Interesting article by Spencer Cox from Photography Life with respect to banding noise seen on MILC with on sensor PDAF.
Finally some rational thinking
Just stating what we always knew from images posted on FM. The Nikon Z cameras have World class sensors, and the banding issue was not going to impact anyone who even got close to getting the proper exposure.
1bwana1 wrote:
Just stating what we always knew from images posted on FM. The Nikon Z cameras have World class sensors, and the banding issue was not going to impact anyone who even got close to getting the proper exposure.
Yes, and more importantly is that banding issues exist for all on sensor PDAF MILC's and maybe why the new Panasonic S1/S1r has taken a different route for AF
What?? No Way!!!!! Does the article mean that the Northrumps got it wrong together with steve Pdf Perry and the blind guy with the elephants Hue blindstone.....
Get out of it. These reviewers are the best that money can buy and they can never be wrong or be wronged. This article is pure defamation........ Hang on, if the article is correct this would mean that....
nahhhh......banish the thought.
The 'pay as you talk' Triumvirate can do or say no wrong.....Hold that thought
Wesley Perrault wrote:
IMHO,if you under expose by 6 stops, you deserve the banding as punishment.
Not particularly true
Sometimes when sitting in near dark I'm using the ISO invariance of the D5 deliberately heavily underexposing (not needing to adjust ISO but able to quickly dial in a high shutterspeed for that sole moment.)
Adjusting this in PP is no problem at all with the D5, all I get is more noise, not banding which would net me with more timeconsuming PP.
I didn't try this yet with the Z7 and I will prolly never do so since it's not the camera in other aspects allready for my kind of wildlife shooting, but that's another discussion.
The reported possible banding may not be and prolly won't be noticed by the vast majority of Z-shooters but that doesn't mean it's non-existent so a few photogs shooting in extreme lighting conditions and more demanding circumstances may encounter this.
Remember....
A lot of folks like to know about the ISO invariance of a certain sensor, so it's a common part for some reviewers to test this exhibiting this phenonema as a POSSIBLE issue.
For Steve I'd want to ad I never heard nor read him stating banding to BE an issue, all he stated this MIGHT be an issue, which is true, allbeit for a (very) little group of photogs.
And yes I'm a fan, his PDFs are thoroughly written with a lot of expertise and proven by him showing his solid work.
No need to call him names!
Finally a voice of reason. We all like to read a review from time to time but it was utterly unfair how the Z was hammered by the different reviewers and one can only wonder what the reason behind all this nonsense.
I don't know how unfair the reviews were in total. The fact that one issue, that does in fact exist, is not likely to affect most use cases does not negate all the reviewers opinions. Depending on what individuals see as important, there are plenty of things to criticize on the Z cameras. This is true of all cameras.
Almass wrote:
What?? No Way!!!!! Does the article mean that the Northrumps got it wrong together with steve Pdf Perry and the blind guy with the elephants Hue blindstone.....
Get out of it. These reviewers are the best that money can buy and they can never be wrong or be wronged. This article is pure defamation........ Hang on, if the article is correct this would mean that....
nahhhh......banish the thought.
The 'pay as you talk' Triumvirate can do or say no wrong.....Hold that thought
I would say that Steve Perry has never made mention regarding banding unlike the rest of the reactionary youtube pundits. Steve with his videos is one of the few decent advocates for Nikon. A lot of his recent work I have subscribed and downloaded
The problem as I see is that apparently all FF MLC shows banding and Z is not the worst, however Z is the only that is criticized for its banding. Objective of reviewers revealed in such. As for noise or banding, it is a common sense that pushing 6 stops will not be pretty.
charles.K wrote:
I would say that Steve Perry has never made mention regarding banding unlike the rest of the reactionary youtube pundits. Steve with his videos is one of the few decent advocates for Nikon. A lot of his recent work I have subscribed and downloaded
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't know how unfair the reviews were in total. The fact that one issue, that does in fact exist, is not likely to affect most use cases does not negate all the reviewers opinions. Depending on what individuals see as important, there are plenty of things to criticize on the Z cameras. This is true of all cameras.
Let's isolate this particular issue, when we talk about fairness, please.
Can you point anywhere on the net if some of those "professional reviews" found it on A7III or A7RIII?
I think I saw something about A7RIII, but it was mentioned as a very minor issue, it didn't make highlighted banner like in case of Z cameras.
To me, it was radicules the way how a common problem for all these sensors with phase af detection on image sensor was associated to only Nikon Z cameras.
If you call it fair, I need to go back to the school to relearn some stuff, the world got changed.
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
Finally a voice of reason. We all like to read a review from time to time but it was utterly unfair how the Z was hammered by the different reviewers and one can only wonder what the reason behind all this nonsense.
Thx for posting.
hammer the Z, glorify the R as per the canon contract in order to get your free trip to hawaii
IMO, I think the Z's got trounced more for not having a secondary card slot. I used both the D810 and Z7 recently for a studio shoot with ambient window light. I always under expose several stops to set my ambient prior to lighting the strobes. For fun I tried the 5 stops of under exposure with both cameras and pulled them up in LR. The D810 simply smoked the Z7 sensor when pushing the exposure. Actually, I could shoot a model with the D810 where there was no discernible detail in the models features, but could pull it up 5 stops and the image was practically as clean as shooting at base iso with a meter. Not dissing the Z7, but just to show that obsolescence is overrated.
Dissing Steve Perry, or throwing him into the mix of poor reviewers is really uncalled for. More like borderline resentment.
He's more than helped out on this board, and at least one other board that I'm aware of. And he does it for free. Sure, if you want to help support him and buy his ebooks, but nobody's forcing you to buy them and I bet he's not getting rich writing them, most writers aren't rich. More because he loves photography and wants to help people "get it right." And if you want to email him or talk to him, he's always there.
To those who shoot landscapes or birds against the sky or sunset will often underexpose 3-5 stops to salvage the highlights. Having the ability to bring up the shadows to a useable photo is not asking too much from our modern sensors. IMO, the DSLR's are preferred in this regard.
johnld wrote:
To those who shoot landscapes or birds against the sky or sunset will often underexpose 3-5 stops to salvage the highlights. Having the ability to bring up the shadows to a useable photo is not asking too much from our modern sensors. IMO, the DSLR's are preferred in this regard.
I'm not disagreeing with your point here but I think some context would be useful. Saying 3-5 stops only confuses the issue in my view. There is a difference between 3 to 4 stops and 5 to 6 stops. Most reviews indicate some banding starts to appear at 5 stops so to imply that you can't push the Z7 3 or 4 stops is misleading. The other point I'd like to make is that you have to weigh the percentage of situations where you'd actually be limited by not being able to push an image 5 or 6 stops with other reasons you might prefer a system like the Z7. I've tried to find landscape images that I would push 5 stops and still consider usable and it's hard - 3 stops seems to be my extreme but it may be that my post processing skills aren't up to par. In any case it just isn't something I think I'd do often enough to give up my Z7 and especially upcoming lenses like the 14-30 for the D850. You might be working around limitations of an older F mount lens design while I'm working around limitations of banding at 5+ stops. For me I'll benefit from a better lens more than I would from being able to push an image 5 to 6 stops.
So I think you have to not only believe that the banding will have an impact on your images but that it will have an impact often enough to deter you from other reasons you'd buy the Z7. If the impact is that significant then you're probably wise to buy the D850 but I know that isn't the case for me. I'm easily swayed though so if you post a few amazing landscape images pushed 5+ stops I'll probably change my mind .
The fact of the matter is that Steve Perry himself dissed the Nikon Z7 and thus did a disservice to himself with his credibility left in tatters.
Any reviewer who would profess knowledge based on a Pdf instead of a real review based on a hands on experience has only himself to blame and shows where his true professionalism value takes residence.
He is very much now part of the Pontificates sharing stardom space with the Northrumps - The blind Guy and his elephant Hue blindstone and of course the Supremo Pontificate Lanier.
?? No Way!!!!! Does the article mean that the Northrumps got it wrong together with steve Pdf Perry and the blind guy with the elephants Hue blindstone.....