Dynamic Range

[AndyS]

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2022, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

This site compared various camera's dynamic range performance through all ISO ranges. Interesting outcomes to say the least.https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1 It is default set to the new OM-1 from OM Systems and on the right you can select a camera to compare to.

It appears that the DR for the new OM-1 is the same as the older OMD EM1 mkiii. This is disappointing as the introduction claimed to match FF cameras. Compared to the Canon R3 (pretty much the hands down winner on DR) those two cameras have about 1.1 stop less DR. However the EM1 mkii is only 1/2 stop less than the R3. How weird is that? (all at ISO 3200)

This doesn't coincide with the visual noise levels comparing the EM1 iii to the OM-1 done by OM Systems. The OM-1 is at least 2 stops better than the EM1 iii for digital noise. 3200 on the iii is the same as 12000 on the 1. Haven't seen a comparison to the R3.

My personal opinion is that a half stop is visually negligible in the real world and a full stop may be noticeable but YMMV. For my work it doesn't matter at all because I shoot almost nothing that has that broad spectrum of luminance.

I guess what all this boils down to is tech numbers don't mean much. Go photograph something, capture memories and make art. It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools . . .

[HAB911]

1. agreed

many purists are more concerned with hardware than art or just enjoyment. For instance, the fight over prime vs zoom, which for me comes down to flexibility and my obsession with cropping in-camera rather than post.

[AndyS]

2. I love zooms now.

Back in the '80s it was prime all the way but at my current age and condition it just ain't possible to 'zoom with my feet' anymore.

[HAB911]

3. LOL, ain't that the truth

[GoneOffShore]

4. Funny you should say that. I very seldom put the zoom on my camera.

For me, it's a matter of disciplining myself into making better pictures. Plus the kinds of pictures I make don't seem to need telephoto.
And I love my Sigma lens.

[AndyS]

5. To each his own.

I shoot wildlife including wading birds from a kayak. Kinda' hard to quickly change composition just a little by stepping back or moving in a few paces. Ya' get real wet doing that.

There is also the mystique of fixed focal lenses being sharper. That was partially true before the current state of digital. The real issue with zooms back in the day was optical distortion. Barrel or pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration and vignette could be quite bad with zooms. That's why only third parties made zooms with a range greater than 2x, the camera makers couldn't afford to put the logo on that sort of equipment. Now the lens talks to the camera and vice versa and computational imaging fixes all that. The only place you'll see that now is in raw if your post software doesn't correct it. That's one of the reasons I prefer to shoot only manufacturer's lenses although Olympus (OM Systems) now reads Sigma and Tamron as well as Panny.

[GoneOffShore]

6. If I was making pictures of wildlife, I'd be using similar types of equipment.

Ninety-five percent of my images are of people.
And I like to get close, hence a 30mm fixed lens. A zoom makes my profile larger.

[HAB911]

7. funny story

As i have mentioned, I'm all about the long reach. I use a Df and D750 and purchased a Nikkor 200-500 and TC. Loved it so much, I bought a Sigma 150-600 Comp and TC and haven't removed them more than 10 times since 2020 (for some cloud photos). It still blows my mind that these two photos were taken with the same lens, 200-500 w/TC @1000mm. I was 10' from the anole and he watched me, but I did not invade his space!

https://jamesdevore.smugmug.com/60-YEAR-JOURNEY-IN-PHOTOGRAPHY/THE-GARDEN-AND-ABOVE/SOARING-ABOVE-THE-GARDEN/i-n4bTWJC

https://jamesdevore.smugmug.com/60-YEAR-JOURNEY-IN-PHOTOGRAPHY/THE-GARDEN-AND-ABOVE/GARDEN-FLORAFAUNA/i-qPTbsQd

[GoneOffShore]

8. Brilliant pictures.