E3 Dynamic Range - According to DPreview

[Oly5050]

"The graphs below show that although the E-3 does well with shadow detail and offers a similar overall dynamic range to its nearest competitors, it falls short - up to 1.0EV short - of the best in class when it comes to the all-important highlight region (using the default, metered exposure). As mentioned above, the E-3 is a distinct improvement on the E-510 (and narrowed the gap considerably), there is still a way to go before it can match the best cameras in this class when it comes to capturing the brightest highlights."


Edit : I am also not sure what SAT settings they used to measure / perform this test. Putting this up for discussion.

[drakon09]

I'd like to point out that the DPR method doesn't really measure DR, it measures tonal curve.

But take it for what you will.

[Oly5050]

But I think the curve ends also indicate the dynamic range. And it does look like the E3 has 1 stop more in the shadows, and 1 stop less in the highlights. To me, it looks about the same, approximately 8-9 stops of dynamic range, I think average about 8.8 stops. So why this conclusion saying the E3 falls short to its competitors in dynamic range?

[DiGdUb]

Originally Posted by Oly5050 But I think the curve ends also indicate the dynamic range. And it does look like the E3 has 1 stop more in the shadows, and 1 stop less in the highlights. To me, it looks about the same, approximately 8-9 stops of dynamic range, I think average about 8.8 stops. So why this conclusion saying the E3 falls short to its competitors in dynamic range?

probably because of this.

[MC42]

My 2cents please.

I think the charts tells us that E3 shooters should expose to preserve the highlights and let the camera take care of the shadow areas, whereas with the D300 you'd expose for the shadows and let the camera handle the highlights. It's just a different shooting philosophy. Different tools...

Of course, since i own neither (but am thinking of the E3!) this is somewhat speculative on my part.

[drakon09]

Originally Posted by MC42 My 2cents please. I think the charts tells us that E3 shooters should expose to preserve the highlights and let the camera take care of the shadow areas, whereas with the D300 you'd expose for the shadows and let the camera handle the highlights. It's just a different shooting philosophy. Different tools... Of course, since i own neither (but am thinking of the E3!) this is somewhat speculative on my part.

Yup, that's exactly the practical, real world aspect to all this.

[Oly5050]

Originally Posted by MC42 My 2cents please. I think the charts tells us that E3 shooters should expose to preserve the highlights and let the camera take care of the shadow areas, whereas with the D300 you'd expose for the shadows and let the camera handle the highlights. It's just a different shooting philosophy. Different tools... Of course, since i own neither (but am thinking of the E3!) this is somewhat speculative on my part.

Originally Posted by drakon09 Yup, that's exactly the practical, real world aspect to all this.

In that case, does it not mean that the conclusions drawn up by DPReview is invalid?? Of course we know that there is some bias involved, but from what I can see, the results do not support his conclusions...unless of course, highlight details are cherished more by photographers than shadow details. BTW, do the marketing dept in Olympus ever read all these reviews and try to do some appropriate marketing?

[aryanto]

Originally Posted by drakon09 Yup, that's exactly the practical, real world aspect to all this.

meaning we should under expose?

[pisduck]

kind of curious, I don't have the E-3 but does it have better shadow range than the D300? Kind of weird right because the shadow range is limited by noise and olympus is never better than other manufacturer in terms of noise.

[Oly5050]

Originally Posted by pisduck kind of curious, I don't have the E-3 but does it have better shadow range than the D300? Kind of weird right because the shadow range is limited by noise and olympus is never better than other manufacturer in terms of noise.

Let me try to enlighten you (I am not an expert, but I think I know a little). Noise is a function of ISO. The higher the ISO, the more noise. In the E3, according to DPreview, noise is a problem above ISO 800. However, they did acknowledge that the "noise" in the E3 is not unpleasant. It is more of a grain which some photographers actually crave. Let me quote the paragraph from DPreview.

"At anything over ISO 800 noise levels at the 'low' and 'off' settings are pretty high, but as the crops below show the main problem is luminance noise (so the images look grainy rather than being plagued by color blotches). This leads us to believe that even in the 'Off' setting Olympus is applying some chroma NR to the JPEGs at higher ISOs. We'd recommend using 'Low' for most shots in the ISO 400-1600 range; the grain isn't hideous and the detail retention is considerably higher."


And also, although grainy, compared to the other cameras, detail retention is very high. If u look at the pictures, u will know what I mean. The E3 looks grainy with very good details even at ISO3200. But with the others, esp A700, it becomes really soft, and the noise appears as blotches.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page20.asp

So to answer your question, this is not a conundrum at all. U can have better range in the shadows and at <800 ISO, there will be no noise/grain issue. it does not mean that a noise equals shadows. And yes....E3 has better DR in shadows. It is known fact. And also, if it looks dark on the E3 LCD, u dun really have to worry. When u put it on computer LCD or print it, it actually looks just fine.

[Oly5050]

Originally Posted by aryanto meaning we should under expose?

I guess than means that if u have to, u can underexpose by 0.3 to 1 stop, and u will be in the identical DR as D300. I dun understand why DPreview keeps hammering this point of decreased dynamic range when all it means is that the range is just 1 stop towards the left. This is all just contributing to the bad propaganda. Also, they have acknowledged that the noise is actually more of grain, rather than noise, but yet they still keep telling people that the Olympus sensors are noisy. I just want to discuss this to make sure that their conclusions are indeed based on their results and I hope that we can be objective about this so that everyone understands the truth.

[dorts]

Actually, the E-3 does underexpose a little bit.

[zuikoku]

Seems that many of us are impressed by the wide DR.
Basically if the visual colors are not reproduced on each color channel (R,G,B) .. what's the DR anyway if we still insist on Color mode ?

A wide Dynamic Range is very useful if we shoot B/W imo.

[Oly5050]

Originally Posted by aryanto meaning we should under expose?

I guess than means that if u have to, u can underexpose by 0.3 to 1 stop, and u will be in the identical DR as D300. I dun understand why DPreview keeps hammering this point of decreased dynamic range when all it means is that the range is just 1 stop towards the left. This is all just contributing to the bad propaganda. Also, they have acknowledged that the noise is actually more of grain, rather than noise, but yet they still keep telling people that the Olympus sensors are noisy. I just want to discuss this to make sure that their conclusions are indeed based on their results and I hope that we can be objective about this so that everyone understands the truth.

[dorts]

Originally Posted by Oly5050 I guess than means that if u have to, u can underexpose by 0.3 to 1 stop, and u will be in the identical DR as D300. I dun understand why DPreview keeps hammering this point of decreased dynamic range when all it means is that the range is just 1 stop towards the left. This is all just contributing to the bad propaganda. Also, they have acknowledged that the noise is actually more of grain, rather than noise, but yet they still keep telling people that the Olympus sensors are noisy. I just want to discuss this to make sure that their conclusions are indeed based on their results and I hope that we can be objective about this so that everyone understands the truth.

You can't change the fact that smaller sensors will generate more noise than bigger sensors. And grain is still noise.

[spidey89]

I'm curious,isn't noise the digital grain?and isn't grain the none digital noise?

[bousozoku]

Originally Posted by dorts You can't change the fact that smaller sensors will generate more noise than bigger sensors. And grain is still noise.

Given the same materials and techniques, a smaller sensor will generate more noise, but that doesn't preclude that a sensor of a smaller size using one technique can be much cleaner than a larger sensor using another technique. We've already seen this with computer processors.

Originally Posted by spidey89 I'm curious,isn't noise the digital grain?and isn't grain the none digital noise?

That would be my interpretation. Some people like grain in their film photos. Digital sensor noise isn't always even so it won't always look like grain, i.e. when it disturbs/obscures the details.

[olymac]

Originally Posted by Oly5050 "The graphs below show that although the E-3 does well with shadow detail and offers a similar overall dynamic range to its nearest competitors, it falls short - up to 1.0EV short - of the best in class when it comes to the all-important highlight region (using the default, metered exposure). As mentioned above, the E-3 is a distinct improvement on the E-510 (and narrowed the gap considerably), there is still a way to go before it can match the best cameras in this class when it comes to capturing the brightest highlights."

I have fairly extensive use of the D300 versus E510. The charts do confirm my perception that the D300 does give superior DR compare to the e510.

[DiGdUb]

I think what dpreview is trying say is if you try to shoot the e3 the same way as with other cameras, and try to bring up the exposure to the correct exposure as the e3 tends to under expose, then you will have problems as the shadow area will become too noisy.

[Oly5050]

Originally Posted by DiGdUb I think what dpreview is trying say is if you try to shoot the e3 the same way as with other cameras, and try to bring up the exposure to the correct exposure as the e3 tends to under expose, then you will have problems as the shadow area will become too noisy.

I dun think that is correct. Conversely, please correct me if I am wrong.

Given the same ISO setting, shadowed areas will NOT be noisier than the brighter areas. Only when there is noise, at higher ISO, will there be noise apparent in the image. It has got nothing to do with shadows or light, but more with sensor sensitivity...ie. ISO.

Also, I disagree that smaller sensors will always means that it will be noisier. I think there have been many writeups about sensor size....something which many photographers are quite obsessed about......and we know that the performance of a sensor depends not only on its size, but also its actual sensor area, its macroscopic and microscopic design, its format (ie. how the sensor blends with the lens mount size, and the lens etc), the software associated with it etc etc. And, if u look at DPReview again...not all noise is the same. Some noise actually look grainy with retention of details, whereas other noise, blotches everything out. The pictures below at ISO3200 show what it means very well.