Dynamic Range FX vs DX « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Dynamic Range FX vs DX

(11 posts) (8 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

safyre

senior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 52
offline

Hey all,

Didn't see a post regarding this, so hope this is not a repeat.
This question is for those that have experience with both FX and DX cameras; how much better is the dynamic range for FX over DX (especially in regards to highlight control?) And I mean in real world uses, not the charts that Dxo Mark has.

One thing I dislike about digital is that it does a lousy job at controlling highlights in comparison to negative film. I shoot in a lot of high contrasty lighting situations, and many times, the highlights get easily blown out in my DX camera, but look so much better in film. Does FX do any better job in this regard? If not, is there anything that gives a similar dynamic range to film? Or is there a method that people use to imitate film, like some pseudo-hdr to retain both shadow and highlight detail (without it looking like its obviously hdr)? Thanks!

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

This may be more an issue of the latest sensors vs. the some of the earlier ones. My D4 has a phenomenal range and this is manifest primarily in shadow density/detail. I think once one blows out the sensor in the highlights, that is it.

if the new D400 comes out it will have more likely than not a DX sensor similar to the D4 in the shadow detail. I suspect the primary issue in digital is to use HDR which is in a vague manner like over exposing the film and reducing the development time.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

I think the objective testing would be more accurate than subjective opinion. Like msmoto I think FX v DX wouldn't matter as much as old sensor vs. new sensor. We have the best of the new FX sensors out now but we don't yet have the best of the new DX sensors out. I think you have to wait to compare the D7200 and the D400 DX sensors against the D600, D800 and D4 sensors. Just about 6 months too early to answer the question.

Posted 5 months ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Like others said, it really isn't a matter of FX vs DX when it comes to dynamic range but more a matter of different sensors. Period.

For example, would you compare the D7000 against the D700 or would you compare it against the D800? Two FX models, one older and one newer but both will fare differently against the D7000. Also, how about D7000 against D4 or D800? Two newer FX models against one older DX but again either will fare differently.

Having said all of that, if you still insist on comparing dynamic range between FX and DX then the closest you'll get to that is with the D7000 vs D800 since it's widely believed that the D800's sensor is an upscaled, albeit improved, version of the D7000's sensor.

Posted 5 months ago #
Ironheart

senior member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 91
offline

Safyre, if you want a subjective opinion of a better way to emulate film here's mine: Underexpose.

Modern sensors have a phenominal amount of shadow detail but as you have observed easily blow out the highlights. Then in post processing you can re-level the photo to pull out shadow and push the highlights if you want. No different than what we used to do in the darkroom with contrast while printing, just less smelly.

Posted 5 months ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

About HDR, we had an HDR thread a while ago and an NR member, proudgeek, posted a couple of his HDR photos which actually looked more like normal photos, even maybe film exposures, than typical HDR.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6136#post-95218

If you scroll down a bit further, you can also see the middle exposure for his HDR images.

Posted 5 months ago #
safyre

senior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 52
offline

msmoto/donald/iris -

Thanks for your replies! (I'm using a D90 by the way) For some reason, I've always thought that having a larger sensor = more dynamic range (if they are both the same generation), is this not true? I remember watching a video on youtube which compared the D800 to a med format Hassleblad and the Hassleblad did a significantly better job at pulling detail out of some blown out highlights than the D800. Is this simply due to better technology, or does sensor size have something to do with it as well?

Ironheart -

I will definitely spend some time seeing how underexposing helps with the situation. I usually expose to the right and to the point of clipping highlights. But even without blown out pixels, its hard to bring back the highlight detail in Lightroom/Photoshop. The reason I haven't tried intentionally underexposing is for worry that the opposite might occur: detail in properly exposed highlights, but loss of detail in the crushed shadows. However, as you mention that current sensors have a great deal of shadow detail, I will see how it looks like after editing. Just trying to recreate the film look as much as possible.

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

FX vs DX my experience is zero difference in the higher end/newer sensors. I have a D50 (really old) which is bad in dynamic range, a D300 which is leagues better than the D50, A Fujifilm X100 (which I think is the best DX sensor I have used (xpro1 have not used)), and my D800 which is simply amazing.

Current DSLRs are sitting around 11-13 stops of measured dynamic range. Fine grain Film was measured around 12 stops max. Most consumer film was around 5-9 stops from what I have read.

What you are talking about is a bit different than dynamic range, but tonal recovery or in film terms, Pushing and Pulling film tolerances. This is a bit different with digital files and changes based on shooting RAW, JPEG and even which software you use to "develop" your images. It also changes with sensors and brands. My Fuji X100, I can recover highlights like crazy but the shadows are not as forgiving. The D300 can recover shadows better than highlights. My D800 is really forgiving on both sides shooting in raw. But of course that depends on the ISO you are shooting at for all of them.

I know some photographers would miss exposure by multiple stops with film and still be able to recover it. With Auto ISO and everything else auto, along with the ISO performance being well above film beyond 200, there is very little reason to be off more than any camera can handle.

So to the real question, is digital better than film, yes. Is there a difference in DX vs FX, maybe at higher ISOs but not that much.

Posted 5 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

As other have said; modern sensors are huge improvement of those made only a few years

Yes the bigger sensors do have a higher range. At the top of the pile comes the very expensive Hasselblads with the D800 not far behind but the sensor in the D3200 comes a very close third. Every one is waiting to see what Nikon will put in the elusive D400

Posted 5 months ago #
ericbowles

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 56
offline

My perspective is a little different. While I agree that in general, there should be no difference in dynamic range of similar sized pixels, in reality every new generation of camera seems to get a little bit more out of the pixels. For example, the pixels of the D7000 are near the same size as the D800, but the latter has slightly better dynamic range. Even with the same sensor - the D3 vs the D3s or the D300 vs the D300s - you can see improvement in dynamic range due to the way the information is processed.

I don't rule out the value of DxOMark's data on this subject. The eye can't differentiate small differences in dynamic range, so the only approach is to measure it. DxoMark quantifies what you can't see.

All this is pretty pointless unless you are working at base ISO or lowest ISO levels. As you increase ISO, you lose dynamic range - to the point where images dynamic range is not very impressive at ISO 1600 even though you might have no noise. At ISO 400 you lose a meaningful amount of dynamic range.

There is a lot less emphasis on dynamic range and color quality than noise levels. I see that as misplaced - it's not just about high ISO noise, so you question about dynamic range is important.

I agree with using DxOMark's methodology - there is some small benefit from resizing in the dynamic range scores. That makes a bit of sense and provides a little advantage to FX over DX that would be lost if you simply cropped to DX proportions. In the interpolation of multiple pixels when you downsize, you are taking 3 pixels and combining them into one. If two of those pixels are blown and one is not, the average of the three is not blown. The same is true for shadows. So FX does have a small advantage from sensor size on those cameras where that is relevant.

Posted 5 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

ericbowles said:

There is a lot less emphasis on dynamic range and color quality than noise levels. I see that as misplaced - it's not just about high ISO noise, so you question about dynamic range is important.

/blockquote>

+1

Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Dynamic Range FX vs DX

Reply