I've bee around FM for a long time and I cannot recall any other time where people expect a drastically underexposed shot to retain detail in shadows. Here is a crazy idea....become a competant photographer and nail your exposure. You'll be able to comfortably shoot to ISO 12800 (TWELVETHOUSANDEIGHTHUNDRED) without banding in any area of the photo.
I agree with you that it is fairly ridiculous. But as others have said in the other thread there are times where you do have a proper exposure and yet only have to push the shadows less than 1 stop and the banding will be there. I live in a snowy country and 8 months of the year my shots involve a lot of snow, ice etc with dark forests around them. If you expose properly for the snow to keep it just below blowing out, the DR of a Canon camera is not wide enough to encompass the details in the trees or other darker subjects. To bring just a little detail out of the forests or a subject against the white snow, I usually need to bring up the shadows enough to start banding before I get to where I want it to be. The reason people are complaining is that the Sony EXMOR sensor used in Nikon cameras has a much wider DR and can actually be underexposed by 3 or more stops to save highlights and then be cleanly pushed to show a huge DR. Canon bodies need to be exposed to the right just to avoid these problems and in most scenes this will work fine but not in the situations I described above.
Again, even with the situations I described I usually don't have any issues and know how to expose to usually come out with a workable image but it is not just people deliberately underexposing that are complaining or wishing for more DR or less banding.
Also the fact that the new 1DX raw samples that are out there show no or very low banding means once again Canon crippled their non- 1 series sensor from what was capable. At least they gave us the AF this time. I'm 100% satisfied with my 5D3 but just wanted to point out the counter argument.
So I guess you missed all the 5D2 banding threads over the last 3.5 years? You need to visit the Canon forum more often, Chuck.
I agree with you and rarely have a problem with banding, even in my 5D2 but as arbitrage said, the argument is not that you can't take a good image with the 5D3, it's:
- people shooting scenes with high dynamic range run into the banding in an attempt to expand the range of tones shown.
- the D800 apparently has greater dynamic range, little or no banding, and a cheaper price.
From what I recall the complaints were there for the 5d2 banding at higher iso, but I do not remember people dramatically underexposing and trying to recover by pushing the fill light to +70 and expecting the shadows to be clean.
canerino wrote:
From what I recall the complaints were there for the 5d2 banding at higher iso, but I do not remember people dramatically underexposing and trying to recover by pushing the fill light to +70 and expecting the shadows to be clean.
I remember threads dating back long ago talking about noisy shadows and pattern noise at ISO200 on the 5D2.
I think it is actually worse at low iso on both 5D2 and 5D3 than it is at high iso. The 5D3 is better than the 5D2 though as it seems to only have one orientation of banding and not the checkerboard effect. The overall noise pattern is better on the 5D3 also at higher ISOs so I think Canon has done a little bit of work but I think once the 1DX is in a bunch of people's hands we will see that Canon held back on the 5D3 sensor. We shall see, hopefully sometime this century.
canerino wrote:
Here is a crazy idea....become a competant photographer and nail your exposure.
OK, I too have a crazy idea...stop accusing other photographers of incompetence when they talk about seeing banding.
A competent photographer will usually try not to blow highlights. Most of the issues regarding banding occur when a photo with wide dynamic range is exposed to retain highlights and then shadow areas block up and are lifted in post production. Best example I've seen is Daan B's from another of thread where he shows a photo exposed for highlights where adjusting exposure by +0.40 and and adding modest fill light shows banding.
canerino wrote:
I've bee around FM for a long time and I cannot recall any other time where people expect a drastically underexposed shot to retain detail in shadows. Here is a crazy idea....become a competant photographer and nail your exposure. You'll be able to comfortably shoot to ISO 12800 (TWELVETHOUSANDEIGHTHUNDRED) without banding in any area of the photo.
+1
But it won't help. Haven't read the thread, but I expect that the usual subjects have already probably jumped all over you for a range of things and defamed you and Canon in the usual interesting ways. Few who use these cameras to actually make photography worry about this "issue" at all. Others, for whom gear itself seems to be more the focus, can become quite worked up about it.
Welcome to the club. :-)
Dan
(For the record, if you go looking for noise banding in certain areas of certain images from a 5D2 and no doubt other cameras you can find some on rare occasions when you inspect your 100% crops on the computer. Whoopie... )
I think that the shadow banding issue has been talked up far too much.
but
on a 5D2 even if you don't try to lighten the shadows banding/colour noise is often an issue at ISO 6400 and above. If you shoot high ISO at night the banding stuff will show up much more easily than in light toned daytime shots.
Its a question of perspective. At ISO 3200 the 5D2 offered remarkable performance fully justifying its purchase price. But at higher than this IMHO the images are less reliable, and banding/colour noise may well be noticeable even if you don't recklessly try to lighten the shadows excessively.
Am curious how the 5D3 performs in low light, low key images at high ISOs. The 5D2 was very good, but not, as the OP appears to suggest, perfect in this respect.
canerino wrote:
I've bee around FM for a long time and I cannot recall any other time where people expect a drastically underexposed shot to retain detail in shadows. Here is a crazy idea....become a competant photographer and nail your exposure. You'll be able to comfortably shoot to ISO 12800 (TWELVETHOUSANDEIGHTHUNDRED) without banding in any area of the photo.
gdanmitchell wrote:
+1
But it won't help. Haven't read the thread, but I expect that the usual subjects have already probably jumped all over you for a range of things and defamed you and Canon in the usual interesting ways. Few who use these cameras to actually make photography worry about this "issue" at all. Others, for who gear itself brings some form of focus and satisfaction can become quite worked up about it.
Welcome to the club. :-)
Dan
(For the record, if you go looking for noise banding in certain areas of certain images from a 5D2 and no doubt other cameras you can find some on rare occasions when you inspect your 100% crops on the computer. Whoopie... )...Show more →
To a certain degree, I agree with you guys. People on the gear forum compare; they compared in the past and will still be comparing in the future. This is may take on the issue:
Prior to the introduction of the D800, this wasn't a compelling issue. The D700 only has 12MP and no video while at $8K, the 24MP D3X was priced out of range for most folks. The D800 is priced at $3K and as if the difference in MP wasn't enough, it also shows better DR and practically minimal banding, relative to the 5D Mark III. To what extent those features will play a role and will show up in real life images will remain to be seen and that varies from photographer to photographer. Yes, the AF of the 5D Mark III is outstanding, maybe even a tad better than that of the D800 and it has some other neat features, maybe making it a better general camera body compared to the D800, especially for those folks that have a great Canon lenses in their lineup. Still, a lot folks crave for the higher MP and other goodies. They think they would improve their photography with that camera and all those folks feel that pricewise, the D800 is within reach now than ever before. That's why the loud noise now and not so before.
I felt the pain of fellow photographers when they experienced AF issues with their Canon gear several years back. Simply, out of focus images didn't look good and won't sell. But these banding and DR issues are indeed a little too much; I am not saying that they are not there but really, you can do so much at this point. Before too long those folks will move on and switch to the gear of their choice and they will live happily thereafter.
AGeoJO wrote:
Before too long those folks will move on and switch to the gear of their choice and they will live happily thereafter.
And then come back as "fanboys" of that particular gear and tell everyone else how wrong we are to still be shooting our sub-performing gear, and there's no possible way that it can produce the quality of images theirs does...But, if it does, we were lucky that we didn't get one with the "affliction"...
reno.peterson wrote:
And then come back as "fanboys" of that particular gear and tell everyone else how wrong we are to still be shooting our sub-performing gear, and there's no possible way that it can produce the quality of images theirs does...But, if it does, we were lucky that we didn't get one with the "affliction"...
, you are correct there, Reno. Their voice is actually more vocal and sometimes even "condescending" for lack of a better word. Of course, they have to justify the move to make them feel better.
Like I mentioned in another thread, I firmly believe that the limitation to achive better results in my photography is not the gear but my skill.
reno.peterson wrote:
And then come back as "fanboys" of that particular gear and tell everyone else how wrong we are to still be shooting our sub-performing gear, and there's no possible way that it can produce the quality of images theirs does...But, if it does, we were lucky that we didn't get one with the "affliction"...
...how true...I've read one too many similar posts
If people didn't need to capture scenes with high dynamic range, HDR photography wouldn't exist so your point is not correct.
If you're talking pros, I've seen pro architecture photographers who have to capture multiple shots to get detail out of the window. Myself I've tried to capture the sky as well as people in the shadows. I dont have time to produce a lighting setup.
Just because you can't see how something might be used doesn't mean others cant
What's curious to me is that those who don't consider banding/shadow noise a problem seem to start and participate in as many threads about banding as those who do find it a problem. This is the second "banding is not a problem for me" affirmation thread created within the last 24 hours.
I use my 5DM2 almost exclusively as a landscape camera. I can go for weeks without using AF. It would never occur to me to start or participate in a 5DM2 thread where others were complaining about the 5DM2's AF, for the purpose of justifying the value of the camera in the face of a failing that others find critical to their photography but for which is just a passing curiosity for me.
Nearly every feature and attribute of modern cameras can be classified as conveniences rather than necessity. This includes Auto Focus, Auto Metering, Live View, High Dynamic Range/Low Shadow Noise and banding, etc. I personally would sooner give up AF than Live View but I can understand how the vast majority wouldn't and that's why I don't go out of my way to jump onto AF threads to tell people why they should learn how to manually focus.
Very valid points, snapsy. Show us a real world shot where banding was an impediment to achieving your final vision. So far, I've only seen banding where someone unintentionally (or intentionally) underexposes by 3+ stops and attempts to bring detail back.
. 