The approximate Dynamic Range coverage of a film SLR?
Posted by admin | Under Canon EOS 50D Digital SLR Wednesday Dec 2, 2009Well, I guess you can say that I’m trying to keep tabs on the evolution of the DSLR market. While, manufacturers race each other in the Mega Pixel race, some camera companies (Fuji and Nikon), have been very keenly attempting to claim their dominance in the "ever so important" Dynamic Range throne and it shows. It’s kind of like two people fighting over the same bit of land and a third and fourth person are like, "well, let’s go over here…it’s even more lush over there anyway". Thus, #1 goes to the SuperCCD-based Fuji S3 and S5 Pro at a whopping 13.5EV of DR coverage, which explains why my SuperCCD Finepix F30D is a highly sought after compact camera, nearly 3 years later. #2 is the Nikon D90 at 12.5EV (even higher than the D300 and D3). Meanwhile, my Canon EOS 50D sits at 11.4 and is a bit higher than the 1DS Mark III and 5D.
Dynamic Range is one of the most important areas in the future of Digital Photography (more so than resolution). Now that they have managed to take us far enough into the Mega Pixel war, I’m wondering how much further do we have until we approach the coverage of negative film/film SLR’s? Taking any reputable film SLR to film combination for comparison, does anyone know what the approximate/average DR coverage of a film SLR is? Could one guess say, around 25-30EV?
Oops…correction, the EOS 50D is above the 1D Mark II only. For an overview, check this out.
http://photocritic.org/25-cameras-with-the-best-dynamic-range/
Ahh…perfect! Thanks for the contributions, I have learned a lot! I always knew negative film to be the best but I had no idea that we already crossed over the films DR territory. It makes sense that film just handled it better than digital, so I suppose that is where the DSLR evolutions lays, to pick up where film left off (which, I am now convinced is more near than far), and to make the new goal the human eye hey? Thanks for the technical feedback everyone! I was hoping to get an experienced answer and I have.
The dynamic range of digital SLR’s has always been wider than the transparency film it replaced. Shoot in RAW and it increases.
To make the comparison, you really need to do a test. Under identical conditions, shoot with both a 35 mm SLR and DSLR. Bracket the exposures in 1/3rd stop increments over and under the proper exposure.
Examination of the results will show you the narrow DR of Chromes and the reason photographers from that era, nail their exposures every time.
The dynamic range of digital SLR’s has always been wider than the transparency film it replaced. Shoot in RAW and it increases.
To make the comparison, you really need to do a test. Under identical conditions, shoot with both a 35 mm SLR and DSLR. Bracket the exposures in 1/3rd stop increments over and under the proper exposure.
Examination of the results will show you the narrow DR of Chromes and the reason photographers from that era, nail their exposures every time.
References :
proFotog
You’re not ever going to get anywhere near 25 EV with any film.
A good, low contrast slide film like Astia or E100G/GX would be pushing it to reach into zone I-zone II is far more realistic(slides like shadows). A film like this also typically tops out at zone VII. So, at best, you’re not going to see more than 6 stops in a slide film.
Negative films are a little better-you can probably get zone I to IX or X with a good negative film(negatives love highlights), and maybe one or two more with a good black and white film and proper developing.
Where digital and film do differ, however, is how they look at the extremes. If you look at the intensity v. density curve for most films, you’ll find that they’re fairly steep and linear close to zone V, while they taper off gradually toward their limits. By contrast, digital is mostly linear across its entire sensitivity range. Thus, while digital may capture detail in the extremes(particularly in the shadows), it won’t necessarily be visible without some post-processing amplification.
From a purely technical point of view, digital dynamic range has beaten film for a long time. It’s my opinion, however, that film is still superior in this aspect, since it’s much more gentle and natural in its treatment of extremes.
References :