chez wrote:
I would agree with you if no other camera would handle the uncovered issues better...but that is not the case with the banding in the shadows. Nothing wrong here pointing out the flaws of one camera compared to another. Much better than just always saying, oh well...better luck next time. I for one am interested in how the latest Canon equipment stacks up to their competitors, identifying both strengths and weaknesses.
It just when we get the chest thumpers proclaiming the issue does not exist for them so everyone else must not know how to use the camera, do these threads get out of control. Don't know why they just don't move onto a thread that might actually affect them....Show more →
canerino wrote:
has anyone actually done a comparison between the 5d3 and any camera from Nikon in regards to recovering lost shadow detail with actual photos of the same subjects shot with two different cameras?
There is a test of the 550D vs D3100 I saw do exactly this in a very high DR scene. Shadows were pushed 8 stops on Nikon before they fell apart, only 2-3 stops on 550D. Canon colour accuracy was non existent in the shadows.
digitalbug30d wrote:
Ive got a question...do you see the banding in a print? I ask since Ive never seen banding in any of my prints...still think banding is a causation not a normal output of a sensor,ie PP with the many software choices how do you know which one is mucking things up to get banding? I would like to see a side by side with Lightroom,ACR,Photoshop,DPP same image.
I have seen banding in large prints from the 1Ds and 1Ds3. I haven't seen it with any other Canon camera that I printed from at the same size (1Ds2, 5D2). Not necessarily the same conditions or images, of course.
this is a very interesting example to me. i would think that the scene as you saw it before the shot actually didnt have any detail under the mushroom? why should we expect it to have detail when we see the photo on our computer screen?
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
This is the whole point.
With the mushroom shot the shooter has exposed for the top and let the rest be underexposed, you can see this from the dim background. Then they have decided they want detail underneath and pushed the file miles beyond it's natural limit and then whinged because the file has become somewhat noisy.
This is simply poor photography, not a fault with the camera.
If you want to do this properly lower the overall contrast with a flash, a reflector or HDR and don't blame the gear, it's not magic.
With the mushroom shot the shooter has exposed for the top and let the rest be underexposed, you can see this from the dim background. Then they have decided they want detail underneath and pushed the file miles beyond it's natural limit and then whinged because the file has become somewhat noisy.
This is simply poor photography, not a fault with the camera.
If you want to do this properly lower the overall contrast with a flash, a reflector or HDR and don't blame the gear, it's not magic.
So you would classify the DR of the D800 as magic, then, if it allowed the shooter to get the image as desired without having to resort to changing the image with a flash or reflector or HDR? Those are the crutches of a poor photographer, perhaps - or the crutches needed by a poor DR camera. . If one camera can do it, then being disappointed that one's own system cannot, is definitely not whinging. Another one who has obviously missed the point of the debate/issue.
canerino wrote:
i dont understand. the background was black to begin with, correct? why would you try to recover that at all? the first example (without the added fill) is a better looking photo (in my opinion of course) than the corrected version. maybe i'm missing something here?
Maybe I can clarify
The point isn't in the esthetics. What you find 'better looking' isn't necessarily 'better looking' for another set of eyes/brains. No sir, my point is that such a minor PP adjustment makes the banding pop up. Which means there isn't much PP head-room left.
My other point is that the whole argument 'banding is caused by bad exposure' or 'banding shows up due to poor photography' doesn't make sense. Here is an image that is properly exposed for the highlights, but has clipped shadows. If I want to open the shadows a tiny bit, or do some dodging at the rim, I am basically screwed.
To me that is annoying. Especially since I have used much cheaper (with much smaller sensors) digital camera's that don't suffer from this shadow banding AT ALL (Olympus XZ-1, Nikon D90). And recently the Nikon D800 has set a new benchmark regarding DR and sensor quality IMO. It annoys me that Canon doesn't seem to give this priority. In the recent poll here on FM (roughly) about 1/3 of the voters finds it a deal-breaker that the 5D3 still suffers from this. I am one of those voters. YMMV of course
AJSJones wrote:
So you would classify the DR of the D800 as magic, then, if it allowed the shooter to get the image as desired without having to resort to changing the image with a flash or reflector or HDR? Those are the crutches of a poor photographer, perhaps - or the crutches needed by a poor DR camera. . If one camera can do it, then being disappointed that one's own system cannot, is definitely not whinging. Another one who has obviously missed the point of the debate/issue.
canerino wrote:
has anyone actually done a comparison between the 5d3 and any camera from Nikon in regards to recovering lost shadow detail with actual photos of the same subjects shot with two different cameras?
I have stated before that I can push my old Nikon D90 files to kingdom come and still no shadow banding. Reports on the D800 show the same thing. OTOH It is a known fact that the whole 5D series (as well as other Canon series) suffer from shadow banding. Recently there was a direct comparison between the 5D, 5D2 and 5D3 which showed that the 5D2 defintely was worse (because it showed criss cross patterns), but the 5D3 still suffers from it (albeit only on one axis).
AJSJones wrote:
So you would classify the DR of the D800 as magic
Post of the year!!
This is exactly it, as with the 5DII vs D700 threads, once again people aren't wanting magic or 'expecting the world' from Canon....just expecting them to compete with their closest competitor, I still find it extremely perverse that, in answer to "damn it, the brand I've invested so much money in/am tied into, don't offer something their competitors have" that so many people will say in a public sphere not a simple "meh, doesn't affect me, I'm happy" but will basically proclaim "no, you're WRONG to think that, no-one needs that feature, if you need that feature you're just a bad photographer"
As someone wiser pointed out once, if you're going to use that attitude, you may as well stick to cave drawings because that got the job done, no-one NEEDS better than some calcium carbonite and a rock.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
As someone wiser pointed out once, if you're going to use that attitude, you may as well stick to cave drawings because that got the job done, no-one NEEDS better than some calcium carbonite and a rock.
I use black manganese for my cave drawings. It shows much less rock striation in the shadows.
Seriously though, in the film days transparency and negative films coexisted, right? I just consider my Canon equipment the slide film of DSLRs.
canerino wrote:
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
I find it puzzling that in light of the latest sensor technology we are still entertaining such a question.
These expectations are based on products that currently exist. By the very fact that there are other cameras that do have this kind of dynamic range, that means the expectations are by definition realisitic. Because they are based on something real!
Can you go out and set up excessive amounts of lighting gear and reflectors and so on to work around this kind of issue? Sure you can. But given a choice, wouldn't you rather be able to have clean shadows to begin with? Can anyone honestly say they think it is better to deal with the hassle and the extra time spent hauling out and setting up a bunch of extra gear just to get the same kind of image you could get with another camera without any extra gear?
There is no magic expected here. EXMOR sensors can do this. Canon sensors can't. That's the reality.
So I am fine in dealing with that reality for the time being and hoping Canon will eventually improve this. But what I don't understand is why people go to such great lengths to rationalize away Canon's shortcoming in this area?
Nikon's and Canon's offerings to the market are in my circle of concern, but not in my circle of influence. What is in my circle of influence: my $ will buy Nikon just as well as Canon. The hard part is if I need feature A from Canon, but feature B from Nikon, then I have to get my priorities straight. (Feature could be anything, including lens mount, price, you name it.)
Nikon's and Canon's offerings to the market are in my circle of concern, but not in my circle of influence. What is in my circle of influence: my $ will buy Nikon just as well as Canon. The hard part is if I need feature A from Canon, but feature B from Nikon, then I have to get my priorities straight. (Feature could be anything, including lens mount, price, you name it.)
I don't see how rationalizing away a product's weakness relates to that.
Regardless, discussing the issue in public certainly falls within our circle of influence. If such discussions lead Canon to realize that people are concerned by the issue (or, if such discussions provide sufficient information to influence others' spending decisions) then Canon may be more motivated to address the issue under discussion. If no one expresses their concern then there is little incentive for improvements.
skibum5 wrote:
The way you tend to get all over anyone who mentions anything that is not a rave about a DSLR sort of does give one the impression that you are beating the drum to just make do and not bother. Especially since half the time you toss in snarky insults that are often beside the point.
There you go again.
I don't "get all over anyone who mentions anything that is not a rave about" a camera. On the other hand, I do disagree with those who get all over stuff that is tangentially related to the real world performance of the camera. Yes, I dare to disagree with the noise banders.
As a matter of fact, I am pretty objective about the strengths and weaknesses of gear I use. No gear is perfect, and I've often written as much many times.
And, yet again, you make up more stuff that I never wrote and argue against what you made up. I'm not taking that bait, bronxbomber...
artd wrote:
Regardless, discussing the issue in public certainly falls within our circle of influence. If such discussions lead Canon to realize that people are concerned by the issue (or, if such discussions provide sufficient information to influence others' spending decisions) then Canon may be more motivated to address the issue under discussion. If no one expresses their concern then there is little incentive for improvements.
No argument with that, except, IMO, these threads are expecting **everyone** to express a concern; and if they don't it is called "rationalization".
I don't "get all over anyone who mentions anything that is not a rave about" a camera.
On the other hand, I do disagree with those who get all over stuff that is tangentially related to the real world performance of the camera. Yes, I dare to disagree with the noise banders.
As a matter of fact, I am pretty objective about the strengths and weaknesses of gear I use. No gear is perfect, and I've often written as much many times.
And, yet again, you make up more stuff that I never wrote and argue against what you made up. I'm not taking that bait, bronxbomber... ...Show more →
3 stops ain't that tangential....
and it sure isn't tangential enough to warrant some of the snide insults sprinkled in here and there
I see the boys who never have a banding issue still keep popping into this thread just to be heard again. Why is that? Surely Frued must have a term for this.
