The only testing of dynamic range I know of are those on dpreview.
Well, Thom Hogan has data for Nikons on his site. Phil Askey only
started testing dynamic range recently. So while he shows it for the
E410 he does not have it in the E-1 test. You would expect a lower
noise level(and higher dynamic range) on the E-1 because of the
larger pixel sites.
The dynamic range charts on any of the recent dpreview tests show the
reduction of dynamic range with rising ISO which shows clearly that
DR is a function of the noise floor.
Aside from that you can see from Phil's tests that the dynamic range
for the E-400 is less than some of its competitors.
E-400: 7.3 stops
D40X: 8.5 stops
400D: 8.4 stops
5D: 8.2 stops
Although the Pentax 10D is also 7.3 stops which is interesting
considering that the Nikon uses the same sensor, but different ADC
processing. So maybe the expectation that smaller sites on the E410
sensor will give greater noise than that on the E-1 which would
result in reduced reduced dynamic range can be ameliorated by clever
processing in the ADC chip. So who knows?
I am usually skeptical of off the cuff claims of reduced dynamic
range because it is too easy for someone to see blown highlights
using their new camera and say it is reduced dynamic range when it is
more likely to be a small metering difference they are seeing.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On / June 25, 2007 CE, at 12:44 PM, Garth Wood wrote:
> However, it still didn't answer
> the gist of the question, i.e., what's the evidence that the new Panny
> sensor in the 410/510 etc. has a smaller DR than the old Kodak in
> the E-1?
>
> Does anyone know?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|