I may be way off, but perhaps the sensor's base ISO is NOT 100, and it is pulled in camera from ISO 250 or so. It makes perfect sense when you are trying to maximize high ISO performance. Can anyone here confirm the sensor's base ISO?
Another thing, the 5D DID have this problem when it was new. Servo AF caused the banding in that case.
Exactly what camera features are we using here that have to do with motors or clocks, the kinds of things that generate field patterns?
edrodgers731 wrote:
I may be way off, but perhaps the sensor's base ISO is NOT 100, and it is pulled in camera from ISO 250 or so. It makes perfect sense when you are trying to maximize high ISO performance. Can anyone here confirm the sensor's base ISO?
Another thing, the 5D DID have this problem when it was new. Servo AF caused the banding in that case.
Exactly what camera features are we using here that have to do with motors or clocks, the kinds of things that generate field patterns?
I cannot "confirm" this, but I do recall reading that it is not 100, but something higher. (The number 160 sticks in my mind, but lots of odd things can tend to stick in my mind... :-)
Thanks brainiac for raising the issue, i have exactly the same problem. Will give examples when I get home, but I shot a 2s exposure at 100 ISO and saw the criss-cross pattern without pushing
I remember one of my first shot with the camera had that pattern as well.
firmware is 1.0.7, saw the pattern in Aperture 2.1. didn't try any other viewer.
edrodgers731 wrote:
I may be way off, but perhaps the sensor's base ISO is NOT 100, and it is pulled in camera from ISO 250 or so. It makes perfect sense when you are trying to maximize high ISO performance. Can anyone here confirm the sensor's base ISO?
It's doubtful that anyone knows for sure--in January someone asked the same question about their 40D to Chuck Westfall on "The Digital Journalist" columum "Tech Tips". This is the Q&A:
Q: What is the "Native" ISO sensitivity of the 40D sensor? By native I mean the ISO setting that does not require any signal amplification or reduction to the sensor data, or at least the minimum setting of either amplification or reduction. I would assume that this native ISO would provide the best Signal/Noise ratio for pictures.
A: Your logic is sound, but Canon does not publish any specifications for the native sensitivity of its digital camera image sensors. Generally speaking, you'll find that S/N ratios with EOS digital SLRs are at their best in the lower ranges, and any differences in noise levels and dynamic range from ISO 100 to approximately ISO 200 are so minimal that they're not worth worrying about. If this matter truly concerns you, my best advice is to take some sample photos at each ISO speed setting and examine the resulting images to see which setting you prefer.
walter23 wrote:
I agree with you completely, there are plenty of cases where it just won't work... but I couldn't resist trying on the linked image. It took about 2 seconds (I'm sure you could do better with more careful placement and control, this was just a quick illustration without any concern for the actual exposure ratios, etc, I just pooped out a quick 'n dirty curves w/ mask).
There appears to be photoluminescence in the snow and some parts of the masonry are luminous. The river's reflection of the sky is brighter than the sky itself. I prefer my pictures to look physically possible. Multi-shot HDR isn't a general solution to wide dynamic range. My new camera has much less maximum dynamic range than my previous one, and Canon has made statements which suggest that should not be the case. I'm not interested in workarounds, I want 1Ds3 quality at 100 iso. It was promised.
walter23 wrote:
....I agree with you completely, there are plenty of cases where it just won't work... but I couldn't resist trying on the linked image. It took about 2 seconds (I'm sure you could do better with more careful placement and control, this was just a quick illustration without any concern for the actual exposure ratios, etc, I just pooped out a quick 'n dirty curves w/ mask).
Agreed. You can also use the ND grad tool in LR2 - works like a charm.
brainiac wrote:
My new camera has much less maximum dynamic range than my previous one, and Canon has made statements which suggest that should not be the case. I'm not interested in workarounds, I want 1Ds3 quality at 100 iso. It was promised.
Yes, by Canon: "Although the individual pixel dimensions of the EOS 5D Mark II camera are the same as the 21.1-megapixel CMOS sensor used in the EOS-1Ds Mark III digital SLR, the new sensor incorporates an improved output amplifier and a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction. By applying the same kind of advancements in sensor design and image processing technology as the recently introduced EOS 50D camera, but at higher resolution and with larger pixels, the EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest level of image quality of any EOS Digital SLR released to date. "
brainiac wrote:
There appears to be photoluminescence in the snow and some parts of the masonry are luminous. The river's reflection of the sky is brighter than the sky itself. I prefer my pictures to look physically possible. Multi-shot HDR isn't a general solution to wide dynamic range. My new camera has much less maximum dynamic range than my previous one, and Canon has made statements which suggest that should not be the case. I'm not interested in workarounds, I want 1Ds3 quality at 100 iso. It was promised.
Still looks better than the originally posted image. And it looks real enough to my eyes. This isn't a Flickr HDR image.
brainiac wrote:
My problem with the 5D2, and the reason that I am interested in this limit is that Canon stated that the 5D2 would be as good or better than the 1Ds3. I duly traded down to a pair of 5D2's and sold my 1Ds3 which I had used for a year.
To be honest, I'm a little surprised that you were so willing to take Canon at face value on this score. I'm not trying to be smart here, but given the nature of their claim - & the price difference between the two cameras - wouldn't you have checked this out before making the switch?
> To be honest, I'm a little surprised that you were so willing to take Canon at face value on this score. I'm not trying to be smart here, but given the nature of their claim - & the price difference between the two cameras - wouldn't you have checked this out before making the switch?
Did Canon say "we might be lying - look at the price"? Do I turn up to work with many thousands of pounds of Canon gear, trusting it to do what it is supposed to? Was the 5D image quality as good as the 1Ds2 (imo - yes). Can I turn up to a job and do it satisfactorily with a 5D2? (- yes). Did any reviews notice this descrepancy between 5D2 and 1Ds3? (OK - diglloyd has now).
Ultimately you don't know if a camera is going to cut the mustard until you ask it to, in anger, on a shoot. But when Canon says 'this is our best image quality ever', I take it seriously. And I expect CPS to help me find a solution to this problem, once I'm armed with good information about whether it occurs in all 5D2s, and under what circumstances. Selling the 1Ds3 wasn't a mistake: I can always buy another if I get fed up with these scratchy shadows and can't find a way to avoid them.
Personally, I think Canon's marketing hype on the 5D2 was some of their most "envelope-stretching" yet - but, you're right, we should be able to take their technical claims seriously.
brainiac wrote:
Yes, by Canon: "Although the individual pixel dimensions of the EOS 5D Mark II camera are the same as the 21.1-megapixel CMOS sensor used in the EOS-1Ds Mark III digital SLR, the new sensor incorporates an improved output amplifier and a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction. By applying the same kind of advancements in sensor design and image processing technology as the recently introduced EOS 50D camera, but at higher resolution and with larger pixels, the EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest level of image quality of any EOS Digital SLR released to date. "
The statement is false because it seems that the 1Ds3 at 100 iso produces a higher image quality than that of the 5D2 AT ANY ISO....Show more →
See, that's just marketing speak. They weren't lying about it. Nowhere in there did they say that it has more dynamic range. They just said the image quality is better. Taken on the whole, I think it is.
Which lens has better image quality: 85 f/1.2L or 35 f/1.4L? You could say either, depending on which parts of image quality matter most to you.
Yes, I think this is a problem. I also think that EVERY camera has problems, the same goes for lenses. You will always have to work around one limitation or another.
Go buy another 1DsIII, (I guess you already did?), and stop scaring the natives. Next time don't sell your gear until you have tested the replacement and it does what you need.
Sorry, I just have a bug up my butt about really picky people (not that there is anything wrong with that) putting other people off on something that is a godsend to most of us, thereby hurting Canon and the thousands of us that would have otherwise jumped at a 5DII. You told Canon, wonderful. I don't see why it has to be a multi-threaded anti-canon 5Dii assault.
edrodgers731 wrote:
See, that's just marketing speak. They weren't lying about it. Nowhere in there did they say that it has more dynamic range. They just said the image quality is better. Taken on the whole, I think it is.
Which lens has better image quality: 85 f/1.2L or 35 f/1.4L? You could say either, depending on which parts of image quality matter most to you.
Yes, I think this is a problem. I also think that EVERY camera has problems, the same goes for lenses. You will always have to work around one limitation or another.
Go buy another 1DsIII, (I guess you already did?), and stop scaring the natives. Next time don't sell your gear until you have tested the replacement and it does what you need.
Sorry, I just have a bug up my butt about really picky people (not that there is anything wrong with that) putting other people off on something that is a godsend to most of us, thereby hurting Canon and the thousands of us that would have otherwise jumped at a 5DII. You told Canon, wonderful. I don't see why it has to be a multi-threaded anti-canon 5Dii assault....Show more →
I haven't been clear enough, so let me set the record straight:
- this is a shortcoming that some users won't notice
- the camera is even better at iso 12800 than my 1Ds3 was, so I'll be keeping it for that alone
- I regard discussing issues such as this as part of a useful process of familiarising with the camera so that I can make it shred on a job
- I see no reason why shortcomings of gear shouldn't be discussed, even if it might delay a sale or two of the camera, since God knows we spend enough time praising what's good
- the scope of this issue has been made clear on both threads, so readers can decide for themselves if it matters in their type of photography
- Canon doesn't need you to protect it; 5D2's will keep selling fast
Brainic keep on discussing your findings of any shortcomings and strengths, it is helpful information. Sometimes with discussions come work arounds, if not the knowledge gained is important to those who shoot or who will shoot a given camera and or lens to know some possible limiting factors. Such as I dsicovered with the live view and alt lens. If it wasn't for discussions from my thread in the Alts section would not have isolated the issue.
