fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Why dynamic range is more important than megapixels

by 26 Comments

Do megapixels really matter? Well, of course they do, but they don’t take the first place when it comes to the importance. According to photographer Manny Ortiz, a good dynamic range is what you should look for in a camera. In his latest video, he shares why both are important – but also why dynamic range matters more.

You’ll see plenty of blog posts and articles stating that megapixels don’t matter. Well, they do, and there are certainly some advantages to the cameras with lots of megapixels. For example, you can reframe the photo and still have enough resolution. Or, you can turn a portrait photo into a landscape one, and vice versa. So, it’s not that megapixels don’t matter, but according to Manny – they don’t matter that much. What you should really look for is the high dynamic range.

Put simply, dynamic range is the range of brightness your camera sensor is capable of recording. The higher the dynamic range, the more details will be retained in the shadows and highlights. If you want to boost the shadows, you’ll be able to do it without getting the noise in dark areas. If you want to recover the blown out highlights, good dynamic range allows you to bring back a lot of details. In a word, good dynamic range gives you much more control over your images, and a lot more space to correct the mistakes without compromising the image quality.

To be honest, I didn’t think about the dynamic range when I was buying my first DSLR. But only when I compare it with the new one, I realize why dynamic range is so important. I didn’t even make a serious upgrade (from Nikon D3000 to D7000), yet the difference is obvious. So, if you’re looking into buying a new camera, just like Manny – I also suggest you give dynamic range the advantage over the megapixel count.

[THIS is more IMPORTANT than having all those MEGAPIXELS | Manny Ortiz]

Related posts:

A7RIII 80 megapixel rumor – Let’s talk about why I love the Megapixel race (not what you think) Pentax 645Z Announced – It’s a Beast! The Sony RX100V is a killer point and shoot for portraits. If you play it right Angry backers of Yashica digiFilm Y35 report multiple camera issues

  • It matters, but both sample photos look just fine IMO =)

  • Canon engineers have been shouted by for a decade they can do better than just MPs

  • Because dynamic range means how brightly the brightest part and how deeply the darkest part of a photo can be rendered by the sensor. Megapixel over something like 24mp is overkill if you don’t plan on to print your image in huge size.

  • I think dynamic range is just like the 3rd dimension of a photo, and if you do post-processing then dynamic range matters more.

  • The irony is generally the more MP the better the DR…

  • They are two totally different things and shouldn’t be compared. Only actual users can define what is more important to them depending on their needs. Try explaining how DR is more important to a customer that demands 24MP+ images.

    • Tinsol

      customers are stupid and usually need to be shown what they need. what size and for what media are they printing? and they are not comparing the 2 they are comparing the importance of the 2 and actually this is just a click bait article and it worked.

  • esa es nueva!

  • newworld666

    … jpg are coded in 8 bits, best out of price monitors can only be used in 10 bits per channel (and less with printers) ..
    So there is no way to show photos with more than 10 to 11EV dynamics without compressing and creating artefacts like awful and dated HDR pictures => something like washed pictures, nearly flat without micro contrast ou fluorescent colours..
    How many terrific skies can we see on HDR pictures.
    The only interesting thing with some more dynamic range is to softly enhanced some underexposed parts of a picture (without making them grey).
    More pixels allow to print A0 or bigger photos with still a lot of details or crop hardly if necessary.

    • TByte

      It is absolutely possible to shrink the dynamic range of a RAW file to the narrower dynamic range of a jpeg without artifacts.

    • Well done, you just demonstrated that shooting RAW is mandatory.

      • newworld666

        .. sorry for you .. as if no way no way to watch RAW outside photoshop/lightroom ..
        Unfortunately you can only use png for watching largest dynamic range on the web .. but limited to 10 bits/channel int he best case without a marvelous iphone/smartphone fluo green, black clouds and flat grey compressed style ..

        • RAW is not for display, but for editing. And it’s not possible to watch RAW on any support, it’s just a mix of red/blue/green dot.

    • Your comment misses entirely that dynamic range figures and measurements are of the raw linear data.
      This data is mapped through a power curve (gamma) and a tone curve (often “s” shaped) to the dynamic range you see in the final image.
      That final dynamic range is often compressed to fit into the ability of the display or the print.
      But the initial linear dynamic range is what gives you the flexibility to get the final image you want; often the more the better as a starting point.

  • Coz detail counts.

    • Tinsol

      sometimes- not usually in street hotography

  • Natalia

    There is not mentioned how to exactly check if camera have good dynamic range. Mpx od easy ot check. But not everybody knows about dr

  • Why choose one if you can have both – take the D850 ;-)

  • I’m not an expert at DxO, but I recall that higher mega pixel camera also provides higher dynamic range. (look at Nikon D8x0)

  • devils advocate here but I don’t chase MP or Dynamic range, sure my old Pentax k5 with the great 16mp Sony chip at iso 80 could still today hang with the best FF sensors for dynamic range and at the time changed the way I shot, I ditched that and Bayer sensors in general after buying my first Foveon camera.

    More subtle color and tonal shifts, more color detail in general, lack of false color moire, cleaner sharper edges giving more 3d depth to an image than I’ve ever had from a Bayer (My Sony a7ii hardly gets used) for me is worth more than the dynamic range or high iso ability I lost switching over but not everyone will feel the same.

  • Dynamic range and megapixels serve different purposes and neither are more important than the other.

  • Vinny Mwano

    I really like this post, I agree with everything you say! I just did a video talking about dynamic range within mobile phones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MGMOy0g6Wc&feature=youtu.be

  • Tinsol

    It depends what you are shooting and who you are shooting for. Most street photography dont need crazy dynamic range landscape maybe. That being said most modern enthusiast level cameras are fine and your viewers wont be able to tell the difference unless they side a side by side and even then…megapixels is a marketing gimmick and unless you are making billboards you are throwing most of the pixels away. Most important by far is subject matter and what is in the frame. So many boring technically great photos fit for bathroom walls.

  • Tinsol

    this seems to be just an ad for Sony and every other camera maker that is hyping the DR marketing BS just like people did with megapixels. the marketing is NOT geared toward high end professional but for hobbyists and enthusiast levels. and mostly men. Because we are idiots and we think more is always better. That is the take – No its not always better. most people dont need either because they are not even printing they are posting to Instagram.

Recent Posts