File :-(, x, )
thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
i found this to be interesting.
From a pdf from the Sekonic website.

In the conventional world of film, especially negative film, over
exposure was never a major problem. In fact many photographers
intentionally over expose for better contrast range.
Using the same approach with digital exposure today is disastrous.
Over exposure with digital capture outside of the limits of the sensors
capabilities causes each pixel to reach its
limit for capturing the data and the
exposure surpasses the limits of the sensor.
The final result “Saturation Point” is loss of
data in the highlight areas and possible
blooming or fringing. This condition is
significantly amplified by a narrow latitude
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
>>105877

This graph is EXTREMELY approximate. For example, a high-sensitivity film intended for push processing (like Ilford Delta 3200) will have different latitude range than regular ISO 100 film; as for digital, different cameras have very different highlight/shadow range in RAW and JPEG files.
>> Anonymous
What about medium format digital and the Fuji digital SLRs with its greater latitude?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
nothing new, everyone says to underexpose on digital for these reasons.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>105879
>>105883
you are both right, i just thought it would be interesting to share something of some important but general knowledge in a overall general point of view, least its not another "what camera should i buy" thread.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>105886
So i hear ken rockwell is giving out good advice.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>105887
if you take what he says as a grain of salt and not the word of god, he does say a few useful things. after all, he is a confused over enthusiastic photographer with many years of piratical experience.
>> Anonymous
I agree with the chart for the most part.

In my experience, shooting in all of these formats, reversal film is even tighter than that, and maybe biased a bit more towards the shadows and negative film is more like -3 to +4, as +5 stops seems pretty extreme (maybe ok for certain push-designed B+W films)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105894he is a confused over enthusiastic photographer with many years of piratical experience

Sailing the seven seas and plundering Spanish galleons?
>> pskaught
this is very obvious...
BUT, Steve Yedlin wrote a logarythem for the Panasonic Varicam(720p Hidef camera) that changed its latitude to react more like the Kodak 5218 (a 500 speed motion picture stock which probably has the most latitude of all of Kodak's film stocks next to their expressions stock which is just a beefed up version of the 5218) like 11 or 12 stops of latitude. So shouldn't there be a way to "hack" a (just for example) a mark III 1ds to have an even wider latitude. I can't imagine that the latitude is based solely on hardware and not some software conversion... discuss.
>> Anonymous
The Fuji S5 jpgs have the same latitude as a more normal digital camera's RAW file.
>> Anonymous
>>105912

12 stops of dynamic range.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
the answer (you're going to hate this) is HDR.
>> Anonymous
>>105916

Not the best solution if it is portraits or events.
>> pskaught
>>105916
this is not the answer I was looking for.
>> Anonymous
How do you measure stops of dynamic range?
>> Anonymous
>>105930

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/page18.asp
>> Anonymous
>>105932

Thanks, how does this translate in the real world?

You get better detail if someone is wearing a white dress on a white background?
>> Anonymous
>>105942

In the real world it means in situations like a wedding you can get all the detail in the groom's black tux and in the bride's white dress without losing the shadow or highlight detail.
>> Anonymous
>>105943

Also great for skin tones.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105944

which is why the Fuji S5 pro is considered the King of portraits, since it's got probably the best DR out of any DSLR.
>> Anonymous
Is the S3 as good as the S5 for dynamic range?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105948

I use Canon for the most part, but if I won the lottery or something (like that Nikon guy with the big collection!) then I'd still consider getting a Fuji SLR for that sort of thing. It'd be nice to get one to try. Should be interesting to see what they come up with for the next camera now they are getting a niche for themselves.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105962

From the Fuji user reports and reviews I've seen it seems that the S5 is better.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105969

The improvement from the S3 is supposedly huge. I wish i could find and online article, but the ones i've read are all in my magazines.

If Fuji brought out an FX camera with the same unbeatble DR they usually have, i'd say goodbye to Nikon. But obviously not Nikkors, since the Fuji would more than likely use F mount.
>> Anonymous
>>105981But obviously not Nikkors, since the Fuji would more than likely use F mount.

Canonfag here, what does that mean?

I thought Fuji used the Nikon F mount, so they're compatible with almost all Nikon lenses.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105981

The S5 has a lot of improvements outside of the better dynamic range too that make it worthwhile. It was a whole new body design from Nikon they based it on too. If you're looking for decent reviews online you could look at DPReview.

I don't think we'll be seeing a FX equivalent camera from Fuji any time soon. They've been very slow and quiet on developments. You never know though. It would certainly be welcome. I think the customers they are aiming it at would be willing to pay the extra for that feature. It's a special niche or interest camera for the most part rather than a budget camera where every penny counts. The common gripe is the "lack of megapixels". A better buffer to handle the large files from the wide modes might be nice too.

Fuji seem to be sticking to lenses for other formats right now and rely on Nikon for their SLRs. I wonder if that was part of the deals with Nikon for using their bodies and mount? Reduce competition. I'm surprised I don't see more Fujinon badged lenses for sale for the common mounts out there.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105992

He means that he wouldn't be buying Nikon bodies, but he'd still be buying Nikkor lenses as they are the compatible mount for the Fuji SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>105995

Are there Nikon and Nikkor lenses? Is there a difference?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105999

Lense made by Nikon are called Nikkors.
>> Anonymous
>>106001

That's kind of silly.

I'm going back to buying Canon L lenses.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106007

hehehe