Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,487
    Default
    That's a weird way of counting stops. First, you don't have to count the clipped white patch. Second, that patch should be just about clipping, which doesn't seem to be the case here (either that, or the flat curve actually has a shoulder in the highlights).
    If I compare the image with these ones, I reckon it has around 3 stops less than the a6300. It's on par with the GH4, which I've used and consider low-DR by today's standards. Even before 10-bit, 4k 60fps, etc., Nikon needs a better gamma curve, able to preserve in video model all the DR the sensor can provide.
    Last edited by Samuel H; 10-24-2017 at 02:49 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    209
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    ... that patch should be just about clipping, which doesn't seem to be the case here (either that, or the flat curve actually has a shoulder in the highlights).
    I don't really get what you mean by this sentence


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,487
    Default
    That the brightest patch of light in the chart should appear as clipped white on your image, but if you close your f-stop just a tiny bit it should not be clipping anymore. If this flat picture profile is log-like in the sense that it doesn't have a shoulder in the highlights, the chart is slightly overexposed, f-stop should have been closed down by half a stop or so, which means the DR is half-a-stop lower than they measured. Or maybe flat has a knee and the chart is properly exposed, I don't really know.

    In any case, my main point was: compare this result with similar charts shot with other cameras, and the difference is obvious. You can claim as many stops as you want, it's still approximately three stops short of the a6300. And that's a lot.

    Edit: this is how a log profile usually looks like (this is slog on the F3)
    sony-f3-s-log-dynamic-range.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    650
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    Then it's time to switch sensor manufacturers, ha.
    D850's sensor is not made by Sony.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    3,439
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by broughtonfilm View Post
    D850's sensor is not made by Sony.
    At the time of the post, it was said as a tongue-in-cheek figure of speech.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •