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

🎬 Two minor slips that made it through the cutting room: 1️⃣ 5D has 12.8 MP, not 16 MP 2️⃣ 5D IV has 10.83 stops, which is less (not more) than the A9II's 10.90 stops Please consider supporting the channel, donate a cup of coffee ☕ ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography

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.

Another fascinating video Thomas. This topic is definitely something that comes up regularly. In fact, I had just finished watching a vlog from another RU-vidr 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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

I agree 100% with your thoughtful assessment. In 2019 I made a RU-vid 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Thank you! Great video as usual.

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

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

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

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 !

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Very interesting and informative video 👍

Very instructive!

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.

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!

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.

Thank you always very interesting and useful!

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

thank you for your great presentations. !!!

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.

Nice work Thomas

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.

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

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!

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.

Excellent video, thank you.

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.

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.

What you said in the video is technically true especially about the absolute dynamic range at base ISO. What you missed out on the is reduction of dynamic range on larger sensors tend to be less at higher ISOs. When it is coupled with the 0.7-1 stop advantage at base ISO that full frame sensors have, the difference in result becomes really apparent. I shot digital since the EOS 10D, switching from 1.6x to 1.3x to 1.0x sensors through the years and I can confidently say that if you can afford it, definitely go for full frame for both image quality and oftentimes practicality too since full-frame tend to demand a little less on the optics of a lens with its larger pixel pitch. I have tested recent flagship Fujifilm cameras and they are arguably the best crop frame mirror less cameras on sale now and they still lag quite a bit behind full frame cameras especially when using them at higher ISOs. And their AF still leaves a lot to be desired but... If someone shoots 100% still subjects (landscapes, art reproduction, etc) I guess they could work but so could cheaper full-frame cameras.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

brilliant, thank you!!

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!

Hello Tomas I had the om1 yesterday and done a shot of a venue, and I tried the high res mod. All of the photos came out washed, the color was terrible. What did I do wrong? I also took my Nikon z8 and I did get some great phot for my client.

Excellent. Thank you.

Interesting&usefull article, Thomas. Thank you ! Modern ML cameras have "computational" modes like high-res or HDR, which can improve the dynamic range. Phones brought the computation at the next level, so the output can compete against cameras with larger sensors. I was suprised how easy a phone can handle a dificult scene. Just one click and you get a photo which looks fine. To get a similar output with camera, you need to spend some editing time in front of the computer.

Nicely articulated

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

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?

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 RU-vidr 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 RU-vid 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.

Very enlightening. Thanks for this presentation. Makes you go hmm 🤔.

About dynamic range - not the same but related (in my understanding) is shadow recovery. And shadow recovery is actually very important. Many modern wide-angle lenses, I think especially wide angle zoom lenses, have strong light fall-off in the corners so to avoid vignetting, several stops of shadows need to be brought up. Modern sensors with a high dynamic range are usually also much better at shadow recovery (I believe that the sensors in the Nikon D800 and D810 are actually very noisy in shadows, much more so than newer Nikon sensors in for instance the Z7, although I have no personal experience with this). Light fall-off in corners is lens dependent but for instance the Canon RF15-35 f/2.8 loses 4 stops of light in the corners when shooting at 15mm f/2.8, and the newest version of the Canon EF16-35 f/2.8 has similar light loss in the corners. Shooting at 15mm f/11 there is still 2.5 stops of light loss in the corners. Lenses from other brands have similar degrees of light fall-off. So for an even exposure across the scene, you often need a bit extra dynamic range extending down into the shadows, for bringing the corners back up. Am I right about this?

Thank you, comrade Lenin!

Brilliant!

Explained very clearly

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.

Thank you for your informative and interesting video. I shoot on modern cameras alongside withe old ones like the Canon 40d and the 5d mkI. I like the user experience and the colors sooc. There is a significant difference I remarked working on the raw files of the camera from that era. They seem to be more flat. For that reason It ins,t necessary to lift that shadows to the same amount like I have to do to with the raws form the more modern cameras. Additionally there is some more room in the highlights. Of course heavy exposure correction and shadows lifting lead to noise and artifacts and proper exposure to the right is crucial. The newer cameras are a lot better in these aspects and that makes the life easier but after all it isn’t such a big deal.

Two thumbs up, Thomas.

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.

Thanks, really useful. I've checked the website and I found that my recent purchase (Nikon D610) in terms of PDR is doing quite well below iso 200 - not many competitors.

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 ...

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

amazing presentation.....congratulations ....AND A BIIIG like from mewhat is your opinion about nikon z7markII? THX

Years ago, I got the Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro -- which has a unique 6/12MP sensor, and about 12 stops dynamic range. Thoughts?

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

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 😂

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.

Very clear. How does film compare? Do films vary more in dynamic range?

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.

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.

Does anyone know the D850...it's incredible dynamic range .. I don't know the numbers but I have shot photos in long exposures we're of underexposed or made a mistake in calculation and the photo has been almost black and I have been able to recover and image I would be curious to know where the Nikon d850 sits I know it has more dynamic range than the Z7 series cameras as I have tested those and they aren't as good

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.

Any thoughts on "pocket DSLRs" (regular non-DSLR small cameras with decent lens and sensor which presumably offer very good image quality) like Sony RX100 m3? Except for the lack of removable lens - what are your thoughts on the built-in capabilities for non-professional/enthusiast users?

I'd be interested in seeing a video talking about low light capabilities and high iso performance.

What about advances in auto white balance and auto focus? I have a dad era Nikon D3400, and I often do not like the off cast it produces in snaps.

Is a one stop improvement in DR a doubling of dynamic range as a one stop increase in aperture is a doubling of the exposure? Or am I reading it wrong?

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.

I still love and often favour for size my Olympus 450 with a 14mm prime rather than lugging my indestructible Pentax around. I just watch the weather report first 😊

Totally agree!

Thanks for the video. But, I've always looked at sensor size in terms of high Iso noise and depth of field...

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.

I used a Canon 90D with large aperture Sigma lenses in astronomy and got excellent results.

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.

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!

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!

I couldn't recover highlight details and shadow details on a Canon 6D full frame, but i could easily do that on a Sony A7 mark I, so YES, sensor mathers, not size but first, how new and good it is.