to find quantitative/statistical measurements of the dynamic
range of these cameras, but haven't been able to find any.

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is there a significant difference between a typical consumer dSLR
> (400D, D80, A100) and a midrange point & shoot camera?
>
> I've tried to find quantitative/statistical measurements of the dynamic
> range of these cameras, but haven't been able to find any.


http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=dynamic+range

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

<plastic_razor@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163836808.270374.228300@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a significant difference between a typical consumer dSLR
> (400D, D80, A100) and a midrange point & shoot camera?
>
> I've tried to find quantitative/statistical measurements of the dynamic
> range of these cameras, but haven't been able to find any.
>
Yes. You get about a stop worth (YMMV) and if you use the RAW mode on the
SLR, you can pull out an additional stop. Most P&S cameras don't have a RAW
mode. I find many P&S cameras (and some dSLRs) are designed to expose for
the shadows and tend to blow the highlights often. I find that using the
exposure compensation setting and underexposing by a 1/2 to a full stop
helps considerably. Also many compact cameras are set too contrasty as the
average consumer likes the extra "snap" it gives the image. If the camera
has a contrast setting, lower it to reduce the chance of clipping.
John

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

JohnR66 wrote:
> >
> Yes. You get about a stop worth (YMMV) and if you use the RAW mode on the
> SLR, you can pull out an additional stop. Most P&S cameras don't have a RAW
> mode.


Some P&S cameras, like the Canon G6, do have RAW mode. I wonder how
its dynamic range compares to dSLRs?

I know that the dynamic range of the Digital Rebel XTi (400D) is
measurably larger than that of the EOS 5D, even though the latter has a
much larger sensor. With that in mind, I wonder how much more dynamic
range a dSLR is capable of capturing than a decent P&S? Most people
(including me) believe that dSLRs have higher dynamic range than point
& shoots, but I've yet to see actual numbers to back it up.

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnR66 wrote:
>
>>Yes. You get about a stop worth (YMMV) and if you use the RAW mode on the
>>SLR, you can pull out an additional stop. Most P&S cameras don't have a RAW
>>mode.
>
> Some P&S cameras, like the Canon G6, do have RAW mode. I wonder how
> its dynamic range compares to dSLRs?
>
> I know that the dynamic range of the Digital Rebel XTi (400D) is
> measurably larger than that of the EOS 5D, even though the latter has a
> much larger sensor. With that in mind, I wonder how much more dynamic
> range a dSLR is capable of capturing than a decent P&S? Most people
> (including me) believe that dSLRs have higher dynamic range than point
> & shoots, but I've yet to see actual numbers to back it up.
>
Where did you read the XTi has a larger dynamic range than the
5D? The 5D is limited by the 12-bit A/D converter. The only way
an XTi could beat that is if it had a 14 or 16 bit A/D, which I
do not think it does.

The answers to your questions are on these web pages:

Data on sensors are here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ensor_analysis

Dynamic range of DSLR versus P&S are shown in Figure 7 at:
Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Another plot of sensor dynamic range is in Figure 3 at:
Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...or.performance
(This page is new and is still a draft.)

Roger

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnR66 wrote:
>> Yes. You get about a stop worth (YMMV) and if you use the RAW mode on the
>> SLR, you can pull out an additional stop. Most P&S cameras don't have a RAW
>> mode.
>
>
> Some P&S cameras, like the Canon G6, do have RAW mode. I wonder how
> its dynamic range compares to dSLRs?
>
> I know that the dynamic range of the Digital Rebel XTi (400D) is
> measurably larger than that of the EOS 5D, even though the latter has a
> much larger sensor.

When, where, and how do you "know" this? Seriously, can you cite some
URL or other?

--
john mcwilliams

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is there a significant difference between a typical consumer dSLR
> (400D, D80, A100) and a midrange point & shoot camera?
>
> I've tried to find quantitative/statistical measurements of the dynamic
> range of these cameras, but haven't been able to find any.

P&S' typically have -higher pixel densities = noise
-lower conversion dynamic range (bits) = less
"shaddow" depth.

dpreview has good charts for many of the cameras (but not all).

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>>
>> Yes. You get about a stop worth (YMMV) and if you use the RAW mode
>> on the SLR, you can pull out an additional stop. Most P&S cameras
>> don't have a RAW mode.
>
>
> Some P&S cameras, like the Canon G6, do have RAW mode. I wonder how
> its dynamic range compares to dSLRs?
>
> I know that the dynamic range of the Digital Rebel XTi (400D) is
> measurably larger than that of the EOS 5D, even though the latter has
> a much larger sensor. With that in mind,

I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy logic.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
>
> I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
> Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy logic.
>


The EOS 400D review at DPreview claims that the 400D has a dynamic
range that's roughly 5% better than the D80, 350D, and the Sony Alpha.
The usable range is supposed to be around 8.4EV. In their EOS 5D
review (same author), the measured dynamic range was around 8.2 EV.
These were done in JPEG tests. Both cameras have about one extra stop
of headroom in RAW mode.

The difference in test results is so small, it's probably more accurate
to say that neither the 400D nor the 5D has a real advantage in dynamic
range --- at least based on this one test. Which is interesting,
considering all the hoopla about the big bad full frame sensor having
better dynamic range than a tiny sensoor in an entry-level digital
rebel. Maybe I misunderstood the articles? Read for yourselves:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page19.asp

Re: Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...
 

plastic_razor@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
>> I seriously doubt you'll find anything that backs up this claim.
>> Please cite your data, if you've found something would have to defy logic.
>
> The EOS 400D review at DPreview claims that the 400D has a dynamic
> range that's roughly 5% better than the D80, 350D, and the Sony Alpha.
> The usable range is supposed to be around 8.4EV. In their EOS 5D
> review (same author), the measured dynamic range was around 8.2 EV.
> These were done in JPEG tests. Both cameras have about one extra stop
> of headroom in RAW mode.
>
> The difference in test results is so small, it's probably more accurate
> to say that neither the 400D nor the 5D has a real advantage in dynamic
> range --- at least based on this one test. Which is interesting,
> considering all the hoopla about the big bad full frame sensor having
> better dynamic range than a tiny sensoor in an entry-level digital
> rebel. Maybe I misunderstood the articles? Read for yourselves:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page19.asp

Thanks for the response, and cites, which I may read later. However, you
are disproving the claim you made, somehow not quoted here. [Mark
squared's post is also missing on my spool in r.p.d., but the points
made by Roger and me aren't contradicted.]

--
John McWilliams