GeneO wrote:
ivanshusky wrote:
This shadow thing is not only limited to the 17-40L, but it shows the most with that lens. At least its the lens I used for testing.

I have also noticed pix with shadows from both 70-200 f2.8 IS L, and 400 f2.8 IS L.

No UV was used for all of those pix. The Canon lens protector filter was used. I have also tested without the protector filter on and it really does not make any difference, shadow wise.

OK. The sensor is highly reflective and can project back on the filter resulting in ghosting under low light high contrast. Very odd what you see.

Gene


Its the same lens with the same protector filter used on all the bodies tested. Only pictures from 1D2N have those shadows.

never seen this with my Mk2n... Just stepped out to take a few shots with distant bright lights and there was no ghosting/shadows whatsoever at iso 400, 800 and 1600. Don't have the 17-40 though, sorry.

Do you have the latest firmware 1.1.2 installed?

I would still try the same shots without a filter. Different cameras have different coating on the sensor filters, so they may react differently to reflections... so maybe worth a shot

Of course I don't know with certainty, but I think there is a problem
with the sensor or its associated electronics. I notice that in every
case the shadow region is to the right of a very bright object: to the right
of that object, when in landscape mode, and above it when the camera
is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise to take a portrait-mode shot.

The shape of the dark shadow region is wider when it is directly to the right
of a wider region of bright light. Look at the discs of light from the light bulbs.
Follow a horizontal path across the light disc. The dark shadow is wider
along any horizontal line where the light disc is wider. This has its limits,
as the width of the shadow reaches a maximum pixel width.

OK, I'll jump to a speculative conclusion. I think the sensor reads out the
pixels on a horizontal path. When you saturate a bunch of pixels along a
row, then the read amplifier gets saturated and goes into a non-linear state
and fails to respond properly to the light falling on the pixels to the right
of the saturated pixels. This may be a problem with the CMOS sensor
itself, or with the analog electronics that amplify and process the sensor
output. This is just a guess, but the fact that the other post by andregold
shows similar image artifacts (again directly above the white region
in portrait mode) from Rob Galbraith's 1DIIn photo, which was shot with
a long tele lens should rule out any lens issue.

My suspicion is that the 1DIIn has a sensor or read-path-electronics
issue that is part of its design. Boy, I hope I'm wrong. The fact that this
hasn't been widely publicized by now may mean that it's not present,
by design, in all copies of the camera.

Questions: Do you see these artifacts when viewing the JPEGs right
out of the camera? Does ISO value have any affect on this?
Do firmware version differences affect this?

At any rate, I'd send that body in and ask to speak with a senior
supervisor at Canon Irvine/Jamesburg.

ivanshusky wrote:
Hope I am not taking too much bandwidth here.

Ths is the last example which in under relatively better lighting condition and the lens is stopped down to f7.1

1D2N * 17-40L@17, f7.1, 1/30s, iso100

100% crop



I really think this "shadow" effect is a 1D2N thing since all the 5 different 1D2N bodies I tested have it.

isnt that simply a strange perspective of a cylindric lamp carrier? thats not a shadow imho ...

phibes wrote:
ivanshusky wrote:
Hope I am not taking too much bandwidth here.

Ths is the last example which in under relatively better lighting condition and the lens is stopped down to f7.1

1D2N * 17-40L@17, f7.1, 1/30s, iso100

100% crop



I really think this "shadow" effect is a 1D2N thing since all the 5 different 1D2N bodies I tested have it.

isnt that simply a strange perspective of a cylindric lamp carrier? thats not a shadow imho ...



No, its the shadow. I have taken several shots at that spot with various bodies and again only the pix from 1D2N has this shadow around the light.

trumpet_guy wrote:

Questions: Do you see these artifacts when viewing the JPEGs right
out of the camera? Does ISO value have any affect on this?
Do firmware version differences affect this?

At any rate, I'd send that body in and ask to speak with a senior
supervisor at Canon Irvine/Jamesburg.

Yes, I see these artifacts when viewing the JPEGs right out ot the camera. I usually backup the JPGs to the SD card and Raws to the CF card.

I do not think the iso setting has any effect, not sure about the firmware though. All my cameras have the latest firmware.

I sent this camera to Canon Japan 5 months ago it is still there. They just keep telling me they are still trying to figure out how to fix it. My the other 1D2N exhibits the same artifacts, just a bit better. Its shadows are not as dark.

I think these shadow artifacts has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera though. I have seen them in both landscape and portrait.

Thank you very much guys for your comments. Appreciate it.

ivanshusky wrote:
I think these shadow artifacts has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera though. I have seen them in both landscape and portrait.

Yes, but are they always in the same relative position, though? i.e. to the right when landscape, above when vertical (or whatever it may be)?

It's very weird, I would guess it's some sort of processing quirk unique to the camera's 'brain'...

Going with what trumpet_guy said about the saturated pixels, have you tried underexposing the image so that the light bulbs are no longer blown? Perhaps this only happens with blown light sources.

Jeff wrote:
ivanshusky wrote:
I think these shadow artifacts has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera though. I have seen them in both landscape and portrait.

Yes, but are they always in the same relative position, though? i.e. to the right when landscape, above when vertical (or whatever it may be)?

It's very weird, I would guess it's some sort of processing quirk unique to the camera's 'brain'...

Yes, they are always in the same relative position. Always to the right in either landscape or portrait.

Ariel Bravy wrote:
Going with what trumpet_guy said about the saturated pixels, have you tried underexposing the image so that the light bulbs are no longer blown? Perhaps this only happens with blown light sources.


Yes, I have tried that. Still does not work. I think its maybe more about the contrast.

Really one of the strangest things I've seen for a while. Have you involved Canon?

Sam Bennett wrote:
Really one of the strangest things I've seen for a while. Have you involved Canon?

Yes, I have involved Canon.

Actually I have just talked to Canon Tokyo yesterday. They agreed to give me a brand new 1D2N. They also stated this "shadow" thing is the "Real Ability" of 1D2N. I think which means it is just the nature of the 1D2N to have this shadow phenomenon.

I think I will sell the new 1D2N as soon as I get it.

ivanshusky wrote:
Sam Bennett wrote:
Really one of the strangest things I've seen for a while. Have you involved Canon?

Yes, I have involved Canon.

Actually I have just talked to Canon Tokyo yesterday. They agreed to give me a brand new 1D2N. They also stated this "shadow" thing is the "Real Ability" of 1D2N. I think which means it is just the nature of the 1D2N to have this shadow phenomenon.

I think I will sell the new 1D2N as soon as I get it.


How much?


By the way, based on this and the other thread about this same issues I do not believe the photos indicate an issue with the camera. It is a matter of artifact introduced by oversharpening or improper sharpening.

nathanlake wrote:
ivanshusky wrote:
Sam Bennett wrote:
Really one of the strangest things I've seen for a while. Have you involved Canon?

Yes, I have involved Canon.

Actually I have just talked to Canon Tokyo yesterday. They agreed to give me a brand new 1D2N. They also stated this "shadow" thing is the "Real Ability" of 1D2N. I think which means it is just the nature of the 1D2N to have this shadow phenomenon.

I think I will sell the new 1D2N as soon as I get it.


How much?


By the way, based on this and the other thread about this same issues I do not believe the photos indicate an issue with the camera. It is a matter of artifact introduced by oversharpening or improper sharpening.

I dont know how much should I sell it for and I really dont care. I think what I will do is to drop it in one of the camera shops here in Tokyo. Sorry I cannot be bothered to send it any where outside of Japan. Not sure what to do with the other 1D2N of mine. I think I will evnetually sell all my 1D series bodies to get maybe 2 Nikon D3 before heading to China for the Olympic.

Trust me, it is an issue with the camera. I have been working with engineers in Canon about this thing in the past 3 months. They just cannot fix it. With or without sharpness applied to the pic those shadows are just there. All the pix posted here are all taken in raw and those shadows can be seen in raw with no sharpness applied. If you want I can send you the raw files to check for yourself.

Not really all 1D2N has this but there are copies out there with this phenomenon and it cannot be fixed. Kind of like the banding issue with the original 1D.

The reason Canon Tokyo agreed to give me a new 1D2N is not because of those shadows in the pic. Its because my original 1D2N has been taken apart for so many times trying to fix the shadow issue that it is just not usable any more.

Well I don't see any such effects on my 1D Mark IIN, so I think it a bit rash to come to such a conclusion. I shoot lot of indoor shots with similar bright light sources with no such artifacts.

Gene

Well I don't see any such effects on my 1D Mark IIN, so I think it a bit rash to come to such a conclusion. I shoot lot of indoor shots with similar bright light sources with no such artifacts.

Gene

Good to hear your 1D2N is free from this issue.

The "Real Ability" of 1D2N having this shadow effect is not my words. Its the statement/conclusion I got from Canon yesterday. They also said to me they will not be responsible if pix from the new 1D2N still have the shadow effect.

Hmm, that sounds strange.

Can you show us the statement from Canon (copy text). It would be interesting to see who said/wrote this.

I know many users of the IIN, none of them have ever had this problem.


ivanshusky wrote:
Good to hear your 1D2N is free from this issue.

The "Real Ability" of 1D2N having this shadow effect is not my words. Its the statement/conclusion I got from Canon yesterday. They also said to me they will not be responsible if pix from the new 1D2N still have the shadow effect.

Frode wrote:
Hmm, that sounds strange.

Can you show us the statement from Canon (copy text). It would be interesting to see who said/wrote this.

I know many users of the IIN, none of them have ever had this problem.


ivanshusky wrote:
Good to hear your 1D2N is free from this issue.

The "Real Ability" of 1D2N having this shadow effect is not my words. Its the statement/conclusion I got from Canon yesterday. They also said to me they will not be responsible if pix from the new 1D2N still have the shadow effect.



Sorry there is no text copy. They told me this over the phone....

As mentioned earlier in this thread. Not all 1D2N has this shadow thing but some copies do suffer from it and there is nothing Canon can/will do to fix it.

I get artifacts with the IIN when pushing the RAW conversion. Either to much "fill" or too much "recover".
I don't really takes shots like you do but you might get better results useing these RAW tips:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Bummer, man. Curious to see if you experience similar problems with the D3, since there's no guarantee it won't exhibit a similar (or as of yet unknown) issue.

Andrew J wrote:
I get artifacts with the IIN when pushing the RAW conversion. Either to much "fill" or too much "recover".
I don't really takes shots like you do but you might get better results useing these RAW tips:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Thanx Andrew for the link. Its really useful.

Sam Bennett wrote:
Bummer, man. Curious to see if you experience similar problems with the D3, since there's no guarantee it won't exhibit a similar (or as of yet unknown) issue.

I have already borrowed a D3 from a friend and so far I have not seen any sign of the artifacts.

BTW, I picked up the new 1D2N from Canon today and it is a lot better than my old one.

I tested the new 1D2N at the same spot again with the borrowed D3. The shadows are still there with the new 1D2N, just not as visible. Took a couple of similiar shots with the D3 and no shadows noticed.

I am going to sell my 2 1D2Ns and the 1D3 this weekend. I have never thought I would have to consider Nikon after 30 years of Canon.

Huh, interesting. Sorry to hear it, Ivan. Hope the D3 works out for you - looks like a very nice camra.

Sam Bennett wrote:
Huh, interesting. Sorry to hear it, Ivan. Hope the D3 works out for you - looks like a very nice camra.

Thanx. D3 sure looks good. I have already sold all my 1D series bodies and got 2 D3s yesterday. Dont plan to keep the D3s for too long though. Thinking to get rid of them soon after the Olymic next year. After all, I am still mostly Canon.

Its just too sad both 1D2N and 1D3 are having problems of its own.

Ivan if Canon doesn't fix my MarkIIn I might be wanting one of those D3's from you when your finished!

what kind of problems are the D3's having..?