Telling it as it is...

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And in prints? It takes very careful postprocessing to render anything over say 8 EV values in print, and no sensor nowadays is under 11, the better ones, including Leica, considerably in excess.

A very important point indeed. Most of high ISO noise is in shadows and they get crushed in prints anyway due to almost 3 stop dynamic range limitation of prints on dark side (with another 3stop loss on bright side). Print has 6stop total DR compared to 12-13 stops of modern digital sensor.

 

However, I should add that most of today's image viewing happenes on computer monitors with more DR that only loses maybe one stop on both sides compared to what digital sensor captures. But on the favorable side, most viewing is on smartphones at reduced size where high ISO noise is not at all visible.

 

There are so many ifs and buts for the high ISO noise to be visible in final presentation, making the entire discussion academic.

Edited February 18, 2017 by jmahto

[Jared]

And in prints? It takes very careful postprocessing to render anything over say 8 EV values in print, and no sensor nowadays is under 11, the better ones, including Leica, considerably in excess.

 

 

I agree with most of the points you made in this thread... For many of us, the difference between the capabilities of an M(240) and an M10 won't actually help in the real world, and many of us just don't shoot above ISO 1,600 even though we own cameras that can produce good results at higher ISO's.  As you mentioned, I don't think anyone should feel like they need to justify their decision--either to pass on the M10 or to rush out and buy one.  

 

Your point above, though, is a particularly interesting one.  It suggests that if one is making prints, there really is little need to have a dynamic range much greater than 8 EV.  That pre-supposes, though, that the photographer wouldn't choose to compress the real-world dynamic range to fit the media.  I'm not sure that's true.  Certainly, one runs the risk of creating images that appear forced or faked if one isn't very careful, but I can certainly see huge advantages to having a dynamic range in my camera that is much larger than what I can actually reproduce faithfully.  Often, photography isn't about making a "faithful" reproduction, but is about drawing out certain aspects of a scene or emphasizing what might not immediately be obvious in the raw capture.  The most extreme example I can think of is something I do a lot of--astrophotography.  Typical dynamic ranges in an astro photograph are FAR in excess of what even a true 16 bit camera can capture let alone what can accurately be reproduced in a print, but I don't WANT to reproduce in a print the tones captured in the raw data.  I want to draw out the shadow detail without blowing out the highlights.  In short, I want to dramatically compress the dynamic range before making my print.  Ultimately, I want my camera to have a dynamic range sufficient to capture the full range of tones in the scene, even if I choose to modify those tones to fit my presentation.  

 

- Jared

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[steppenw0lf]

If a wider dynamic range is available, simply take it. It won't hurt.

But as usual do not expect much from it. Especially do not make a fuss about it (not like the X1D announcement where 14 stops of DR were suddenly described as a feature close to the holy grail.)

Here again 16bit DR is mentioned - it does not exist in current cameras. 

It comes maybe in a few years. But what will be gained with it ?  (another small improvement)

 

Simply start thinking more practical and avoid swallowing all the technical details - they are often just spread by the marketing department, and not too important in practice.

 

If you had only 5 stops DR and printing would give you the option of 8, then an improvement would be very useful (maybe crucial). Now we have 13 to 14. An improvement is probably not too useful. (definitely not crucial)

Only an improvement of the weakest resource will result in a substantial overall improvement. (Like plant growing, where the mineral/resource that is scarcest will limit the growth.)

Edited February 20, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[jaapv]

I agree with most of the points you made in this thread... For many of us, the difference between the capabilities of an M(240) and an M10 won't actually help in the real world, and many of us just don't shoot above ISO 1,600 even though we own cameras that can produce good results at higher ISO's.  As you mentioned, I don't think anyone should feel like they need to justify their decision--either to pass on the M10 or to rush out and buy one.  

 

Your point above, though, is a particularly interesting one.  It suggests that if one is making prints, there really is little need to have a dynamic range much greater than 8 EV.  That pre-supposes, though, that the photographer wouldn't choose to compress the real-world dynamic range to fit the media.  I'm not sure that's true.  Certainly, one runs the risk of creating images that appear forced or faked if one isn't very careful, but I can certainly see huge advantages to having a dynamic range in my camera that is much larger than what I can actually reproduce faithfully.  Often, photography isn't about making a "faithful" reproduction, but is about drawing out certain aspects of a scene or emphasizing what might not immediately be obvious in the raw capture.  The most extreme example I can think of is something I do a lot of--astrophotography.  Typical dynamic ranges in an astro photograph are FAR in excess of what even a true 16 bit camera can capture let alone what can accurately be reproduced in a print, but I don't WANT to reproduce in a print the tones captured in the raw data.  I want to draw out the shadow detail without blowing out the highlights.  In short, I want to dramatically compress the dynamic range before making my print.  Ultimately, I want my camera to have a dynamic range sufficient to capture the full range of tones in the scene, even if I choose to modify those tones to fit my presentation.  

 

- Jared

I'm not quite sure that astrophotography is a good example, as the dynamic range is often expanded by image stacking.

 

The interesting question, however, is whether one wishes to determise the tonal range at the taking of the image by carefully choosing exposure, or by manipulation in postprocessing.