Which camera has the best dynamic range?

I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to date,
have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't see the
curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no shading! Cars
that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market for a new "point
and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix
F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models are advertised as
having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for
avoiding washed out highlights?

--
Bob D.

Bob Donahue wrote:
I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in
the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic range"
modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
highlights?

Bob, you may be able to save money simply by setting the exposure
compensation on your existing camera to -1/3 stop - i.e. just under-expose
a little.

Fuji have made CCDs in the past with dual sensors at each pixel - large
sensors for the main parts image and smaller sensors for the bright parts
of the image. This technology I would be inclined to trust, although I
have not used it myself. I don't know if the F100fd includes this
technology, but it appears that it might. You may need to use RAW mode to
make the most of this, and it's not obvious whether the F100fd has RAW..
A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as it's
simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP image.
Check for yourself before purchase!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...fujif100fd.asp

David

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:

I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to date,
have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't see the
curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no shading! Cars
that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market for a new "point
and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix
F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models are advertised as
having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for
avoiding washed out highlights?

Possibly the camera you already own. Which one is it? As David
mentioned, a slight amount of exposure compensation may give you
back the missing white highlights, although it may require more than
a -1/3 stop reduction. If your camera can show histograms on
playback, it'll show pretty clearly if you're pictures are being
overexposed. Some cameras also combine a "blinking highlights"
feature that will show the highlight problem areas.

As for the better camera, I'd say probably the F100fd, but that's
a guess since here (USA) the Coolpix S610 has no reviews since it
isn't yet available. B&H indicates that they'll be getting them in
October. If it's anything like the similarly spec'ed CoolPix S600,
the Coolpix P60 and Panasonic's LZ10, Fuji's F100fd clearly
outperforms them for detail and image quality, most obviously at
higher ISOs. Only a little was said about the CP S600's D-Lighting,
and the example primarily showed improved shadow detail. More
attention was paid to improving dynamic range in the F100fd's
reviews, so here's some of what was said. Links follow :


The FinePix F100fd's adjustable Dynamic Range adjustment helped
in harsh lighting as in the portrait shots above. You can see that
highlight detail in the white shirt is off the chart in the first two images,
but increasing the dynamic range helped to bring out more detail
in this area, as well as in the shadows and midtones.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...FD/F100FDA.HTM


My overall impression of the F100fd is that it does exhibit a bit more
range than most, if not all compacts I've tested in the past, but the
impression is not from this comparison alone. Surf shots with the
F100fd showed consistent retention of detail in the white water portion
of the waves rather than lost highlights typical of most other cameras.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...sp?newsID=3440



http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...n+coolpix+s600


http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...view=nikon+p60


http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...c+lumix+lz1 0

Hi Bob,

Have you thought about a camera that shoots in RAW mode, which gives you
much greater control over the end result.

Regards,
John.

Bob Donahue wrote:
I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to date,
have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't see the
curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no shading! Cars
that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market for a new "point
and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix
F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models are advertised as
having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for
avoiding washed out highlights?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:55:47 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as it's
simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP image.
Check for yourself before purchase!

I wouldn't trust this comment unless it's reworded slightly. Are
you sure that you didn't mean to type something like :

I wouldn't trust a small-sensor camera's ISO 12,800 offering . . .

Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:

I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to
date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't
see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no
shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market
for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the
Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models
are advertised as having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would
be my best bet for avoiding washed out highlights?

If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format will
support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The discontinued
Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as jpeg or tiff. You
can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at great prices.

ray wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:

I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm
in the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic
range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
highlights?

If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format
will support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The
discontinued Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as
jpeg or tiff. You can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at
great prices.

Ray, you are mistaken here. If anything, JPEG actually offers the greater
dynamic range because it uses non-linear gamma-corrected encoding, as
opposed to the linear coding of RAW. What JPEG lacks, however, is
precision of representing light levels, plus ths "loss" due to compression
(in most JPEGs).

David

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:55:47 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as
it's simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP
image. Check for yourself before purchase!

I wouldn't trust this comment unless it's reworded slightly. Are
you sure that you didn't mean to type something like :

I wouldn't trust a small-sensor camera's ISO 12,800 offering . . .

Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.

Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
unusable settings?. As I said, I would advise the buyer to check before
purchase just what the capabilities actually are, and whether the results
are acceptable for their own applications.

But the question here is about the dynamic range, rather than the absolute
ISO sensitivity. It may be that the other capabilities of the camera
would offset poor high-ISO image quality. Here I would expect manual
control (at least exposure compensation), and perhaps RAW output.

David

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:53:24 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.

Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
unusable settings?. As I said, I would advise the buyer to check before
purchase just what the capabilities actually are, and whether the results
are acceptable for their own applications.

David, why do you *insist* on ignoring the most important points
only to come back with a reply addressing a minor point that shows
that you'd rather attempt to prove that what you said was correct if
only your mistaken assumption was true? It appears that you didn't
even read the sentences that you quoted above, where I explicitly
stated that the F100fd offers ISO 12,800 at reduced resolution. No,
the F100fd does NOT offer 12MP at ISO 12,800. That ISO is only
available at resolutions of 3mp and lower. If you read my reply to
the OP you could have followed the links to reviews that showed what
the ISO 12,800 results look like instead of assuming the worst. As
you quoted but evidently didn't read, the ISO 12,800 IQ "isn't very
good", but it is quite usable for 4"x6" snapshots. It may not
produce the best 4"x6" image quality you've ever seen, but it's more
acceptable than most other small sensor cameras that also have
reduced resolution, high ISO modes.

More worrying is that you completely ignored my point that even if
the ISO 12,800 results were bad, it shouldn't cause someone to
assume, as you did, that it would not only make the results
completely unusable, but that it should be grounds for not trusting
the camera or even any other cameras that Fuji makes, which is what
you actually typed. That's complete nonsense and I'm sure that
there are other manufacturers and their cameras that you'd never
judge so unreasonably. As I said, Casio, Panasonic and Olympus are
also "guilty" of producing cameras with reduced resolution, high ISO
modes. Do you want to stand by your statement and hint that Casio,
Panasonic and Olympus cameras should be prejudged, and you'll also
have "considerable reduced trust" for those brands as well?


But the question here is about the dynamic range, rather than the absolute
ISO sensitivity. It may be that the other capabilities of the camera
would offset poor high-ISO image quality. Here I would expect manual
control (at least exposure compensation), and perhaps RAW output.

Yes, the other capabilities "may" offset poor high-ISO image
quality, but you don't seem to want us to assume that to be the case
as you've already let us know that the camera and its manufacturer
probably can't be trusted.

Manual control and RAW output aren't needed however, to get very
good image quality. As reviews noted, Fuji's F30 (or perhaps the
F31) produced better jpeg results out of the camera than the much
larger, more sophisticated S6000 which used the same sensor. When
the S6000's RAW images were processed and compared, only then did
they approach the same image quality, but didn't actually surpass
it. Surprising perhaps, as this isn't usually the case with other
brands, but Fuji seems to be able to get more out of in-camera jpeg
processing than other companies manage.

The F100fd's expanded dynamic range, by the way, is only available
at ISOs up to and including ISO 400, and at those ISOs image quality
is noticeably better than the other cameras managed. According to
the reviews and the test images, Fuji's DR appears to work pretty
well. But as we've both already said, solving the OP's blown
highlights problem might be solved by simply using some exposure
compensation, rather than requiring a new camera.

ASAAR,

It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.
However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
manufacturers it.

The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
excellent tool for the OP's job.

David