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.
It was a quick and dirty illustration of where you would place the ND grad or simulated ND grad, not an actual finished result with properly tweaked contrast and appropriate levels for the different parts of the scene. People often think you can't do things like this with irregular skylines but there's often a way.
I agree that the patterned noise is annoying and if you're seeing it on ISO100 shots without serious monkeybusiness in shadows/highlights or exposure pushing, then yeah, there's a problem. But I wouldn't want novices to get all freaked out and start thinking a digital camera is malfunctioning because it shows stuff like this when you boost exposure +Several EV, because almost all cameras will do that (I don't know about the 1DsIII, but hey, it's a pretty expensive camera).
brainiac wrote:
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...Show more →
i finally made it appear
took edge of underside of roof and large tree trunks against white sky at iso 100 and then set 0 contrast and no curves and pulled highlight back by 50 and bumped exposure up by 2 stops and pulled shadows up in acr by 8 the underside of the roof did get the same cross hatch.
whether this is new to 5dmkii or not not sure since i usually dont process this way with no contrast and giant 2 step pulls and so on.
after more experimenting i can only sometimes see hints of the cross hatch in the most extreme shots using any sort of PP and shooting style i would normally use so im not sure if it really an issue, i have no other bodies with me at the moment to compare to, maybe i can see what the rebel xt does tomorrow.
now question is does yours get it much more easily or is it more that i dont normally push things quite that extremely and is it something htat the older models really can get away with or not
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 →
Yeah, but that might not apply to cases of people pushing the camera well past its specifications by grossly underexposing or shooting in contrast beyond what a digital sensor can manage and then trying to rescue the results. I'm not saying your comments aren't valid, or that there aren't other cameras that might do better in this regard, but I really think it has to be pointed out that this is atypical usage and that you're pushing the camera beyond what would normally be considered good practice (at least for this medium, at this stage of development). Once higher DR sensors come out - sure, no problem. But now? For most of us it's best to stick with our ~5 stop range and work around higher contrast situations as photographers have for a long time.
Just checked some RAW's shot with ISO 100, pushed them as much (about 2,5 steps) as I could in both DPP and C1 v4.6, Lots of noise yes but not the criss-cross pattern shown by others!
BTW I'm still at f/w 1.06
-----
İlhan Berk (1918-2008), a Turkish poet.
walter23 wrote:
Yeah, but that might not apply to cases of people pushing the camera well past its specifications by grossly underexposing or shooting in contrast beyond what a digital sensor can manage and then trying to rescue the results. I'm not saying your comments aren't valid, or that there aren't other cameras that might do better in this regard, but I really think it has to be pointed out that this is atypical usage and that you're pushing the camera beyond what would normally be considered good practice (at least for this medium, at this stage of development). Once higher DR sensors come out - sure, no problem. But now? For most of us it's best to stick with our ~5 stop range and work around higher contrast situations as photographers have for a long time.
+1 This has been an interesting thread but one does get the sense that these problems fall more in the realm of pixel peeping than normal usage (& to be fair brainiac kind of admits this).
I've had this in high ISO files and some in experimental shots that were not exposed properly. I talked to a Canon rep about this and he said he's noticed the same issue with his own 50D. He said if the images are not properly exposed the processor is simply "trying to pull something out of the air."
When Canon claim "the EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest level of image quality of any EOS Digital SLR released to date." perhaps they were refering to high ISO performance?
Can you exchange your 5D2 for another copy and give it another try? maybe complaint to Canon and send yours in, keep bugging the hell out of Canon and eventually they'll give you a new one.
I don't have the link at the moment but there was a fashion photography went through 3 copies of the 5D2 that he had AF problem with, he has a blog and everything...3 times a charm?
Having done astrophotos with canon cameras for a couple years now, this is par for the course. 350D, 20D, 5D, 40D all have it. This is the fixed pattern noise inherent in the sensor. I've seen it on every camera because the nature of astrophotos are almost all shadows Simply take a shot with the lens cap on, and push the exposure, and you'll see it.
Temperature may also exacerbate the problem-- more noise when warm, although the thermal noise itself will be random, not patterned.
I cannot compare between the 1DsIII and the 5d2 however. I did not do this particular test with the 5D2 for the brief time I owned one, but in my astrophoto test at ISO6400 I did see the banding-- but that info is of no use to you.
To "deal with it" I have found that Noise Ninja's noise profiles to be VERY effective at eliminating this fixed pattern noise, especially effective with astrophotos which, as mentioned, are all about bumping up shadows
I think some are still missing one crucial point. Two of Brainiac's images in the original post are mine, and one of those is not pushed at all. The other happened to be pushed to exaggerate the look so people could see what it looked like magnified. However, even without magnifying the effect, it did tend to ruin the one shot of the family crossing the icy lake.
So all the talk of it not being relevant to due to over manipulated images totally misses one key fact. They aren't necessarily manipulated at all.
If you don't have this problem, I can see how you don't appreciate this thread. If you do, you do. Pretty simple.
I contacted Canon, and they said straightforwardly that the patterned noise was abnormal and deserved a trip to the repair center. It's not something you should live with. That being said, if you wait a week or so, I'll have an answer from Canon as to whether they can/will fix this problem, because they now have my 5DII. I'll post a follow up.
erichard wrote:
I think some are still missing one crucial point. Two of Brainiac's images in the original post are mine, and one of those is not pushed at all. The other happened to be pushed to exaggerate the look so people could see what it looked like magnified. However, even without magnifying the effect, it did tend to ruin the one shot of the family crossing the icy lake.
So all the talk of it not being relevant to due to over manipulated images totally misses one key fact. They aren't necessarily manipulated at all.
If you don't have this problem, I can see how you don't appreciate this thread. If you do, you do. Pretty simple.
I contacted Canon, and they said straightforwardly that the patterned noise was abnormal and deserved a trip to the repair center. It's not something you should live with. That being said, if you wait a week or so, I'll have an answer from Canon as to whether they can/will fix this problem, because they now have my 5DII. I'll post a follow up....Show more →
Okay, if this is showing up in normal use that's definitely not right. I consider myself "served"
The link to the DPReview thread on this topic is interesting.
One of the comment on the fakechuckwestfall blog thinks the issue is "most likely the result of the idiot setting “C.Fn II-3 Highlight tone priority” to 1:Enable". That makes sense. I checked on my camera, it's set to disable, but I might have changed that since those shots.
A good exercise would be to find a pic where we see the banding and take the exact same pic disabling Highlight tone priority. I'm too sleepy to do that tonight
I went through this HTP, no HTP, question before, and read a number of threads on HTP. Some people think ISO 200 HTP is a hyped up form of ISO 100 without HTP (some have claimed certain identical traits on the curves and in the photo image if the HTP tag is deleted from the ISO 200 version of a capture). I don't know, but my guess is that HTP probably exaggerates what is already a native problem at ISO 100 for a limited number of 5DII's, maybe in the percentages listed in the poll.
In the last couple posts, the banding doesn't show up too well on my monitor. In Dan Mitchell's photo from the other thread, I didn't notice too much either, and that is probably the level of my old 5D as well, which didn't really make me sit up and take notice. On the picture of the icy lake, I was sitting there for some time trying to figure out if the wind could somehow have caused uniform grooves across that region; that's how bad it was. Just between me and the forum, if my wife independently notices it, it's a problem (Lord forgive me, for I have sinned ;^).
The patterned noise looks bad on my OS X laptop but almost disappears on my windows CRT. I notice the gamut of my laptop somehow makes it prone to displaying noise more severely.
I keep HTP off and still have the problem. However, the circumstances in which the pattern spoils a picture are like HTP, in that I underexpose and push the shadows. It's no good telling me not to do this - it's a perfectly legitimate technique I have been using for years, even before I switched to Canon, and it works very well with 5D, 1D3 and 1Ds3, for saving highlights from burnout as far as is possible. My 5D2 has much less latitude at this technique than those other cameras because of the banding, and I do consider the reduction in dynamic range a problem, compared to what I have been used to in the past.
And btw, we now have many examples of how this criss-cross pattern is leading to scratchy images AT WEB SIZES. In other words, the nature of the criss-cross pattern makes it intrusive at quite a large scale, and that makes it very hard for any of the NR magic bullets that people keep proposing to reduce the noise without completely toasting image data on a big scale.
