Replacement of Canon 1DSMark 2

[paul_mccarthy2]

I'm waiting to replace my 1DS mark1. I didn't buy the Mark 2 because it didn't offer an

improvement in tonal/dynamic range. In an ideal world Canon would launch a new camera

that has a bettter dynamic range (no more bleached high-lights) & that breaks the bond

with the 35mm format and shoots instead at a 3:4 format.

Is there any possiblity of this happening?

[Ed_Ingold]

If you have bleached highlights, it is a reflection of your skill in setting the exposure or in post-production. If you want a greater dynamic range (true 16-bit) and a 4:3 ratio, there are several medium format digital backs that meet this requirement. Personally, I have no problem with cropping, but that too is a post-production skill.

[troyammons]

The 2 Kodak slr cameras have an extended DR and you can recover blown highlights. Usually about 1-2 stops just guessing. One of the nicer things about the camera.

 

It does have other problems, slow, color aliasing, and it is a clunky not even close to a pro body.

[dan_vidal]

I second the medium-format suggestion. Personally I'm a fan of 3:2, I like having a more rectangular frame to work with, but to each his own. With an MF body and the requisite amount of data in the file, you can make your own ratio.

[John Crowe]

The DSLR manufacturers should have settled on a better ratio for those printing either 8.5 x 11 or 8 x 10 but they did not do so and now it is likely too late. Canon has set the benchmark by introducing the sort of affordable 24x36 5D which is the same as 35mm film so look for this to be the standard for DSLRs in the future. When I crop for printing or displaying I rarely use the whole frame anyway so the 2:3 ratio allows for compositional error and post adjustments. I can live with that.

 

 

Digital technology still has a long way to go including resolution, colour fringing, and write speed as well as your dynamic range. All in time. Heck Nikon has caught up with Canon in the APS format but not yet in full frame.

[digitmstr]

DSRL manufacturer have to keep in mind the image circle produced by current 35mm lenses. I don't think Canon, Nikon, etc... have in mind a total new lens line for medium format anytime soon.

 

The 1DsMKII is a significant improvement in image quality, processing over the 1Ds. If you shoot RAW you'll have a better dyn. range than slide film.

[NK Guy]

> The DSLR manufacturers should have settled on a better ratio for those printing either 8.5

x 11 or 8 x 10 but they did not do so and now it is likely too late.

 

They should, eh? They should have settled on a paper size used by two countries on the

entire planet? (the US and Canada)

 

Virtually everybody else use A4 paper, which is much closer to the 2:3 ratio. I have no idea

where the bizarre 8x10 business came from.

[dave_redmann]

<I>If you have bleached highlights, it is a reflection of your skill in setting the exposure or in post-production.</I><P>

 

Not necessarily. There are some scenes for which the scene's dynamic range exceeds the capture medium's dyanmic range (and this is true of <I>any</I> digital or film medium). If you frequently take pictures outside in full sun, you <I>will</I> encounter this problem. In such cases there will be highlights that get recorded as pure white or shadows that get recorder as pure black or both. In such circumstances the photographer has to make an artistic / taste judgment call on what tones are most important to record. Yes, in all cases you can set the exposure so that none (or virtually none) of the highlights burn to white, but then you will sometimes have a lot of shadows that fade to pure black and are utterly lacking in detail. That might <I>usually</I> be preferable, but it is not always preferable.<P>

 

<I>If you want a greater dynamic range (true 16-bit)</I><P>

 

No. Dynamic range and bit depth are <B>not</B> the same thing. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest and darkest light levels that the camera can capture. Bit depth tells you how finely the camera divides up the available dynamic range.<P>

 

If you had a camera with wide dynamic range but only 8-bit depth, you'd have relatively crude tonal gradations, but less risk of blowing out highlights or letting shadows fade to black. If you had a camera with narrow dynamic range but 16-bit depth, you'd have relatively fine tonal gradations, but more risk of blowing out highlights or letting shadows fade to black.<P>

[ralph_jensen]

The day Canon's flagship goes to 3:4 is the day I switch to Nikon....

[andrew robertson]

Wow, I guess everybody has a pretty short memory. This is a huge problem with

transparencies and even B&W and color print films. An average full scale scene, with some

objects in bright sun, the sky, and deep shadow, etc. will defy anything film or digital to

capture its dynamic range (in one exposure anyway). You just have to let some highlights

go sometimes.

 

In fact, it is often desirable to let some values blow out, such as specular highlights, light

sources, the brightest parts of clouds in a landscape type scene, etc.

 

There is no camera on the market that can help you very much. Shooting in RAW and

combining two developments of the same RAW file in one final image is one way to

increase your dynamic range with any RAW capable camera. You can carefully control

highlight, midtone, and shadow detail with this technique.