Dynamic Range confusion - AP dated 20 February 2010

[Malcolm_Stewart]

In the recent AP for 30 January 2010, Angela Nicholson writes (on p49):
"In their default arrangements the EOS 7D and K-7 have dynamic ranges of 12EV, which is now about standard for a high-end DSLR."

However on p24 of the my latest AP for 20 February 2010 Paul Whiting, the front cover featured writer, states:
"A digital camera's sensor is capable of rendering detail across a range of 6 - 7 stops, and this is described as the sensor's dynamic range."

That's a difference of 5 to 6 stops which is anything but trivial in the context of Mr Whiting's article, "Coping with high contrast".

Which one do I believe? Angela normally backs up her statements with measurements. So, has Mr Whiting's article been delayed in publication for a few years?

[El_Sid]

Having now read the piece I wonder if the word fine is missing from Mr Whiting's article. I've looked at some of my pictures taken in more 'challenging' light and while coarse detail such as outlines and basic shapes are visible in the shadows finer details such as texture don't tend to reproduce well - if at all.

[Dark_Mist]

Is the later article about SLRs? Point and shoot and bridge cameras have much smaller sensors and seem to have less dynamic range than 4/3 and larger sensors.

Sorry we don't get the new edition here in Australia for another couple weeks so I can't look for myself.

[Malcolm_Stewart]

Thanks for your comment. I've found the article again and it's in front of me.

The article by Paul Whiting is titled "Coping with high contrast", and it runs to 5 pages, with 8 decent images - 2 being full page bleed. There's no explicit mention of camera size/type but there's mention of his preferred technique, over the lens ND filtration. There's also mention of histograms and and the dangers of fringing (in silhouettes against the sky), raw processing, painted layer masks and HDR and Photoshop software.

Despite the text, the upper image on p27 in my copy doesn't appear to have received any treatment at all. (Text says multiple exposures were used) There's blue sky and bright sunlit rocky cliffs, and a foreground in deep shadow, but on the printed page no hint of detail in the shadowed foreground. On my monitor at least I'd expect to be able to see into the shadows.

In my own case, I shoot with an EOS 5D, and am careful to not blow-out the highlights relying on Levels in post-processing to raise the brightness of the shadows and mid-tones. Fortunately, my 5D has pretty clean shadow areas, and I'm rarely troubled with noise problems.