Herman
The Image Stimulator
- Location
- The Netherlands
- Name
- Herman
Which digital cameras (MFT / APS-C / FF) match DR of film cameras?
Which digital cameras (MFT / APS-C / FF) match DR of film cameras?
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.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.
If film could do all 10 zones, why then did Ansel Adams reduce the range in the lights, shadows or at both ends?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.
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!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...
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.If film could do all 10 zones, why then did Ansel Adams reduce the range in the lights, shadows or at both ends?
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:Where can online check DR of digital cameras?
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.Seems that film has better DR?
Not usually. Limited long telephoto lens selection, for one thing.Thanks for the replies.
Medium format cameras are slow fps cameras?
Are they used for photographing any sports activities?
Technology changes these things all the time but historically and, I think for now, yes. The purpose of them has, till now, been for slow controlled shooting.Medium format cameras are slow fps cameras?
No, see above.Are they used for photographing any sports activities?
Agree. I would even take that back to my 2003 E-1, Fred.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.
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!