Dynamic Range

Which digital cameras (MFT / APS-C / FF) match DR of film cameras?

All of them, made in the last 5 years?

You might do a research on what films have the best DR and then start comparing from that.
Yes, all of them. Depending on the formula, film has around 5 to 6 EV stops on average. Colour-positive film can do 4 to 6 while the best negarive films are up to 5 to ~7.5 EV stops. Some say 8 EV stops but that's already pushing and it depends on the formula, still. So even the first MILC, the Panasonic Lumix G1, with its 10.3 EV stops exceeds that of film. That's just the DR talk, though. The organic and analog characteristics of film are the reasons why it's still alive and won't be disappearing anymore. With B&W, film can do all 10 zones whereas digital can only do up to zone 7.
 
You know that I am going to drag out the dynamic range of the new Hasselblad X2D. The company claims 15 stops of dynamic range coupled with 16 bit color. And 16 bit color means 200+ Trillion colors. Images at 25,600 ISO with very little noise. All that is left is to point the camera at something worthwhile. That problem is a constant regardless of what we hold in our hands.
 
Yes, all of them. Depending on the formula, film has around 5 to 6 EV stops on average. Colour-positive film can do 4 to 6 while the best negarive films are up to 5 to ~7.5 EV stops. Some say 8 EV stops but that's already pushing and it depends on the formula, still. So even the first MILC, the Panasonic Lumix G1, with its 10.3 EV stops exceeds that of film. That's just the DR talk, though. The organic and analog characteristics of film are the reasons why it's still alive and won't be disappearing anymore. With B&W, film can do all 10 zones whereas digital can only do up to zone 7.
If film could do all 10 zones, why then did Ansel Adams reduce the range in the lights, shadows or at both ends?
 
Thanks mates for the replies.
Where can online check DR of digital cameras?
Seems that film has better DR?
@boojum Yip, I want a Hasselblad X2D, Also, a Fuji would be great.
I dislike prices of their lenses...
 
Thanks mates for the replies.
Where can online check DR of digital cameras?
Seems that film has better DR?
@boojum Yip, I want a Hasselblad X2D, Also, a Fuji would be great.
I dislike prices of their lenses...
I, too, dislike their lens prices. OTOH you do get what you pay for. I was told the 55mm V lens would easily best the Amotal. It does not yet show the dreaminess but it has the color and sharpness, sharpness without making your eyes water. The 55 will do me. I can use M42's with a TTArtisan adapter but the 55 is better. In the same price range the M11 has the same price problem so name your poison. For delivered image I believe the X2D is the better camera. I wish it were cheaper. It is a fair price. Look what you get. It is as good a deal as buying from a Dutchman. You get a good product for a good price and they stand behind it and have an impeccable reputation. Proost!
 
If film could do all 10 zones, why then did Ansel Adams reduce the range in the lights, shadows or at both ends?
Ansel Adams' work has a lot to do with the Negative Density Values (like our digital RAW) when printing and he made sure that the Print Values were up to what he expected. Pretty tasking. He demonstrated his tweaks through different prints from 1920s, 1950s and 1970s, where the last one was his most properly weighted print. The zones are still there in the negatives. The print values differ slightly where his last print was the most raised shadows to at least Zone 1 and Zone 9 in the highlights. The negative values still have all those complete zones.

When he was alive, he had courses to get people to replicate his work.

Where can online check DR of digital cameras?
Common photo sites like imaging resource and DPR show all the measured DR by DxoMark (or DxOMark itself) in their reviews but my go-to is cameradecision.com. You can compare the measured DR side-by-side. The clip below shows the page where one can see the comparison, in this case between the Canon 5D Classic and the venerable GM5:
1670792382759.png


Seems that film has better DR?
Digital still has a broader DR, based on the way it's measured today. With digital, we can still shoot Chiaroscuro in a forest, clip the highlights and raise the shadows to make it look like the light is flat. The biggest difference is that digital tends to blow the highlights, that's why earlier shooters tend to underexpose by 1EV then raise them in post later. That's where the statement "Always shoot in RAW" originally came from. A properly-exposed photo from a 10EV DR camera will still print better vs a poorly-exposed (over- or under-) 14EV DR one.

For many, though, the difference in processing both analog and digital borders the apples and oranges category. Imagine a negative B&W film can capture all 10 zones but with measurement, they can only do 7.5EV stops of DR based on modern formula, whereas a digital camera can have 15EV but not do all 10 zones. It's probably best to measure the light values captured by the analog-to-digital converter before processing to have a better comparison but such values have always been proprietary.
 
There are a number of testing sites and reviewers which can help in evaluating cameras. OTOH I do not always agree with them. When Pixii posts its excellent results by DxO the Leica M240 and M9 are listed also and the M240 is rated higher than the M9. I certainly do not agree with this. While they are both good my feeling and beliefs are that the M9 with its CCD sensor does a better image job than the M240 with it CMOS sensor. I know this is almost like arguing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin but it is a slow day here so what the hell. Case in point, the tests do not always represent what I am looking for and possibly not what you are looking for either.
 
All the discussion on photo boards about tests and their meaning reminds me of a story about Boswell and Johnson out for a walk. It may be apocryphal but it is illustrative. Boswell told Johnson that Johnson could not philosophically demonstrate that the large rock in their path was there. Johnson walked up to the rock, kicked it and said, "It is there." If nothing else it is an amusing story about one of England's greatest minds.
 
Every serious digital camera I've used, going back to the Olympus E-600 in 2009, has had better dynamic range than any color film I've ever used. That's real world dynamic range, not measured numbers. The measurements and the methodology to make them don't really matter. The only thing that's important is the image. Printed or on a display, whatever you prefer.
 
Every serious digital camera I've used, going back to the Olympus E-600 in 2009, has had better dynamic range than any color film I've ever used. That's real world dynamic range, not measured numbers. The measurements and the methodology to make them don't really matter. The only thing that's important is the image. Printed or on a display, whatever you prefer.
Agree. I would even take that back to my 2003 E-1, Fred.

Even my 2/3rds sensored Nikon Coolpix E5000 from the same era was better than any 35mm film I've ever used.
 
I wonder about all the discussion about DR...we are, after all, no better than what we see on the monitor or in the print...everything else that might be captured is not recreated! In digital we can create HDR images, but that does not portray the world as we see it, it is a 'compressed' view that is still limited by monitor or print.
Finally, 4K projectors can mimic the DR we could see in projected transparencies, but the resolution is far under what digital cameras can capture...wasted resolution!
 
I wonder about all the discussion about DR...we are, after all, no better than what we see on the monitor or in the print...everything else that might be captured is not recreated! In digital we can create HDR images, but that does not portray the world as we see it, it is a 'compressed' view that is still limited by monitor or print.
Finally, 4K projectors can mimic the DR we could see in projected transparencies, but the resolution is far under what digital cameras can capture...wasted resolution!

What you say is too true. However I have seen displayed on my humble Dell monitor some amazing dynamic range as captured by the X2D which has a very wide dynamic range. The photo is SOOC and the camera had no trick filters on the lens. It did have a UV filter, period. Check out this night shot of an "oil remediation" ship once home ported here in Astoria, OR.

This is the link to Flickr: B0000029

This is the reduced in size by GIMP file.

B0000029e.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Back
Top