I do if I push the exposure about +3.5EV. So if you are trying to do insane things in PP then banding will appear in the shadows, otherwise it's a total non-issue.
Of all the things to complain about on the 5D II this is the lamest IMO.
Totally agree. I did a special noise test for mttran on my 5DII, photographing with light strong in red (candles, incandescent lights) which show the effect most strongly (banding will first appear in the red channel).
If I lifted shadows 3 stops, I saw slight banding at 100% pixels; might not show in prints. Lifting 4 stops clearly showed banding that would show in a print.
Question is, when do I need to lift shadows by 3.5 stops? For me, never! It has never appeared in any real picture I have ever taken.
if you are trying to do insane things in PP then banding will appear
Don Clary wrote:
Totally agree. I did a special noise test for mttran on my 5DII, photographing with light strong in red (candles, incandescent lights) which show the effect most strongly (banding will first appear in the red channel).
If I lifted shadows 3 stops, I saw slight banding at 100% pixels; might not show in prints. Lifting 4 stops clearly showed banding that would show in a print.
Question is, when do I need to lift shadows by 3.5 stops? For me, never! It has never appeared in any real picture I have ever taken.
Don, those were just an easy way to show you 5D2 banding does exists.... well, you don't need to work that hard to get it if you have the right DR sample as the following:
From original to 1/2 stops to less than 2 stops pushed. They all have it
I believe you all have seen this one before. How many times i have to repeat this sample. Have you ever tried tone mapping without pushing the shadows under high DR cases. It has the same effects...problem is always underneath the shadows...
With a 12bits/higher wide DR monitor/printer, you will see them all before you have any chance to dim the black end ( yeah, you don't need to push the shadows to see it)
C'mon now, how do you test a 16bits TIFF DR file with 8-10bits DR monitor/printer. Hmm, most of us have 6-8bits media.
Can you see the real issue the way you are thinking.
Banding IS NOT a matter of not using the camera incorrectly. IT IS a limitation of the sensor. PERIOD.
All 5D camera's I have used/owned, have shown it under certain conditions. Even the 5D classic.
Accept it and move on. Or try to deny it and move on. Either way, it is very old news, beated to death on the internet and not worth another of these endless debates.
bbasiaga wrote:
I think there was definitely a time in digital photography that the images looked unnatural - over or under sharpened, noisy...call it stale. So when we got a couple of generations in to digital technology and the images started looking really good (because we understood better how to process them, as well as because the technology itself improved), we started to get the 'film like' adjective as a positive.
-Brian
+1. Subjects often looked cut & pasted onto backgrounds. Unlike, as Chez observed, the smooth tonal gradations of film.
But the 5D's are very film-like
mttran wrote:
Lifting 4 stops clearly showed banding that would show in a print.
"... would show in a print?" How much printing do you actually do, mttran?
How many times i have to repeat this sample.
I think we reached that threshold long ago. You continue to produce - along with a few other folks - test images that, ahem, "prove" that 5D2 noise banding is the Terrible Awful Scourge of Photography That Cannot Be Denied. Meanwhile, lots of other folks go on making pretty darn fine photographs with the camera, shake their heads, and wonder about this obsession with an issue that isn't an issue at all in actual photographs.
You can post this a thousand times and it won't prove that my photographs are deficient due to 5D2 noise banding. And I can reply a thousand times pointing this out and you'll still believe I'm, well, I'm not sure what you think... but I'm sure that you won't believe me.
gdanmitchell wrote:
"... would show in a print?" How much printing do you actually do, mttran?
I think we reached that threshold long ago. You continue to produce - along with a few other folks - test images that, ahem, "prove" that 5D2 noise banding is the Terrible Awful Scourge of Photography That Cannot Be Denied. Meanwhile, lots of other folks go on making pretty darn fine photographs with the camera, shake their heads, and wonder about this obsession with an issue that isn't an issue at all in actual photographs.
You can post this a thousand times and it won't prove that my photographs are deficient due to 5D2 noise banding. And I can reply a thousand times pointing this out and you'll still believe I'm, well, I'm not sure what you think... but I'm sure that you won't believe me.
Dan, please don't quote someone else's words into mine...reader know how to read well and really don't need your help to understand mine. So, don't distort my msg. Read again if you still don't get what i wrote. Ok, let's have a good holiday break shall we, Dan.
It would be nice to have a bit more dynamic range for lifting shadows, however highlight recovery works to offset that a bit... I had issues in the beginning trying to expose like other cameras I had. Once I understood the proper exposure, it's rarely an issue. If ever...
h00ligan wrote:
It would be nice to have a bit more dynamic range for lifting shadows, however highlight recovery works to offset that a bit... I had issues in the beginning trying to expose like other cameras I had. Once I understood the proper exposure, it's rarely an issue. If ever...
Fill flash
+1,
but that is not the points we have here... h00ligan. People using lower bits media platforms to measure the higher bits file then say i don't see it...is that funny or what
Oh there's banding for sure. It just doesn't matter too much most of the time, or is not visible much.
The one place it stinks is lens correcting for vignetting in very very dim environments where maybe the center is 1/3 to half a stop underexposed, which means the corners could be 2 stops down on an underexposed image....say shooting at 6400.
That said, I see it in a lot of other cameras, and it really is rare that I have a shot nowadays where it shows.
mttran wrote:
Dan, please don't quote someone else's words into mine...reader know how to read well and really don't need your help to understand mine. So, don't distort my msg. Read again if you still don't get what i wrote.
My apology for misattributing the "4 stop" comment to you. It was made by Don Clary, whose message you were responding to. I'm afraid I got lost in the nested quotes, but you are correct that I incorrectly attributed someone else's words to you.
Back to the point, Don was essentially supporting my point of view, based on a test that he did "for mttran" that called for pushing the image by four stops:
On the previous page of this thread, mttran wrote quoted:
My primary point about this issue/obsession remains, and is supported by Clary's post. Like me, he apparently prints. Like me, he has never seen this "problem" appear in a print. That is the important and relevant point here, and I regret it if my accidental misattribution diluted our point.
The 5D had excellent image quality, but seems to attract dust spots to the sensor.
The 5D II upgrade was worth it just to avoid all the removal of dust spots in post processing.
both camera give excellent image quality; I vote for 5D II
Just heard a rumor that 5d3 is coming out same focusing as 7d. They say it has a brand new 16MP or 19MP., 3 dig!c5 processors, [ 2 processors for handling RAWs, 1 processor for AUTOFOCUS and other stuff., I know this is another BS rumor...
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Not meaning to start yet another film versus digital ruckus but generally those currently in love with that "film like quality" are those who really never used film.
For those of us who actually did shoot film our memories are of crappy low light performance, dust spots, grain, dust spots, unreliable labs, dust spots, lost color conversion filters, dust spots, and finding room in our fridges to store the stuff.
As to 5D versus 5D2 color .. you can post process both files to look however you want, including exactly like one another .. so there is really not much to discuss there....Show more →
+1
After years of regretting I never got a medium format camera, I got a Mamiya RZ67 a year ago. It was a fun experience that I'm glad I undertook. But like the quoted poster said, dust... dust... etc. The work flow is tedious, hard to repeat and the results were at best par with my 1DsMkII. I posted some images last fall, same scene, both film & digital. Everyone could spot the film and it's lack sharpness-detail deep in the scene, color casts, etc.
It was fun, but more like the ex-girlfriend you almost re-connect with.
Just sayin....
But back to the thread.
I have had a 5DC, and now a 1DsMkII. The 5DC was sweet, but the MkII better. I am just now getting a 5DMkII for the new features/video. We'll see the comparison soon.
well, you don't need to work that hard to get it if you have the right DR sample as the following: 