Sensors: Small or Large? Old or New? - The Reality of Dynamic Range in Digital Photography

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

📛 Become a channel member: kzbin.infojoin ☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel: ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography ❓📩 Direct support: thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket

[@dtibor5903]

I have 5D classic and it is not that bad, it's slightly noisier than for example my Canon M50. I have shot a few weddings with it and it's a perfectly good camera. Nobody will ever notice the difference. Even the high ISO performance is quite good, i can push easily 2 stops images shot at 1600, so basically it can go up to 6400, and it has similar noise like the M50.

[@mikafoxx2717]

​​@@dtibor5903Yeah, old cameras just didn't let you turn it up as much, the maximum iso noise on my 5D is less than my 6D, which has better lowlight overall. They let you turn it up a lot, but it doesn't change the raw, just changes what your metering is, or how many stops above and below metered you get. Arri or such shoot normally at 3200 iso and they do that because with RAW video you only get so many stopd above and below, and faster gives you a more normal range compared to film, with more stops overexporure latitude than under.

[@wanderlust0120]

I thought my PC lagged when you said "36 megapixel". Anyways, nice video!

[@howiegoldfarb1871]

I’m thinking of getting ad800 or a d4 & trading in my Fuji equipment to go full frame.

[@howiegoldfarb1871]

Howie G what’s your opinion thank you

[@evgenipoptoshev4112]

Since 2016, 90 % of my photography has been done with m4/3 bodies. I never missed on dynamic range. Learning to expose properly and shoot raw is key IMO. Exposure compensation is your best friend. Even the best metering system can use help from time to time. And let's not forget that the human eye doesn't have an unlimited DR either. In some extremely high contrast situations, having a blown highlights and/or blocked shadows looks more realistic.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely, I completely agree. I think that those super-muted ultra wide dynamic range images are very rarely a desirable. Many thanks for your great contributions on many videos!

[@eadc888]

Spot on mate. Sometimes it’s nice for shadows to behave like shadows

[@livefirecook1346]

I definitely agree with everything you said. Another thing to remember is that it appears manufacturers have stopped working to improve sensors. There's been no real improvement for the last 5 to 6 years (basically with the release of the D850 and Sony A7RIII). All improvements now seem to be concerned with AF, FPS, and ways to compete with dedicated video cameras. If image quality is your main concern there haven't been any improvements since that generation of sensors.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

You have made a very valid point here! Things did not change much in terms of image quality, but the higher readout speeds - which are crucial for better AF, FPS, and EVF performance - were the major advancement. I have to admit that I am a huge fan of the OM-1's sensor, as I have seen IQ improvement, but the camera uses a fundamentally different sensor than the previous Olympus models. Be that as it may, the main improvements are in the AF, FPS and EVF department. As you've said - "old" cameras (also DSLRs!) are still relevant, and will be as they are just good enough.

[@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision]

image quality probably reached its peak. Not much to improve

[@sexysilversurfer]

Most of the research and development in sensors is for smartphones and then it drips into cameras. With a shrinking market no one wants to invest money in it.

[@AABB-px8lc]

@@sexysilversurfer same AI painted oversaturated crp on mobile , atrifical clean sky with same color every year despite claims, no thanks.

[@jessejayphotography]

The plateau of improvements in sensor tech is due to the limitations of current CMOS sensor manufacturing. We are seeing faster readouts, frame blending (mostly cellphones), dual gain circuit outputs etc… We won’t see leaps on DR until new sensor technology is developed. Panasonic has organic sensor in development but it’s a long way off and has issues.

[@benejpocock]

You videos are so informative Thomas - I can't stop watching them and have learnt so much. Thank you. What I'm starting to realise is that a lot of 'it' is talk. When your friend in the pub says his camera is better as it has more megapixels, a bigger sensor and more dynamic range. They've probably spent a load more money yet don't actually know how to utilise the 'better bits' (if indeed they are even 'better'). I think the M43 sensor cameras are so overlooked because a lot of people rule them out based on having 'a tiny sensor' and 'only 20MP', but from my very unscientific testing, the OM-1.2 I have on my desk alongside my Fuji X-H2 is making a really good case for showing Fuji the door. The images are equally as good, the camera has more features I'll actually use, and the system as a whole is considerably lighter and more compact. I can't think of what I don't like currently... Thank you again and I look forward to your next videos.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, that is just great to read. Regarding your assessments - well, I completely agree. I'm planning to expand my series on some "photo misconceptions" in the future. Thank you very much for your support! Best, Thomas 📸

[@RohamBroccoli]

For me, photography is an "escape route". when everyday life takes over and adult life settles down like a blanket. In this bubble I want to be, just be. Enjoy the nature, listen to the stream flowing and the birds chirping. I don't want to be technical. Blown highlights. Crashed shadows. Soft corners. I do not care. But that said, I'm no professional. No weight on the shoulders to "deliver". By the way, did I say that I appreciate your technical videos? I do. Vielen Dank

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for your excellent, eloquent statement - exactly these points are why I just like cameras that resonate with me. As soon as I get to post process my images, I'm crushing shadows and blowing highlights, because it just looks awesome, right! So who really cares if you have 25 stops of DR recorded, no client ever asked me about that or complained because they were not "there"

[@stephenelderphoto]

Another fascinating video Thomas. This topic is definitely something that comes up regularly. In fact, I had just finished watching a vlog from another KZbinr who stated "of course M4/3 has lower dynamic range than full frame". It was so coincidental that yours was the next video I watched. In any case, I'm very happy with my OM-1 for the whole package of features it offers. Thanks for another great presentation Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation! I myself am also very satisfied with the OM-1 and its performance, just shot another magazine editorial with it and the quality of the camera is just great, in every way. I'll soon follow up with new videos on the OM-1 and its functions! Thanks again, Stephen!

[@tremaincheerful4189]

Another excellent and entertaining video, Thomas. Your depth of understanding and ability to explain it to others is without equal, and so appreciated.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words. Cannot thank you enough, really!

[@garybatch4102]

Excellent presentation; data-based and practical! The only ones who might not like this are the manufacturers' marketing teams where it's primarily a numbers game: more is better...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, I think you are absolutely right haha. Thank you very much for your kind words!

[@heikkivalkonen1075]

Well, if you look this from manufacturers and marketing teams perspective, only value they can present is the theoretical maximum DR value, since there is no standardized method to measure "photographic DR" that could be compared between different brands and manufacturers. So they choose to publish value that they have measured in their own lab. We have to look for third party labs, such as photons photos old DxOlab, that measure and compare sensors.

[@telebruce221]

Thank you Thomas, a very enlightening video! I am an amateur photographer. Years ago, I started shooting slide film, and just got used to the 'small' dynamic range of that film compared to negative film. As a new photographer, I longed for a film that had the same or close to the dynamic range of the human eye. Then I could 'catch everything'! As I gained experience, I learned that having limited dynamic range is not a bad thing, one can do a lot creatively with it, capturing sun beams through a windows in a dark room for example. When I switched to digital cameras, I felt I was on familiar ground, and just started using many of the same techniques as I used with slide film. I've never had a complaint or criticism of 'low' dynamic range in my photos. I just try to get the best exposure for the mood, scene, feeling, whatever of the image I see in my head, and I'm happy with it. It's actually fun to see what I can do with the range I have. What really needs to change is the dynamic range of the monitors we use to view our digital photos with; but then, that might be another creative avenue to work with. I'm Subscribed. Looking forward to exploring other videos of yours. thanks again.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing your experiences - I've read everything carefully, I am totally with you. The "limit" or working with the limitations are actually ok! Thank you very much, also for subscribing! Hope to hear from you soon!

[@mikafoxx2717]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Yeah for real, unless you're boosting shadows by 5 stops in all you images, you don't need that much. You can't put more dynamic range onto a 6 stops screen or print or it looks super flat and boring. Slide film was a mere 5-6 stops usually and some may have even been under 5, like Velvia. And yet everyone raves about the colour and contrast of something that the Nikon D1 beats for dynamic range.

[@Richard.Cabeza]

I love your videos. the thorough investigative research that you do, video set up, sound and lighting quality and the excellent dialog delivery that goes into them. It's like watching inspector gadget teaching these facts that not very many people know. I've been binge watching many of your videos and learning a lot. I so much appreciate the effort you've put into them. I don't subscribe to many YT channels, but I have subscribed to you and will watch more and some of them over a few times. Great learning material. Thank you. The shutter simulation between scenes is a good touch.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for your exceptionally kind comment, Richard. Feedback like yours means a lot to me and I very much appreciate that you took the time to share that with me. I'm very thankful to welcome you as a subscriber - I hope future content will be of equal interest to you! Best wishes, Thomas

[@charlescamp1819]

Spot on! Regardless of the slight image quality increase, the large-sensor camera buys me nothing if I’ve left it home because it’s no fun to carry. I’m seriously considering a switch from full-frame to the OM1, and your insights are slowly helping me to make that decision. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Completely agree. Thank you very much. I'd say you would be happy. I've still got everything from digital medium format to 43, and I'm using the latter practically all the time. Best, Thomas

[@noelchignell1048]

Well for my bird photography hobby where I prefer to shoot in very low light and/or strongly backlit situations 2 stops improvement (which is 4 times more light) is very helpful. When I switched from a Canon 7Dii to a 5Diii and 1DX the improvement was mind blowing. Also the high iso performance of these full frame sensors seems freakish to me after years of using only APS-c. Bird photography is an extreme form of photography where high speed action, low light and tiny erratic subjects mean that having high performance cameras and lenses are very helpful. I also avoid shooting wide open as it's likely to miss focus more on fast moving tiny birds so when I use my 400 f/2.8 I generally stop down to f/4 or preferably f/5.6 or even f/8 and keep the shutter speed to at least 1/400 second or preferably higher.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

That is great to hear - the performance of these cameras is truly impressive, and they are great value for money!

[@eafortson]

Thanks for saying this. I’m constantly trying to explain to my full frame friends how terrible the dynamic range is on my M50. I wish someone had explained this to me before I bought my camera.

[@noelchignell1048]

@@eafortson you don't really appreciate the advantage of the bigger sensor until you try it out. I recommend trying a full frame dslr like the 5Diii which are very affordable and great cameras

[@blanked3]

"High ISO performance of these full frame sensors seems freakish" Ikr! I just bought my first full frame camera recently, it's crazy to me to shoot at ISO's like 1600 and 6400, no problem. And with a flash, I'm literally shooting at minimum flash power 😂😅😭

[@noelchignell1048]

@@blanked3 I've shot at 40,000 iso and still got a reasonable image so long as it's correctly exposed. I don't restrict my iso range at all

[@FJWoods007]

Subscribing mostly because of your refined wardrobe. The camera part is excellent, too.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I knew that wearing a tie would finally pay off! 😂 Thank you!

[@zetacrucis681]

Nice overview that puts things into perspective. It's a most convenient truth for those of us on a tight budget who want a great performing digital with excellent traditional photographic functionally and don't need to shoot a gazillion frames per second, a focus point for every other pixel on the sensor, or any heavy in-camera processing / AI hocus-pocus nonsense. For hobbies like astrophotography, there is not much between a 10+ y.o. DSLR and a modern mirrorless costing 10-30x more. Cameras like the Canon 6D and Nikon D600 costing less than a low-end smartphone are already (pardon the pun) stellar performers and I see no need to go to huge expense buying a new or recent camera. Even for more general use, for the average hobbyist or even serious enthusiast, there are many great second hand options out there for a fraction of new camera prices that do the business where it counts. I appreciate though that pro photographers will need the latest features & functionality to keep up with the competition, but more importantly to keep up appearances in front of clients.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for sharing that! I have to admit that I am fully comfortable with showing up with a MFT or old DSLR to a shoot, no one ever asked any questions. I think it is mostly in our heads.

[@banditalley9592]

What a wonderfully thorough and informative video! I used to shoot weddings on Canon 1Ds MkII - about 8.5 stops similar to the 5D. Several times I could rescue highlights and shadows to make perfect exposures from RAW even at that level. I think the dynamic range argument says more about the ability of the photographer to expose correctly than it does about what camera format you need.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed - having more DR is great, and I also have to rescue photos from time to time. But it is exactly as you've said - it is us photographers screwing up, not the limitation of a given camera system. Many thanks for the comment!

[@thedarkslide]

Very good overview and myth busting. I would add some slight caveats around the need for higher shutter speeds in landscape photography: 1. Mountains and buildings do not move. Clouds, trees and water do move. Freezing their movement into an exposure may require a single exposure with a high enough shutter speed, not allowing bracketing. 2. Higher shutter speeds may also be needed when there isn't necessarily subject movement, but the camera itself may move (even when on a tripod). Vibrations from traffic, people walking by your tripod, of a very heavy camera/lens setup on a tripod fully extended may require a fast enough shutter speed after all for sharp images. Everything you said still applies and is very sound advice.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks - I completely agree with the two caveats you mentioned! It was a bit of a generalisation on my part to simplify the argument. Many thanks again, much appreciated!

[@davidmilisock5200]

There are far more issues than dynamic range to consider, great video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Completely agree! Thanks for the comment, David!

[@craignichols21]

I shoot a lot of HDR landscapes, and I have something perhaps curious to add. Sometimes I do not want all of the dynamic range and enjoy the fact that I can easily create black shadows in sunsets and sunrises. In fact, I have often been disappointed with HDR because it gets rid of mystery. I like that I have a choice.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely, you are completely right! In the following video, I illustrate exactly what you have observed - having less is not necessarily bad, as this is the way human perception works. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Thanks for your contribution!

[@BrunoChalifour]

??? I am confused here, why don't you use HDR just when you need it. Beside, if you keep all the shots you can definitely go back to the one you need. Tools are as good as we know how to use them, don't you think?

[@craignichols21]

@@BrunoChalifour that is exactly what I do. My point is that if you make a sensor that inherently incorporates a huge dynamic range, equivalent to today's HDR images, sometimes, even often, that is not desireable. My point is that I don't care about buying a camera with the extra dynamic range, especially if it is a hindrance. Although, to be fair, manufacturers can probably create a limited dynamic range mode.

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@craignichols21 Well unfortunately we are not there yet and the dynamic range of today's sensors is still limited compared to our eyes/brain's potential adaptation to light. HDR has a look that unless mastered does appear artificial. A lot of people have a tendency to overuse it I the same way some did with sharpening when it came out. Using unfortunately does not mean mastering.

[@Xirpzy]

​@@craignichols21 I guess it wouldnt be hard to add an SDR mode. Its all digital anyway. But I dont see a scenario where I personally would want less info in my raw files.

[@RJPhotographics]

Professional indeed ;) Further to your experiences with scene dynamic range, I'm coming into photography from a background in graphic design, and I feel pretty clued up on brief specification - be it for magazines, bus stop advertisements, websites or html5 banner ads etc. And with that, the best printers money can buy, will in ideal conditions reproduce

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hehe 😉 Thanks for sharing your professional experiences as well - it is really astounding to read very similar statements in the comments repeatedly. Proves the point - DR in photography is only an issue if you are looking at spec sheets only...

[@pattyoneill91]

1:20 “It’s about time for a serious reality check about photography silicon” *sweats profusely in excitement* *nerdy pathways activated, serotonin dispensed*

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha 😆 That comment made my day

[@gregoryvarano8002]

Great Video Thomas, you explained the topic clearly. Well done :)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks!

[@jpdj2715]

We need to distinguish two kinds of Dynamic Range (DR). (1) The operating range of a camera (cf. temperature operating range) that is generally referenced as DR, and (2) a camera's contrast envelope that is the DR available to a single shot. These two can be far apart. When you say what you need in 1 shot, this is the contrast envelope version of DR. Not sure where you got the 4 stops from for "an evenly lit subject", but in the film days in our discipline of densitometry (and sensitometry) we used a 10-log base for i*t and most film would give a contrast envelope in the range of 10-log=4, some went to 4.5 or 5. "Stops" are 2-log and compared to 10-log "4" is peanuts - abysmal. In studio photography under controlled light, we can keep contrast relatively low, but elsewhere? Note that LV 10 already is darkish in available light photography - and light level dictates contrast.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Interesting contribution - thank you very much.

[@Drmikekuna]

I agree 100% with your thoughtful assessment. In 2019 I made a KZbin video that said that any decent prosumer/professional camera from the last 10 years could accomplish most professional photography needs, and those cameras still hold up today. My first DSLR was purchased in 2003 and was the Canon Digital Rebel (Canon 300D). In some normal situations, its dynamic range seemed lacking. However, that was not the case with my 2009 Nikon D90, which still takes great photos. I now use a Canon 5D IV and a Canon 5D III for professional work, which serves my needs well. Newer cameras have advanced features like better tracking, possibly quicker focusing, and better video capabilities. However, such things are optional in the work that I do. Thanks again for this very good video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Mike! Thank you very much for the comment, your kind words and the sharing of your experiences! It is great to read that we are on the same page here - I'll also check out your video ASAP. The real issue is that the 5D-series cameras you are using are actually so good that they can get every (!) job done. Bad times for manufacturers trying to sell you new stuff. I mean, even the focus systems on these cameras are top notch and absolutely future proof.

[@borderlands6606]

Dynamic range is more useful for general use cameras than studio or landscape photography, where filters, lighting and multiple exposures can be employed. It's also important to remember that most stops of dynamic range are for shadow recovery, not highlights. I had a Canon 5D until 2 years ago, and while the colours were good and 12mp resolution was not a problem, it was difficult to recover detail in any backlit scene.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for adding that - completely agree!

[@raksh9]

The 5D Mark II has awful shadow banding and crosshatching, especially in underexposed images. Attempting to push the shadows makes this very apparent. Today's sensors have clean shadows which can be pushed two stops without major issue.

[@borderlands6606]

@@raksh9 The 5D had highlight banding, which was its most annoying feature. By comparison my 24mp Lumix S5 has extraordinary dynamic range - perhaps due to its modest megapixel count - and is the only camera I have owned where ISO can be effectively ignored. However, the Canon 5D is an 18 year old digital camera, which is light years technologically speaking.

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

@@xcx8646 you can't generalize like that. If you want to preserve blue skies you have to underexpose, so the midtones will be very dark and if your camera lacking dynamic range you will end up with noisy images trying to push the shadows. Dynamic range is quite important in nature photography unless you like to jump through hoops with multiple exposures.

[@LyndonPatrickSmith]

Great comparison Thomas. You’ve been killing it lately!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much! I'm honored!

[@tomriccobono674]

Most impressive video. I enjoyed and took in every frame. Thank you. So Clever is your presentation.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Tom, this is really a very nice comment. I am honored and you made my day. Thank you so much!

[@AdrianvanWijk]

Thanks for this summary, The one place where more dynamic range is essential and how I learned it was a thing was with time laps photography. When your camera is set, and you want to recover day-night sunsets without significant incremental adjustments in aperture or shutter speed, more dynamic range is critical.

[@stevenlang7709]

How would you get around that if the camera has limited dynamic range?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Very interesting! Although a very specialized case, I think it is relevant to keep that in mind nonetheless.

[@AdrianvanWijk]

@@stevenlang7709 newer cameras allow aperture ramping while using the inbuilt intervalometer. After that, the way I know is post-processing in LRtimelaps. I've seen a few impressive Davinci Resolve tutorials but never tried it.

[@russellschundler6559]

When moving from a D750 to a Z7, I found, at first, I kept bracketing. Then, after some time, it became clear to me that I didn’t need bracketing because, post-processing tools and better dynamic range together got the job done with 1 image. Less work, better outcome. And then … there’s one of the best reasons to go to a digital camera … size and weight of the camera and lenses!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely - better DR can be useful indeed, no doubt about it! But as you've stated, the most important aspect is that you bring the camera with you, and size and weight do matter a lot when it comes to this!

[@InterMaus]

I don't know about you but i never needed to bracket with a D750 either, it has awesome dynamic range itself.

[@jonpaulpepen9470]

Hi Thomas, I've just recently discovered your channel. Really great to see someone approach camera systems from a technical, balanced, and realistic point of view. I wanted to share a technique I've recently started to really lean on for HDR situations with my GH5. The couple of times I've tried shooting HDR brackets, I was never really satisfied with the end result, since I would get halos and an "over processed look". That's when I realized that Bill Claff's (owner of photons to photos) photographic dynamic range concept was based on the idea of scaling all images to a common 8x10 print output size, and that I could gain dynamic range scaling my images down further. So now, I use a longer focal length and make a panorama that's larger than my intended output, and then scale the whole stitched image down to the intended output size. Since so often those HDR shots are landscape, for me this kills two birds with one stone: gives me both more photographic dynamic range and more fine detail. Plus, I find that I get fewer stitching artifacts than with HDR stitching, and I don't ever get the "HDR" look. Theoretically, software noise reduction should work better if you give it more detail to "bite" onto, but I haven't tested this specifically. I'm not entirely sure how the PDR will scale with the number of stops, my guess is each doubling of total pixels should be another stop of PDR.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for the exceptionally kind comment. I'm sorry for the late reply, I somehow missed it! Regarding your tip, I think the photonstophotos noise chart is what you mean? DR should not change when you downscale the photo. In any case, I'm working on a video on HDR photography. How to set it up in practice and how to get natural results in post processing. Just like you, I'm not a fan of the overly processed HDR look. Again, I very much appreciate the feedback and welcome to the channel! Hope to read from you in the future!

[@jonpaulpepen9470]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I don't think I worded my initial comment very well. Shrinking the output size should increase the Photographic Dynamic range, because it's a ratio of maximum highlight (not impacted by downscaling) to minimum "noise-free" shadows (noise suppressed by downscaling, so the minimum useful signal is lowered). I don't think engineering dynamic range would change though, just photographic dynamic range. If I am understanding correctly, the PDR chart on Photons to Photos is based on the ratio between the highlight clipping point and the shadow point of having a 20:1 signal to noise ratio, after being downscaled to a resolution appropriate for an 8x10 print (and if I'm not, that means I get to learn something new today!) I think that means starting with a panorama instead of a single exposure means either a bigger output for the same PDR, or more downscaling and more PDR for the same output size. Also, the GH5 doesn't have any high-resolution pixel-shift mode; if it did I would be using it and taking far fewer panoramas. But I'm considering a switch to the OM-1, and trying to learn more about it and it's built-in computational photography features is how I came across your channel.

[@trevorsowers2202]

I’ve been rolling my eyes at the Dynamic Range warriors for years.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yep 👍 rightly so I'd say

[@stefanski8287]

Dynamic range does come into play when it comes to shadow detail recovery under low light conditions. For the average photographer, any camera these days is prob good enough. But for the demanding pro's there's a host of factors to consider when it comes to technical specs/design of the sensor and performance. Plus there's a number of technical factors that go into sensor design and performance as it relates into practical shooting, raw data capture and final image quality output. Sensor size does matter to a degree, but more importantly pixel pitch and photosite size, not to mention the A/D converters and computational algorithms that process the incoming analog signal to digital signal and how that signal is being processed and recorded as raw data.... just something to keep in mind and consider making additional videos on these discussion topics. Keep up the production, you're doing great!

[@weizenobstmusli8232]

May I ask which pro raises shadows?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Stefan! Thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts! Many factors like the one you mentioned AD / processing and so on are often overlooked, you are right - that is why the Pentax K-1II gives you better DR than the D800 with practically the same sensor, right! Thanks for engaging, the suggestions and the kind words!

[@stefanski8287]

@@weizenobstmusli8232 don't have to be a pro, but it's dependent on what you're looking to achieve in your final image... how one shoots/captures an image in-camera is not how the final image is processed... the goal is to capture as much of highquality RAW data as possible in camera to expose in-post for the final image rendition... as a general rule one should always ETTR without blowing the highlights, unless the final composition calls for otherwise... Frankly, I'd never recommend a micro 4/3ds sensor camera to anyone... but to each their own... (right tool for the right job principle always applies) Camera gear is just a tool... regardless of the brand or censor size... but one should always do their own research based on their needs application... and the technical benefits/limitations of the hardware/firmware specs... also, let's not forget the ecosystem as a whole for future expansion potential... which is something most people getting into photography do not consider.

[@einzwei3364]

Great research Thomas! I will reccommend this video to everybody who wants to know which camera to buy.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! That is great to hear, thanks!

In my opinion dynamic range is the most important thing in a camera. Depending on the source the human eye has a dynamic range of 21-24 stops and this is the goal. Especially in Video, comparing footage of a the new arri 35 in log compared to recording in rec709 it is simply amazing. In photography in high dynamic range scenes or simply as a buffer for human failure is so important. Imagine a soccer game were the players are correctly exposed but the sky is white because of a bad dynamic range ...

[@cooloox]

I do not believe the human eye sees that many stops of dynamic range at all. We can only focus on specific things at a time. Whatever we focus on, we expose for (so to speak). Try having your blinds open a small amount, such that it's dark inside and very bright outside. Adjust your eyes to the interior and the window is blown out, just like it would be in a photo. Look at the scene outside and everything inside is pure black, just like in a photo. I think we have maybe 3-4 stops more dynamic range, but not up to 9 stops more (24 stops).

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Dynamic range is indeed a very important aspect of every camera, I totally agree! The big question is: how much is enough. While we all agree, more is always better, we can usually get the job done with less as well. In videography, having more DR to work with is more important than in photography. You cannot shoot HDR brackets in video, right! Thanks for contributing!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

@cooloox - I am also inclined to state that we humans do not perceive 24 stops simultaneously!

@@ThomasEisl.Photography yeah thatis true, sources differ a lot on that but it is actually the other way around you have less dynamic rang at the spot you are looking at. Because the spot where you have sharper vision. This is because of the fovea centralis which has more cone cells ant there fore more color perception. The rest of the eye has more rod cells and is more sensitive to light and has a better dynamic range. other than that idk i think around 21 stops are realistic the typical scene would be an interview setting inside front of an bright window. idk but cool video man i enjoyed watching it!

@@ThomasEisl.Photography no problem, thanks for writing back! I love that topic! Imo I woul always have at least 3 stops more than i need. 1 to have safe space from the noisefloor, one for highlight and one for human failure and personally that works for me. i am pretty happy with cameras with 12 stops and up. And there are of course extreme scenes where i am happy about every stop i get out of the camera

[@rudyhulsmans7443]

Slowly approaching 100K views! That is an impressive personal record!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much - I still can't believe it myself. It is a great honor that so many people lend me their time.

[@iammz81]

Only started watching the video, interesting what you will say, without knowing it - I came from an APS-C mirorless camera to the mirorless Full Frame world and that was my best decision made so far! How much it speed up my photography game (shooting and processing pictures - retouch) I cannot explain.

[@laiebi_3639]

What is the difference between pictures? still not sure if staying ff or going aps-c

[@iammz81]

@@laiebi_3639 Stay. There are probably scenarios where Aps-C be better, wildlife, sport, but I shoot portraiture and with FF my workflow got much faster and the quality of pictures got better. I was using a Nikon Z50 and now I am using a Lumix S5. Also the videos and grading is day and night.

[@laiebi_3639]

@@iammz81 Cool, looking forward to shoot cars and wildlife and some occasional family gatherings so its a bit of both worlds. For traveling sth small and light would be cool too but must be worth the quality, otherwise I'd never really use it

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear! Personally, I am not sure why you are seeing such a difference, but as long as it works for you that is just awesome! Maybe you really prefer the large sensor look or you are using better lenses than you did with your apsc cameras. In any case, also consider medium format if you really like the big sensor look and feel!

[@iammz81]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography It's probably not ONLY the sensor but the camera itself that made my workflow easier, but all in all happier with the result.

[@PerEng2405]

Interesting points. You gave me a flashback to the zone system, but that is besides the point. A really good assessment. Thank you Thomas. Shoutout from Denmark. /Per

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks! I think you are making a very valid reference here when mentioning the zone system. Correct exposure is as important for digital as it was for analog. Best wishes from Vienna!

[@msyvid]

Thank you for a very nice video. Some other factors to consider, which are also noted by many others might include: The number of cameras, sampled to derive the dynamic range and other data and how “tight” are the values (standard deviation). DR, like iso sensitivity and color rendition, is best appreciated as part of a system. Perhaps to consider comparisons using various 50mm full frame equivalent lenses with various f stops in budget, mid and high price categories. Also using various common lens filters at budget, mid-range, and professional price ranges. One must also consider the roles of the viewer on camera and the computer monitor used to view the images. Data from a few common laptop and desktop display panel types could be presented. As a final step in system assessment, one could consider printed photos, including those available at store kiosks, along with medium and higher cost inks, toners, and papers. If one compares budget vs medium vs higher cost items, how great are the visually notable differences? (What is visibly gained with higher end equipment?) It might be useful to provide a few images so that the viewer can see where DR seems acceptable and where one should note a lack of DR, perhaps in dark or bright areas. Maybe even noting visually how higher DR using multiple photos in fast succession or photoshop can improve things - either a bit, or completely. Then the person viewing the video can decide what is most reasonable for their budget and abilities. Again, many thanks !

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely fantastic suggestions and thanks for the feedback - you are completely right and your comment highlights why this topic is far more complex than just "camera x has more DR than camera y". Oversimplification leads to false conclusions, and people assuming that one thing is far better than the other although it is not. I definitely put this on my list, thanks!

[@markusbolliger1527]

Alles richtig - alles perfekt und didaktisch geschickt und immer in Bezug auf die Relevanz für die Praxis erklärt! Entspricht auch meiner Erfahrung. Wenn der Kontrastumfang einer Landschaftsszene, - klassischerweise: Sonnenuntergang, Himmel gleissend hell, Vordergrund schon im dunklen Schatten - sehr hoch ist meistert das auch kein noch so grosser Sensor, man muss zu HDR oder zu einem Verlaufsfilter greifen wenn man noch Zeichnung in den Lichtern und auch in den Schatten haben will. Aber die Hersteller wissen, dass höhere Zahlen - seien es mehr Pixel, mehr Stufen Dynamikumfang oder eine höher Kadenz - ein wirkungsvolles Verkaufsargument sind, auf das eben viele abfahren, weil sie zu technikverliebt und zu wenig Praktiker sind. Insofern kannst du dich als Aufklärer sehen, als Mann der aus dem wirklichen fotografischen Leben kommt, der die Kirche wieder in's Dorf stellt und sagt was Sache ist. Und je mehr Videos ich von dir anschaue desto weniger Gründe sehe ich die für Vollformat sprechen ... Vielleicht teste ich nächstens die OM-1 bei meinem Händler in Bern, reizen tät es mich schon. Inzwischen habe ich nämlich herausgefunden, dass man die Bildqualität noch erheblich steigern kann wenn man die RAW- Dateien mit DxO Pure RAW 2 entwickelt, statt mit Adobe RAW - unglaublich was man da noch herausholt.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen Dank auch für diesen fachkundigen, umfassenden Kommentar. Das weiß ich sehr zu schätzen, er kommt aus der Praxis eines Fotografen, das merkt man sofort. Probieren würde ich die OM-1 auf jeden Fall - vor allem wenn man die Features richtig nutzt kann man wirklich extrem viel aus der Kamera rausholen. Ich finde, dass man diesen "Kompromiss" durchaus eingehen kann, vor allem wenn man eine kleine, leichte Ausrüstung schätzt und damit vielleicht sogar noch mehr fotografiert. Danke auch besonders für die Tipps hinsichtlich Bildverarbeitungssoftware!

[@markusbolliger1527]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Ja ich war wirklich verblüfft über DxO Pure RAW-2 - ein Versuch lohnt sich! Die Software produziert rauscharme Dateien ohne dabei die Auflösung zu reduzieren, jedes noch so feine Detail wird aus den Daten geradezu herausgemeisselt, man könnte in's Schwärmen kommen 🤩 Habe heute mit der Lumix GX80 und dem NullAchtFünfzig Kit- Objektiv 12-32mm/3.5-5.6 - wahrlich nicht das Prunkstück im mFT- Objektivpark - einige Aufnahmen von ganz verschiedenen Motiven geschossen und das Ergebnis hat mich fast umgehauen!

[@thomasphillips5850]

Great video thank you for the enlightenment, I am looking forward to some more videos

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

More to come - thanks for the feedback!

[@diogoferreira9039]

Thank you! Great video as usual.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@MarioKilian]

amazing video !! I subscribed immediately!! I always had concerns about the Dynamic Range stated on DXO web.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Mario! Thank you for subscribing. Well, as you've hinted at: DxO list the "technical DR' - which is fine, but the usable DR is just way less. I am also always very sceptical of pure numbers, you really have to try and test the equipment in practice. Thank you again and welcome to the channel!

[@sophietucker1255]

I was geeking out about a new camera and my grandson, who also is a photographer, accused me of being a spec sheet masturbater. That stopped me cold in my tracks but it did get me thinking. I've actually only once had a client that questioned what equipment I was using. I've never had a client that could tell the difference between my digital Canon images, images from my Olympus EM1X or ones that were from my Hasselblad 503CX. In the end my experience is that good composition, good exposure and good editing of the images is way more important than which camera or sensor or how much dynamic range I had.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing that Sophie - and I completely agree with what you said. As long as the full tonal scale of the main subject (usually 4 stops) is reproduced, the difference in DR does not matter at all.

[@frankwoodbery2473]

Completely right about dynamic range. I do think real progress has been made with ISO invariant full frame sensors introduced 5 or 6 years ago.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your comment! I recently did a very insightful research into ISO invariance - to find out, that almost no sensor is completely ISO invariant, although many ppl believe so, including many reviewers. The results are very hard to spot in practice, but the charts on photonstophotos clearly show that.

[@KitLaughlin]

Two thumbs up, Thomas.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much 🙏

[@jeffslade1892]

Thank you. An issue arises getting the full range out of the camera. This ties with the colour gamut. The raw will be 12-bit colour or 14-bit colour (which obliges us to edit in 16-bit) but its colour gamut will be far wider than the working gamut in your editor - the gamut will have to be compressed. Depending on where the image will be used or published, the exported image will have to be compressed to jpeg which is only 8-bit, to tiff which can go to 16-bit, or png which can go up to 24-bit. If we expand 8-bit to 16-bit, data is lost and we can get banding. Expanding to 24-bit is pointless, the original data is not there. You cannot put back what was taken away or what was not there in the first place. The bit depth also describes the dynamic range, light to dark. So it's not just about what DR the camera can do but what we do with the image we pull out of the camera.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you Jeff for bringing up these very relevant, yet often overlooked aspects in digital photography! Could not agree more with what you've stated.

[@stephenroberts7828]

Nice work Thomas

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, Stephen!

[@professionalpotato4764]

Regardless of age, the general trend is ~1 stop between digital MF/FF, FF/APSC, and ~2 stops between FF/MFT as long as they're in the same generation (and not a Canon made sensor). We also have to keep in mind that SDR publishing i.e. JPEG exports can only hold ~6+ stops of dynamic range max. Having more DR helps with post processing. 1 or 2 stops is nothing to laugh at. It's what all of us are paying through the nose for f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses. 1 stop is the difference between having useless shots on a f/2.8 zoom and a usable shot with a f/2 or faster prime. I think it makes sense to buy better gear for that extra 1 or 2 stops, but only if it makes business sense and pays itself off. For hobby use, it's not very worth it.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for your contribution! A JPEG can represent any amount of dynamic range, but as you have stated, it can only display a contrast ratio of 1:255 (kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4iqep2Oqtmsgbc). The usefulness of having more than 8 stops is therefore highly debatable, as you've stated. Regarding the f/2.8 f/2 - I think we have to keep in mind that we do not loose DR linearly when the ISO goes up. Therefore, even cameras with less DR can perform well at high ISO. I can recommend the charts on photonstophotos, very insightful I'd say. The one stop can be useful if you mess up the exposure, or you want to capture one stop more.

[@professionalpotato4764]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Yes, I always reference photons to photos. Great site. Indeed. The DR loss is not linear. In fact, after factoring in equivalence for DoF, for most average shooters in non-extreme conditions, DR does not pose a huge issue as even the new sensors perform about the same. e.g. 6400 ISO on A7iv vs 3200 ISO on a crop sensor.

[@emptyandseephotos7858]

When digital sensor came big challenge wasdynamic range. Good topic and answered in video.. If we understand deeper problem as u said Can solve by composition and composite or graduated nd etc gives Solutions.great job!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! Thank you for the kind words!

[@stephanemandelert4321]

Fantastic video 😮

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you!

[@luissalazar2021]

Very well said, thanks for sharing

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!

[@marcioa99]

Very instructive!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!

[@gerhardwiesinger]

Hello Thomas, 32:1 is 5 stops and not 9 stops. 2^5=32. And are you sure your most dynamic range on set was only 32:1? With my old Canon APS-C 500D camera: You couldn't even look at ISO 1600 at 15.1 Megapixel. With my new Sony A1 at 51 Megapixel photographing with ISO 3200, 6400 or 12800 or more is even better. Of course ISO 100 would be better, but you don't always have so much light. So I don't agree that a new camera doesn't bring much: There is a lot of difference in image quality, noise and dynamic range with newer sensors and cameras. Also keep in mind, that readout speed with newer stacked sensors (e.g. Sony A1 has 4ms) and is around at the time a mechanical shutter has. So there is in typical situations no rolling shutter effect at all with electronic shutter. I guess in 2003 we had 50ms+ on sensor readout speeds. From a practical standpoint I couldn't should a lot of picture with the old Canon body handheld.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Gerhard, thanks for contributing, I'll gladly address your much appreciated inputs! Regarding 32:1 being 5 stops A non-reflective subject requires about 4 stops of dynamic range. Now, increasing the lighting in one stop increments on one side of the subject until we arrive at +5 stops (32:1 as you have stated correctly): In order to reproduce the full tonal scale on both, unevenly lit sides of the subject, we now need 4+5 stops of usable dynamic range. Regarding Old Cameras / New Sensors Especially when shooting high ISO, low dynamic range can result in bad results like with your 500D. Let's say at ISO 1600 only 4 stops of high fidelity DR remain, then you have to expose perfectly to capture the full tonal scale of the main (4 stop DR) subject. Every small error will lead to a significant, noticeable loss in quality. That is why I said in the video that these older models need a flash and are sometimes tedious to work. Not an issue with your A1, obviously! Does the A1 have more dynamic range than some older DSLRs? No, but does that matter: No! Because, as you have stated, the main advantage newer sensors for mirrorless cameras have is not significantly better DR, but faster readout speeds, something that was not so relevant for DSLRs (not talking about something like the Olympus E-10P, of course, which is limited by the readout speed although an SLT. I'd like to conclude that we are exactly on the same page here! Fun fact: I've been typing this response twice, as the browser crashed. This also happened when I was replying to your previous comment on my previous video (kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE) , seems to be a thing haha Best wishes!

[@BarryMaskell]

Thats assuming that ISO is the same on each camera - it isn’t - ISO differs between cameras and brands

[@ramblinrandal]

Thanks for this comparison video. I have a reasonable understanding of sensor size, lenses, f-stops and light. I know that a Sony A7SIII is going to get a "better" image than my mid level Lumix G85, but to what purpose? What are you shooting, and how is it to be used? I would say that most any camera produced by any of the major manufacturers in the last 8-10 years will produce a good/usable image & video. I use MFT because of the form factor & weight. The camera fits my hand perfectly. My results are good enough for my needs. Camera companies are in the business to sell cameras (just as are car and mobile phone companies.) There is always going to be a bigger, better, more shiny new and improved model of something. Cheers. Peace.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely, Randal. Your comment is spot on - cameras have been good enough for many many years now, and let's not get started about film, which was also good enough and still is. Thank you for your educated contribution, much appreciated!

[@Lil-JensStudio]

Within the Canon line, I can affirm that the sensors on the mirrorless R series are vastly superior to the one in my old 60D but I cannot speak as to the difference on the higher-end Canon DSLR cameras. There is however, something to be said about older cameras. In fact, there are certain times that I still use my 2008 model Fuji S1500 with it's 10 megapixel sensor to shoot landscape images. The primary reason for doing this is to be able to set it up with the "FujiChrome" settings to produce some seriously intense color depth. I could recreate the same thing in Photoshop from my Canon mirrorless RAW files but sometimes it's nice to just "set it and forget it," as George Forman has stated in his well-known ads for his grill. Also, there are times when I do not want to lug around a full size camera on a long hike. The relatively small S1500 can easily be stuffed into a coat pocket or one of the exterior water bottle sleeves on my backpack. Best of all, should I happen to lose or damage the old camera, no big deal. I can easily get another for under fifty bucks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing that - and I completely agree: old cameras are still awesome. It seems that manufactures put a lot of thought in the picture profiles and jpg processing back then. Also, the reviews when these cameras came out often focused on this aspect. I also really like to use them nowadays, as the results still hold up, if you know what you are doing. Thanks again

[@12symmo]

I think often the problem of dynamic range and small sensors is more tied to low light performance. If the sky is so bright that you have to underexpose the foreground elements to preserve the highlights, sensor size makes a big difference to how much usable shadow detail you can recover, because it comes down to the low light performance in capturing the lower light parts of the scene. Yes you can use CPL and NDs in many situations, but not always, and you can’t bracket if you have moving elements in the scene.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, but one or two stops (which is the actual difference) does not help with HDR scenes. Regardless of format, you have to resort to tricks. Maybe that is of interest to you as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHu0mH2DeLZ9mZosi=wfVvx_TMfzZkZ5bm

[@chepo1956]

Hello Thomas, Jose from Puerto Rico. Definitely myth busted. I agree that each manufacturer needs to sell, so they push out the spec. sheets to wow the potential buyers for their products. But as you demonstrated, there are the technical sheets and there's the practical day-to-day reality of what the camera will produce. In the end, there is no bad camera at this juncture, plus the software that's being produced now-a-days is incredible and can correct some if not all the issues one can encounter. Watching your videos, I've made lots of changes in my way of taking photographs with my OM-1. I changed the settings as suggested by you to get the full potential of my camera. I try to avoid using higher ISO in my OM-1 by using the base suggested ISO of 200. Furthermore, I have a small tripod strapped to my camera bag if I need to get a certain shot, and with the OM-1's amazing stability you can get away with slower shutter speeds if you really need to push it. You can't get caught up in the KZbinr bias that say negative things of the micro 4/3 sensors. Yes, full frame has its place, but I'm seeing many pro photographers like yourself migrating to the OM-1. Not everyone can afford a 6000 dollar (or Euros in your neck of the woods) camera, and for that matter really need it or are willing to carry a heavy load of camera gear. Don't get me wrong, the new Z9 and D850 from Nikon are tremendous gear, but like I said, not everyone can afford it. Another issue I see a lot is there are too many pixel peepers in some KZbin videos that dissect every inch of a photo, when the reality is that no one is going to put their eyeball on top of a photo. If you're going to print, who in their right mind will place their face on top of a photo to view. It's getting ridiculous. You enjoy the photos from a reasonable distance and furthermore, some of the most iconic shots in history if you look at the technical side are blurry, grainy, over or underexposed, but they remain iconic. I really enjoy your videos and expertise on photography. You are a very gifted teacher and craftsman.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Very well said, Jose! Two stops more DR do not make you a better / pro / or whatsoever photographer. And they are definitely not needed, even if you can afford them / have them. Picking the right camera is about having the right tool. The right tool is the one that gets the job done and the one that is there when you need it. As you've said, the Z9 / D850 are fantastic, but so are many other cameras - like the OM-1. I am absolutely honored by your kind words. I will do my best to deserve them. Thanks for that, means a lot to me!

[@harrisfogel6992]

Because I'm a journalist, dynamic range is critical to me. I have an Olympus E-M1 Mk I, and a Sony A7 IV, and I often have to pull down highlights on faces and heads, while bringing up shadow detail. So the wider the dynamic range the better. I can say that dynamic range measurements are often much different in practice, since shadow noise isn't always reflected in those measurements, and my Sony blows my Olympus out of the water in that response, and my Ricoh GR III is better then my Olympus. Usable dynamic range is different than just dynamic range.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

[@harrisfogel6992]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I think that dynamic range in practice isn't unlike the difference between measured ISO and E.I. Whereas Sensitometry might measure a film speed at one rating, if you do your own work with the film, often there is a mismatch. I worked on a couple of projects for Kodak, one of which resulted in the decision Kodak made to label T-Max films with an Exposure Index derived from use vs. only sensitometry. With new AI masking tools, dynamic range becomes eminently usable, for all types of situations. And ISO absolutely figures into use, since "grain" isn't linear, as it tends be worse in shadows. So much so, that on older cameras, it's almost useless to attempt it. I'd love to see a methodology that reveals useful dynamic range. Astronomers can demonstrate sensor sensitivity in low light and extended exposure. So, I'm wondering if there is a way to utilize that approach?

[@KimHojbergJensen]

Very interesting and informative video 👍

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@Lux-Arkana]

Exactly what I experience when I buy the EOS M some days ago! Pictures are amazing. EOS M is king of 2023!!❤

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes! Great to hear and thanks for sharing!

[@simonpayne7994]

By all this talk about the dynamic range of today's and yesterday's photo sensors, one must not forget that the dynamic range of perfectly normal consumer diapositive film (slides) was about TWENTY stops and not meager 10 or even less. Capturing landscapes never needed any sort of bracketing. On a good day with a good lens the resolution was about 16 MP. The limiting factor was the graining of the film material. The main performance drawback was the limited ISO. It was hard to get substantially above 200 ISO. For color 400 ISO was really stretching things.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for your comment! I would rate the DR of film lower, but I definitely agree that it is a lot better than people assume! I think this would be of interest, it covers what you have stated: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

[@simonpayne7994]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Very interesting. Thanks a lot. The figures I remember are a little different. As color TV was introduced there was the problem of playing cinema films and color stills across analog color TV. The contrast was much too high. At the time a TV CRT had - very much depending on the amount of ambient light - a contrast ratio of about 1:30 - i.e. a little less than 2**5 = 10 stops. A color diapositive was given as accommodating a max. of 1:1000 = approx. 1:1024 = 2**10 = 20 stops. From then onwards filming and photographing for usage in color TV programs had to be "special low contrast" .

[@d2mini]

The DR difference is real. It's there and this can't be denied. Do you need it? Do you want to pretend it's not there? Do you want to tell yourself it doesn't matter to you? That's all personal preference and may be completely valid depending on one's personal situation. Personally, I've gone back to FF. I'd much rather have the DR and not need it, than need it and not have it. But like you say, that's a whole different subject.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for the comment - completely agree!

[@onelapvideo]

basically it all comes down to what affiliate links a KZbinr has - and that determines what is most important...to them, at least. For years it was all 'full-frame is everything" and then the Sony FX-30 came out, and it was "Super 35 is SO much coller than full-frame" because they wanted to make money off the affiliate links. Kudos to Thomas to not having any of those in his description The real answer is - don't believe the hype - buy the best you can afford, and then focus on the content and the audio quality - they speak WAY louder than the amount of money you spent on the latest stuff. Even if some of the latest stuff is really cool...don't spend what you don't have.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for putting it this way - I very much appreciate your words. I'd like to emphasize that I agree with everything what you have stated. And I can confess that every time I failed at something, it was not because of the gear, but due to my own mistakes. Always focus on the skills first, right. Thanks again!

[@churchillcoins8519]

Excellent video, thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad you liked it!

[@hotenenko]

Thank you, comrade Lenin!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha 😂 Welcome comrade!

[@sijodee]

very interesting.i am new to cameras and i learned something from your video.appreciate you taking the time to educate us less camera knowledgeable folks

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! That is great to hear 📸

[@HarryLewinASR]

eye opening. Thanks

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

My pleasure!

[@777hdn]

To be quite frank this video left me a bit confused, Thomas. At first I learnt that dynamic range is a bit like image resolution: As long as you've got enough for what you want to do everything is ok. And that dynamic range above 8 EVs isn't relevant and even a bit less isn't a problem all by itself. That sounds a lot like "the max 9.7 EVs of the sensor in my E-M1X is more than enough" just like "the 20 MP of the sensor of my E-M1X is more than enough for taking the kind of pictures I'm taking, with very humble cropping and not deliberately higher than ISO 6400 sensitivity setting" (which in a nutshell really is my point of view). And it also fits my experience for rating picture quality on my E-M1X on different ISO settings: 200/excellent/9.7EVs 1600/very good/6.9EVs 3200/good/6.1 6400/still-satisfying/5.2EVs >6400/try-to-avoid-if-possible/

[@tomasmikeska]

actually dynamic range is just one factor. If I'm shooting in the m43 format, ISO 200, f2.8, I would need to stop down on FullFrame at least to f5.6 and increase ISO to at least 800 to keep the same shutter speed. And there - the dynamic range is the same. Also for static landscape or architectural scenery - I'm happy to use Olympus' HHHR mode or LND64 to reach really high DR. So yes - the FF camera (or larger sensor cameras in general) has better DR but one needs to know how to use it and when :)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Could not agree more - the whole equivalence thing works both ways!

[@cristibaluta]

I don't know about that, i can use my sony on iso12800 and have better shadow recovery than mft.

[@tomasmikeska]

@@cristibaluta you missed the point, but obviously, you will get better "shadow recovery" from a larger format camera on the same ISO settings

[@helloianzakharov]

Dynamic range is just one component involved in creating an image. The sensor read speed, the DoF, the number of megapixels, all these elements together will allow either to get a good frame or not to get it.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely!

[@mosheovadya]

Nicely articulated

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@marcotomat149]

From white to black on paper you have 5 stops. In a sunny day, the lighted part of a tridimensional subject is about 2 stops more than the shadow part. So in total you need 7 stops just to portrait a person that wears a white shirt and a black jacket, in the sun.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for adding that! I think it is important to note that PDR is really a conservative "measurement" as is the DR of film often a bit wider than the numbers I brought up in a different video. The point is, at least for me, that the wrinkle of the black shirt can be completely black and the highlight on the white shirt can be as well.

[@mne9476]

Thomas, I really appreciate your totally objective analysis of these controversial technical topics that are usually driven by emotion. I will subscribe. Very helpful videos. I must say however, that the panels behind you are driving me insane. They aren’t perfectly aligned and the width of the gap between the panels over your left shoulder is going to force me to talk with my therapist soon. I hope I can get over this severe psychological issue 😂

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Mark, ;-) I'm very thankful for you subscribing, unfortunately, with the panels remark, you hit a soft spot haha. Now I have to go back to therapy because of them as well. I am also not very "happy" with them as well. Maybe I can find another solution in the future. Haha, super funny how our minds work seemingly very similar...

[@fuzzywuzzy8874]

great video Thomas. I'm waiting for you to crack the top secret (thus far) code as per what, specifically, improvement(s) came from the firmware 1.4/OM-1 update.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I have to admit that I don't know, as for me the OM-1 was already quite perfect with 1.0 - I never noticed any shortcomings. Thank you very much for the kind words and continued support of the channel! Very much appreciated, really!

[@clarkejones8090]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks!

[@mxyptlk]

Excellent content elequently presented... Thank you...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for watching and the kind comment, Gerry!

[@CZOV]

Very much fun to watch your videos, photography with a special.. something. European class :)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks Chris hehe

[@heikkivalkonen1075]

Thank you for a good video! Informative in many ways. However author of this video never described what stop means in cameras. As far as I know one stop in exposure or DR (dynamic range) means doubling of light, so if DR is increased from 10 to 11, DR has not increased by 10%, but by 100%! Correct me if I am wrong. These DR values are compared in this video as if they are linear values, which is not the case. If you compare presented DR’s of om-1 and Nikon d800, it shows slightly over 2 stop advantage to Nikon. Full frame sensor is four times larger in surface area than MFT sensor, so it will gather four times more light by frame, which means two stops. So these findings are exactly what we should expect! Nothing surprising here. However is this significant in normal photography such as portrait or landscape, is completely different thing. This was addressed in this video very well! As a nature and bird photographer myself (who shoots with om-1 and A1), I think there is difference in DR and noise when shooting moving subjects in less than optimal conditions. It’s matter of preference whether you consider it to be significant enough. Happy shooting!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Heikki! Regarding doubling the light: you are correct! However, it is way less significant than it sounds. If you have not watched already, I recommend watching this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU I think it illustrates why 8 stops is basically enough and why one stop more or less is hardly ever noticeable in practice. Thank you for sharing your very valid remarks, sorry for the late reply!

[@heikkivalkonen1075]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I agree with you regarding 8 stops being more than enough. But this applies only if shooting in native ISO or slightly faster. It's funny since I have always been reluctant to push ISO values above 800-1600 in OM-1. When looking at charts by photonstophotos DR drops below 8 stops at those ISO values. On FF cameras I usually push ISO to 5000 range, but avoid pushing further. Stopping motion in less than ideal conditions is when bigger glass and sensor helps (even 1 stop can make a difference). Thats why I never gave up on my FF camera (I was very close selling). OM-1 is brilliant camera, could have better video capabilities though. I have watched many of your videos, don't agree on everything, but still very good and informative content! Keep up the good work!

[@LarryFasnacht]

Another great video. Your production quality is outstanding. Good work.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Larry! That is so kind of you, I'm honored!

[@MitchFlint]

Interesting video, thank you. Digital photography was starting to make inroads with print media photographers just as Kodak introduced Ektachrome 100 Professional. Using Kodak's new (at the time) T-grain technology, E100 was the ultimate in color transparency film, the best ever, said to have a dynamic range of about 5 stops. It was great film, but missed the boat due to the emerging demand for digital, which became more cost effective in pre-press than transparencies. Anyway, for digital to achieve a dynamic range of 9 stops is a huge improvement over the best film-16X better, with each additional stop double its predecessor. With film, the over-exposure/under-development method to increase tonal range can go too far, producing muddy images with too little contrast. If sensor dynamic range were to get too extreme, couldn't digital images also suffer undesirably low contrast?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

You are absolutely correct about the low contrast issue - I invite you to watch my video on Dynamic Range in Photography kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Why do prints which have to represent 8 stops or more DR look muddy? Because they actually can only produce a contrast ratio of around 6 stops. The compression of dynamic range leads to this muddy appearance. Another reason why 8 stops fo dynamic range are enough for photography. Thank you very much for your very valid contribution, much appreciated!

[@mikafoxx2717]

​@@ThomasEisl.Photographywithout HDR video or picture formats on screens that can produce true HDR levels, even screens are only 6-7 stops of usable dynamic range. Only 2000+nits in a dark room OLED panel will get you that 10 stops of range with a proper contrast.

[@mattkolf9689]

I like you're approach Thomas, but there is one huge thing you haven't covered: rasing shadows in post. I am a wedding photographer and I often shoot (the dance, mostly) at F1.8 and ISO 12,800. The image quality like that is good enough, but I often want to raise the shadows in post and then I have a serious problem. I used old cameras to do this and I've used new cameras and the difference is very, very noticable. Oh, and generally only use available light.

[@stefanski8287]

Great point! Plus there's a number of other technical factors that go into sensor design and performance as it relates into practical shooting, raw data capture and final image quality output.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Matt! I agree - the problem is that you are actually running out of "high fidelity DR" - and therefore, you are brightening the shadows but only get noisy results. Technically, you are still working "within the DR" of your camera. I think this video would be interesting for you in this context: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

@@stefanski8287 Yes Stefan! That is why it is so important to do a bit of testing with the camera you are using, to determine the limits.

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

Well presented. Though I think the number one consideration is this - if I really want extra details in my landscape images then buy a camera with more pixels. Otherwise e.g. Phase One and Hasselblad wouldn't produce expensive camera backs with millions and millions of pixels, even though they don't give significantly higher DR. So, it's the extra details that cost your socks off.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you! You are right that a larger recording format will resolve more detail, however, the relationship between size and improved image quality is not linear, see for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIerhX98ecRqpZosi=y5DTRmNGmAxJ1hOj It is quite surprising how little the extra detail matters in practice, as the output media is usually limiting the reproducible details. Thanks again for the very valid comment!

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Agree, the extra detailing is primarily used for large printing or other large scale presentation. Hardly noticeable on even good screens - unless you own the format and can "feel" the details.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

@Eigil_Skovgaard yes, and one thing that is really cool if the detail is there is zooming in on a high quality monitor. It is fun haha

[@gossedejong9248]

brilliant, thank you!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - also, thanks a lot for subscribing!

[@Erdal_Gumus]

Explained very clearly

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@luispnrf]

Great video. And your conc.usion matches my personal experience. I have a Pentax K-1 (mark I with 11.4 stops at ISO 100) and a Canon RP ("only" 9 stops of DR) and 99% of the time I can't see any difference in practice when it cames to dinamic range.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing that! Well, both are great cameras and 99% of all situations are just not challenging enough for them.

[@anewcareerinanewtown]

You know I was wondering what Eric Ten Hag would do next after the FA Cup (I jest keep up the good work!)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha thanks 😆

[@sabyasachibanerjee124]

Fully agree and very nicely explained. Moreover, our eyes are excellent when viewing. When reproducing on print, how many do we really see in terms of brightness difference! Don't blame manufacturers. They have to profit and so they will prey on things that sell. But this was a nice one to dispel the myth.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely - the manufacturers have to sell their products and that is totally ok. They have to make a living as well. Thank you very much for the kind words regarding the video, nice to read that we are on the same page here!

[@tortisrot]

Regarding high-iso situations, one may find oneself a wildlife photographer in low-light conditions needing to raise their iso, which is a situation where dynamic range makes a difference.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

The great thing is that practically all cameras will be able to provide 5 stops of DR at even high ISO numbers. And those 5 stops are more than enough for wildlife. Thanks for contributing!

[@tortisrot]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I understand that. However, in my experience, 5 likely won't be enough. I have done portraits with people in the shadows and a sunny background. The images were exposure balanced and at iso 100. With those conditions, my background was blown out. DXOMark claims 11.9 stops of dynamic range to my camera. In higher-iso environments, this might be more prevalent.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes! Just a food for thought - measure the DR in those situations you have just described with a light meter - it is pretty likely that even 15 stops of technical DR won't be enough to avoid blown out stuff in these situations. A bit of flash, however, will! All the best, Thomas

[@weizenobstmusli8232]

Whenever somebody asks me what camera to buy I say "take any top end product from the last 12 years". I think the needs in pixelcount, framerate and autofocus speed matter more than sensor tech. And megapixels only for people who want to print large.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely! And even for printing large, not a whole lot of megapixels are actually needed.

[@kit0415]

I think showing actual images would make your arguments much stronger, rather then just numbers.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Ah!

[@MasticinaAkicta]

Sensors these days are really really good. They just are!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

True!

[@JezdziecBezNicka]

People like high numbers, and the marketing departments know that 😏

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yep! Could not have said it better! Isn't it crazy to see how small the actual differences are?!

[@JezdziecBezNicka]

Yep, I've never felt like I'm lacking dynamic range on my small sensor camera. And, as you mentioned - there's always HDR mode :) With the new fast-readout stacked sensors, I expect computational single-exposure HDR to become reality pretty soon, and that will render the whole topic irrelevant.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Even if the difference would remain, I am absolutely sure that it would not really matter in practice (as you've said!). There are of course other factors to consider, like overall image noise and so on, but that was not the point of this video.

[@JezdziecBezNicka]

The difference remains right until you print. After that, nobody can tell if you used full frame or m43 :D

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! That is the reality of it

[@kamczak89]

10:18 "It wouldn't be too bad. We would just have to accept that some parts are clipping white or black". It's like saying "It's not too bad, you just can't see some things in your photograph, so what."

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Well, not really - I know this is what one would think initially, but if you examine how final images look and how humans perceive DR, then you will find out that it does not matter at all - see my video on photographic DR

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Watch this; kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

[@Leo3City]

I has other system ( SONY ) And I keep my APS-C still because I can youse crop mode on long lenses, and is still good for backup, First and Second is Sony A7IV and A7RV and third always is Sony 6400, still 24MP camera and APS-C so with lens 70-200 on FF I have 105-400 on APS-C :) Maybe is not 2,8 but F5.6 but still good and with OSS I can catch nice captures. Good Videao anyway and proper explanation. All the best Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great setup! Sony has a lot to offer and those are great cameras and lenses 👍 Thank you very much for sharing that, keeping an APSC is totally reasonable. Thanks for the kind words!

[@Leo3City]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Not a problem, I did extra step now and bought teleconverter 2.0 SEL from Sony, and with 70-200 I get on APS-C 210-600mm F5.6 which is beast for affordable money, thank you for answer! have a nice day! Leo3City

[@antonsiberian]

Sure, all modern cameras are very good in DR, even 1inch sensors. But I realized that APS-C is the minimum sensor for me, because I tried MFT cameras, but there was something wrong with rendering of such nature objects like water, clouds and greenery (if you pixel peep a bit). Looks like a sort of tonality lack. Even the newer 20mpx MFT sensor, I tried RAWs from Dpreview, but again, didn't like it. So m43 is very good for travel, street and architecture photography, but not for landscape, nature or portraiture in my opinion. But I have to agree about the older sensors, even the 16mpx Nikon D7000 sensor from 2010 is good enough in most scenarios today.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Color reproduction and so on is really very subjective. There are so many aspects to consider: Which program was used, was the file actually exposed correctly, and much more. Thank you very much for sharing your views, and I agree: The D7000 has an awesome sensor.

[@mumrik]

I've come to the same conclusion. And I am now hunting for information why I see it that way. As this video and other data suggests, the dynamic range is enough. I wish that the small vs big sensor debate would focus more on the difference in tonality, micro contrast, lens technology etc. Instead we are getting caught up in how much of an underexposed photo I can recover, or how the bokeh with a smaller sensor.

[@antonsiberian]

@@mumrik Probably it's important to us to see the photos which are closer to reality and looks cleaner. I also find that Canon APS-C photos look better than M4/3, but anyway they look a bit "rough" (I don't how to explain it correctly), Canon sensors just a bit noisier even at base ISO. So Nikon, Sony and Fuji files looks cleaner to me and just right.

[@QuicknStraight]

Well, it's not just about DR, is it? Newer and bigger sensors also come with improvements in other areas: higher resolution, better image processing/colour science, better AF, better noise control, better EVF, better screens, etc. Obviously, bracketing can replicate greater DR, but it adds more stages to work flow, doesn't it? You can mimic the DR of the Phase One with a lot of bracketing with the D2H, but that's not going to get you the high resolution the Phase One offers, is it? Don't get me wrong, I still use an old Pentax K5 and I am happy with the image quality.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely, the main point of this video was to illustrate that 1) 8 stops are usually enough and that 2) when you need more (landscape, etc.) you usually need a lot more than any camera has to offer. Of course, the D2H vs Phase One was tongue in cheek. At the end of the day, more is always better, but it is important to find out how much is good enough. That is probably exactly the reason why you are still working with the (btw fantastic) K-5.

[@alantuttphotography]

The thing that convinced me that there really is no appreciable difference in dynamic range between smaller and larger sensors was when I looked at the test results on DXO and PhotostoPhotos for the apertures I normally used on FF (F5.6 - F8), and of M43 sensors at the equivalent apertures (F2.8 - F4) and saw that they were virtually identical. Multi-shot HDR and panoramas will compensate for most limitations in photo capability, and the extra work is worthwhile when you only need the extra detail 2% of the time. The main reason to choose a larger sensor is when you really want super-shallow depth of field, which isn't practical on smaller sensors. I'm curious, though, about your claim that a flatly-lit scene only needs 4 stops of dynamic range. Can you illustrate this? Preferrably with a reflected light meter so we're getting the most accurate data without using any camera's sensor and processor. Seems to me that the darkness of a groom's tux and the white of a bride's satiny dress would be further apart than this.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Alan! Thank you for sharing that - you have made some very important statements right there. I agree with the 2% statement. One can easily live with that. The 4-stops claim is really from testing. I've run some test charts and exposure metering on black and white surfaces under controlled circumstances. The 4 stops are the - what Ansel Adams would call "textural range", if we are talking about fabrics in the frame. Your example with the black tux and white dress is very valid - I just did some tests before answering you, that's why it took me so long. Here is the thing: if you really just consider the front surface / no shiny reflections, then you are in the 4 stops, maybe 4.5 stops range (at least with the fabrics I used). If you consider creases or shiny reflections, you are exceeding these 4 stops. The D2H at Hi 1 also has around 4 stops and I tested with this camera as well just to be sure. The D2h manages to reproduce about everything, but there are some parts that have to be clipped to pure black to cut out all the shadow noise. Thanks a lot for asking, it was quite interesting to test the scenario you have described!

[@coin777]

11:20 German humor. I love it!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

haha thanks

[@stefanostefani4273]

Thank you always very interesting and useful!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Stefano!

[@MeAMuse]

Dynamic range is a stat that really does not matter to me most of the time. I honestly think that images are better when you dont really recover shadows. It provides mystery... and showing what is there just makes an image more cluttered. I shoot full frame, APS-C and a 1 inch sensor (used to also shoot M4/3). The reason you shoot full frame is that it gives you better flexibility in the field to get the shot and it is cheaper to get better low-light performance and shallower DOF. The reason I choose smaller sensor cameras is for portability. Choose what is right for you, hell, choose multiple. Who cares they are just tools. The camera community cares too much about all this stuff. When was the last time you saw a construction person care this much about what hammer or drill they use and what people think of it? BTW... that site though.... man... I wouldn't point to that as a source if I want people to trust it. If you want to create a reputable source you need to have it look reputable. They should also put effort into really explaining the scientific method they use for testing. "Data is measured from raw files taken to my specifications and contributed by people from around the world." is not really cutting it for me....

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I agree - I'm also not a huge "shadow recovery" fan, I rather set the black point and provide some "crunch". Also, regarding the tools - I'm totally with you and that is why I made this video! photonstophotos is really really good - no worries about the data quality. He knows his business. Thanks for contributing!

[@mikafoxx2717]

Give his articles a read and you'll see pretty quickly that he knows what he's talking about. The infamous DXOmark never even touches on things like white point or captured electron well capacity, and more.. comparing readout noise, photon noise.. it's pretty in depth.

[@erikehrling4715]

The problem as a Panasonic G9 owner is not the size of the sensor but rather the lack of commitment to stills photography from Panasonic.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

The problem is that the G9 is so good that it is probably hard to follow up with a better stills oriented camera. In any case, as you've said: Panasonic is really killing it in the video department.