|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Digital Photography |
Dynamic range of digital v film cameras? |
Hi! I was reading on wikipedia's 'Digital Photography' page and read that the dynamic range of digital pictures is usually worse than on film, except for if you use Fuji's new 4th generation Super CCD cameras, which seem quite cheap. I have a Canon Ixus 60, and I can't find any information on if this camera is 4th generation/super CCD too - it was a lot more expensive. I want to get as good quality as film photos on a digital camera. Should I buy one of these Fuji cameras to get this? I'm very confused. Thanks! :) Remember Wikipedia is a user driven site, so anyone can write anything they want. From film to film there are differences in dynamic latitude. Transparency film has the least and some of the older low ISO black and white sheet film hand the most. Of all the film types, a digital sensor most responds to light like a transparency. The image is a colour positive. That said, you actually get more dynamic rage from a digital sensor (from a DSLR, not a compact digital camera) than any transparency film. When one uses the HD feature in Photoshop CS2 and CS3, the latitude becomes higher than any film on the market today (other than maybe x-ray film). How do various digital sensor perform under professional condition? You will have to do some tests or find a test that shows each sensor, head to head with others. dpriview does this for most DSLR cameras made today. To confuse you even more, your camera does not use a CCD, but a CMOS sensor. At this time only older compact digital cameras, the whole Canon DSLR line and the Nikon D2x(s) use CMOS sensors. Source(s): http://www.dpreview.com DigiPro Modern digital cameras give excellent results. I should forget talk about the "dynamic range", are you satisfied with the results you get from your camera? I have seen tests by professional photographers that show that digital gave better results than film. (Yes it was an expensinve camera.) You should be able to rely on all the better known makes such as Canon, Nikon, and Fuji. Actually, the Canon IXUS 60, also named 鈥淪D600 Digital ELPH鈥? uses a CCD (Charged Coupled Device), not a CMOS. It says so in several photography sites, as well as in the manufacturer's specifications page for that camera, and in its user manual. The only thing they don't specifically say, is that these sensors are usually made by Sony. But it's a CCD, that much I'm sure of. What it's not, is a Fujifilm SuperCCD HR, or SuperCCD SR, or any Fujifilm SuperCCD at all: it doesn't have hexagonal photosites, nor does it have a honeycomb array (but a standard grid one), and for that matter it's not even as large as Fujifilm's sensors usually are: the one used in the IXUS 60 / SD600 is your typical 1/2.5 inches sized sensor, while Fuji usually (though not always) uses larger sensors, in the 1/1.6 - 1/1.7 inches range. So there's no particular advantage to the IXUS 60's sensor: it has typical sensitivity, typical dynamic range, and typical noise profile. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/ca... http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contro... http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fuji-s... None of that means that the IXUS 60's is a bad sensor; it certainly isn't. It's just not in the Fuji SuperCCD HR, 1/1.6鈥?- 1/1.7鈥?league; if you want a camera with that kind of sensor, look for the Fujifilm FinePix F30, F31fd, F40fd, or the newer (and still a bit of a mistery, regarding image quality) F50fd. fPhotoAce: You've mixed up dynamic latitude with exposure latitude. Slide film is typically very intolerant of any exposure errors, but typically offers a far higher dynamic latitude than most print films and far far higher than any electronic sensor. Anyway, meanwhile back at the question.... The word 'worse' carries quite negative conatations. The contrast range from most digital cameras is fine, given that they will be printed on fairly basic home printers or uncallibrated high street printers. To the eye you will find a bit more detail in highlights & shadows with film..... ....If you were going to use decent quality film, correctly exposed, and scan it at decent colour depth and with a decent scanner with good density factor then the results shall be higher than with digital. In short a slide of film being stored or manipulated digitally is only as good as the scan. If you don't want the hassle of all this then buy a digital camera that supports either TIFF, RAW or DNG as these file types give you a better colour depth and more subtle colour gradiations than JPEGS. The best camera at the moment for colour depth subtlety is the Pentax d10 (aka Samsung gx10) A bigger disparity is that of resolution, but it all depends on your intended end use. If you want the quality of film in a compact shell then buy an Olympus MJU II 35mm camera or a Ricoh GR1 35mm. The IXUS is a decent solid wee camera. If you have the option to shoot RAW or TIFF then use it. Don't replace it for the sake of it. Any fuji's I've used have been pretty mushy in JPEG mode. To be honest, if you don't notice the difference then don't bother. If you are going to print the photos I'd print them on photo paper, but being realistic... you may some people do... how many photos do you print. Otherwise, there isn't much of a noticable difference on your pc screen. If you do want this super ccd, then I think you will need a fuji camera, but otherwise your ixus is a great camera, don't be conned by fujis marketing advice. (which is probably where its from) If you are happy with your camera stick with it. I use both Canon and Fuji cameras and both are excellent. Better to invest in a photoprinter and good quality paper and make super prints. |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |