I tried all your guys wacky way to process and push and destroy photos, but no matter what I could not get my 5d2 to do those weird things you experience.
Whenever I push up the exposure in the RAW file by +1 or +2 EV, I will occasionally see banding patterns in the shadows. It can happen even with ISO 100 RAW files. It largely depends on the lighting situation. Ever since I started using UniWB, the appearance of low ISO banding has become much more predictable. If the red channel already starts off very weak in UniWB, I know it will look quite poor when the channel is boosted up for a standard Daylight WB. Then if I apply another +1 or +2 eV on top of that, then banding will almost definitely manifest itself in the shadows. I think people wouldn't be surprised at the banding if they only realized how much the red channel in the RAW files can be boosted in these situations (i.e. up to 4 to 5 eV!)
The 5D2 is no less susceptible to low ISO banding than my previous EOS digital SLRs. I'm sure many other people can come up with a bunch of examples where the 5D2 will show banding at ISO 100. So can I --- I have lots of those. In fact, I was one of the first people to complain about 5D2 banding in these forums. But I can also come up with a whole bunch of other samples where the 5D2 doesn't show banding at low ISO at all, even when pushed up +2eV or +3eV. It all depends on how strong the red channel was during exposure (and before WB). In that sense, it's pointless for people to keep posting samples of 5D2 banding in this thread. Banding can occur with any camera on any ISO.
What I do not agree with is the allegation that the 5D2 is somehow inferior to the 1Ds3 in that regard. No offense, but I think it's a lot of BS. Although I never bought the 1Ds3 myself, I have downloaded and studied numerous RAW files from that camera. They are just as clean, and just as noisy, as the RAW files from my 5D2. I have even downloaded the relevant RAW files from Imaging Resource. Identical subjects under identical lighting, from the 5D2 and 1Ds3. The 1Ds3 is no better than the 5D2 in low ISO shadow noise. They are virtually identical in low ISO shadow noise, even when pushed up +4eV.
What I haven't seen is any visual proof of the 5D2's alleged inferiority to the 1Ds3 when the two cameras shoot an identical scene. We haven't seen a single sample of that... because it doesn't exist. The problem here, I think, is that a lot of former 1Ds Mark 3 users are letting personal bias to influence their judgement. And all the negative press from the 5D2 has no doubt made them paranoid about its alleged flaws. If someone can provide a single solid proof of the 5D2's inferiority when it shoots an identical scene at the same time as a 1Ds3, then they would've made their point. Otherwise, I'm just chalking off these unsubstantiated allegations as the fruits of people "mis-remembering" their 1Ds3 days with rose-colored glasses. Kind of like when a favorite son could do no wrong in his father's eyes.
Good theory. We just need somebody with both cameras to give us a showdown.
BTW, can anyone see the second picture of my posts. This page and the previous page the second pictures are always missing from the post for some reason along with the text above it. Looks fine when I look at the codes in edit but not there when I look at the posts themselves.
Many types of shot contain a range of Exposure Values which exceed the dynamic range of the camera, even when camera/raw contrast is set to minimum. If the photographer is unable to take multiple bracketed exposures because subject is moving, or no tripod is available, then it is not possible to devote hours of your life to composing 'high-dynamic-range' blends on the computer. As a result the photographer is forced to do the best she can with the existing dynamic range of the camera.
When blown out, highlights can look ugly, but because many cameras have an ability to store good tonal image data deep into the shadows, it is possible with such cameras (e.g. 1Ds3) to make a fairly dark exposure which retains detail in strong highlights, and then use a curve in processing to raise the exposure of the shadows towards the middle where they belong according to the naked eye. The effect of this is to dramatically extend the effective dynamic range of the image, and it works very well on a 1Ds3, because the deep shadows have good tone and colour accuracy and very low and random noise which does not catch the eye or suggest structure. Noise reduction software can be used to clean up the shadows when this technique is used on a mk3. The result is fantastically tonal results which capture quite wide dynamic range.
Note that the technique I am describing here IS NOT DIFFERENT TO "EXPOSE TO THE RIGHT", because I am suggesting exposing such that the brightest areas of the scene extend to the far right of the histogram and not beyond. This technique IS 'expose to the right', NOT UNDEREXPOSURE. http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/turnersreachb.jpg
This technique is difficult to use on my 5D2 because it has much more noiticeable and structured noise in the shadows at low iso and low contrast. Effectively my 5D2 has far less dynamic range than its sibling the 1Ds3, even though Canon stated that the 5D2 would have superior image quality.
Please understand that the advice "don't underexpose your pictures so much" is not helpful. The criss-cross patterns are stopping skilled post-processors from achieving the same dynamic range from the 5D2 that they can get from the mk3's.
The criss-cross gauze-like patterns arise in many situations and they are not exclusively the result of HTP or ALO....Show more →
Why not just expose a little more to the right, blow out the sun some more and maybe a bit of the sky (who cares?) and reduce the highlights in PP? This would get your shadows right to begin with and avoid this entire issue.
Rubber Soul wrote:
Whenever I push up the exposure in the RAW file by +1 or +2 EV, I will occasionally see banding patterns in the shadows. It can happen even with ISO 100 RAW files. It largely depends on the lighting situation. Ever since I started using UniWB, the appearance of low ISO banding has become much more predictable. If the red channel already starts off very weak in UniWB, I know it will look quite poor when the channel is boosted up for a standard Daylight WB. Then if I apply another +1 or +2 eV on top of that, then banding will almost definitely manifest itself in the shadows. I think people wouldn't be surprised at the banding if they only realized how much the red channel in the RAW files can be boosted in these situations (i.e. up to 4 to 5 eV!)
The 5D2 is no less susceptible to low ISO banding than my previous EOS digital SLRs. I'm sure many other people can come up with a bunch of examples where the 5D2 will show banding at ISO 100. So can I --- I have lots of those. In fact, I was one of the first people to complain about 5D2 banding in these forums. But I can also come up with a whole bunch of other samples where the 5D2 doesn't show banding at low ISO at all, even when pushed up +2eV or +3eV. It all depends on how strong the red channel was during exposure (and before WB). In that sense, it's pointless for people to keep posting samples of 5D2 banding in this thread. Banding can occur with any camera on any ISO.
What I do not agree with is the allegation that the 5D2 is somehow inferior to the 1Ds3 in that regard. No offense, but I think it's a lot of BS. Although I never bought the 1Ds3 myself, I have downloaded and studied numerous RAW files from that camera. They are just as clean, and just as noisy, as the RAW files from my 5D2. I have even downloaded the relevant RAW files from Imaging Resource. Identical subjects under identical lighting, from the 5D2 and 1Ds3. The 1Ds3 is no better than the 5D2 in low ISO shadow noise. They are virtually identical in low ISO shadow noise, even when pushed up +4eV.
What I haven't seen is any visual proof of the 5D2's alleged inferiority to the 1Ds3 when the two cameras shoot an identical scene. We haven't seen a single sample of that... because it doesn't exist. The problem here, I think, is that a lot of former 1Ds Mark 3 users are letting personal bias to influence their judgement. And all the negative press from the 5D2 has no doubt made them paranoid about its alleged flaws. If someone can provide a single solid proof of the 5D2's inferiority when it shoots an identical scene at the same time as a 1Ds3, then they would've made their point. Otherwise, I'm just chalking off these unsubstantiated allegations as the fruits of people "mis-remembering" their 1Ds3 days with rose-colored glasses. Kind of like when a favorite son could do no wrong in his father's eyes.
And those are just some. I looked through a lot of my old photos taken with the 5D and they're all the same. Just plain cleaner and with no pattern to the noise that makes it stick out like a soar thumb.
Will Patterson wrote:
The problem is, my old 5D has cleaner files at ISO 100.
I just don't think you can say that until someone does a true head to head comparison. Noise varies greatly from scene to scene; you can't compare different images - its apples to oranges. And I agree with what has been said above about the red channel in terms of noise - I've noted that myself.
Will Patterson wrote:
I looked through a lot of my old photos taken with the 5D and they're all the same. Just plain cleaner and with no pattern to the noise that makes it stick out like a soar thumb.
Wait a minute. There is clearly noise and banding in the third of your three 5D examples.
But I remain unconcerned about this. (I have a 5D and a 5DII.) I know that some don't agree, but in my view this is just the way that digital images "fail" when very dark uniform tone areas are pushed a few stops and viewed at 100%. If I go back through my 5D files I can sometimes find the effect there, and when I look at my 5DII files I can sometimes find it under these circumstances.
Is it in any way a problem for my photographs? No.
danmitchell wrote:
Wait a minute. There is clearly noise and banding in the third of your three 5D examples.
But I remain unconcerned about this. (I have a 5D and a 5DII.) I know that some don't agree, but in my view this is just the way that digital images "fail" when very dark uniform tone areas are pushed a few stops and viewed at 100%. If I go back through my 5D files I can sometimes find the effect there, and when I look at my 5DII files I can sometimes find it under these circumstances.
Is it in any way a problem for my photographs? No.
michael49 wrote:
Why not just expose a little more to the right, blow out the sun some more and maybe a bit of the sky (who cares?) and reduce the highlights in PP? This would get your shadows right to begin with and avoid this entire issue.
That is not the point. We are just trying to figure out the properties of these banding and whether there is sample variation amongst the Mk IIs.
Rubber Soul wrote:
Whenever I push up the exposure in the RAW file by +1 or +2 EV, I will occasionally see banding patterns in the shadows. It can happen even with ISO 100 RAW files. It largely depends on the lighting situation. Ever since I started using UniWB, the appearance of low ISO banding has become much more predictable. If the red channel already starts off very weak in UniWB, I know it will look quite poor when the channel is boosted up for a standard Daylight WB. Then if I apply another +1 or +2 eV on top of that, then banding will almost definitely manifest itself in the shadows. I think people wouldn't be surprised at the banding if they only realized how much the red channel in the RAW files can be boosted in these situations (i.e. up to 4 to 5 eV!)
The 5D2 is no less susceptible to low ISO banding than my previous EOS digital SLRs. I'm sure many other people can come up with a bunch of examples where the 5D2 will show banding at ISO 100. So can I --- I have lots of those. In fact, I was one of the first people to complain about 5D2 banding in these forums. But I can also come up with a whole bunch of other samples where the 5D2 doesn't show banding at low ISO at all, even when pushed up +2eV or +3eV. It all depends on how strong the red channel was during exposure (and before WB). In that sense, it's pointless for people to keep posting samples of 5D2 banding in this thread. Banding can occur with any camera on any ISO.
What I do not agree with is the allegation that the 5D2 is somehow inferior to the 1Ds3 in that regard. No offense, but I think it's a lot of BS. Although I never bought the 1Ds3 myself, I have downloaded and studied numerous RAW files from that camera. They are just as clean, and just as noisy, as the RAW files from my 5D2. I have even downloaded the relevant RAW files from Imaging Resource. Identical subjects under identical lighting, from the 5D2 and 1Ds3. The 1Ds3 is no better than the 5D2 in low ISO shadow noise. They are virtually identical in low ISO shadow noise, even when pushed up +4eV.
What I haven't seen is any visual proof of the 5D2's alleged inferiority to the 1Ds3 when the two cameras shoot an identical scene. We haven't seen a single sample of that... because it doesn't exist. The problem here, I think, is that a lot of former 1Ds Mark 3 users are letting personal bias to influence their judgement. And all the negative press from the 5D2 has no doubt made them paranoid about its alleged flaws. If someone can provide a single solid proof of the 5D2's inferiority when it shoots an identical scene at the same time as a 1Ds3, then they would've made their point. Otherwise, I'm just chalking off these unsubstantiated allegations as the fruits of people "mis-remembering" their 1Ds3 days with rose-colored glasses. Kind of like when a favorite son could do no wrong in his father's eyes.
No banding whatsoever... Pretty amazing considering the amount of underexposure and what you can still get out of it after some (heavy) PP... Try doing that to a 5D2 or 50D file
Daan B wrote:
No banding whatsoever... Pretty amazing considering the amount of underexposure and what you can still get out of it after some (heavy) PP... Try doing that to a 5D2 or 50D file
I guess it is all relative
Actually I sort of did inadvertently. After setting all the slides to 0 the original image I took of the rabbit went from perfectly exposed to 1 stop underexposed in the histogram. I went to +4EV with the last image. Not the same scene I know and hardly noise free but still pretty amazing.
Why not just expose a little more to the right, blow out the sun some more and maybe a bit of the sky (who cares?) and reduce the highlights in PP? This would get your shadows right to begin with and avoid this entire issue.
I care. I don't like blown out sky. I like the sky to look more like how it did. To be honest I think the sun is already too blown out. DSLR's have the flashing highlight blow-out warning because most photographers like to avoid blowing out large areas of the image if it can be avoided. Also, when it comes to spot printing, edges of blown out areas can look harsh. The first thing a pre-press professional looks for in a scan/file is areas where 1% of ink needs to be added because levels have hit the ceiling. Exposing further to the right does not solve the problem.
Rubber Soul wrote:
What I do not agree with is the allegation that the 5D2 is somehow inferior to the 1Ds3 in that regard. No offense, but I think it's a lot of BS. Although I never bought the 1Ds3 myself...
Although your post was long, this line seems to have been the crux of it. While you're entitled to an opinion, I do find it perverse that you dispute reports from people who have actually done the test you haven't, and have used the cameras you're talking about, even though you haven't.
This is 100 iso, and you can clearly see banding in the 5D2 version (right) which is not there in the 1Ds3 version.
There have been other examples kindly uploaded by 1Ds3+5D2 owners, and so far they all show that while the 5D2 is very slightly more sensitive, it shows significantly more noise in the shadows at low isos. I'll let you look up those other examples for yourself.
You can call what I am saying 'BS' all you want, but I have actually used both cameras extensively for real work, and I tell you that I did not get intrusive banding with my 1Ds3 in circumstances where it does become a problem on my 5D2. That's from the coalface, not complacent speculation.
Jonathan Wong wrote:
Actually I sort of did inadvertently. After setting all the slides to 0 the original image I took of the rabbit went from perfectly exposed to 1 stop underexposed in the histogram. I went to +4EV with the last image. Not the same scene I know and hardly noise free but still pretty amazing.
Your 5D2 shots look very good considering...
But do realize that I took a 3 stop underexposed 12 bit RAW file with the D90 and brought exposure back by +3. On top of that I opened up the shadows by +50. The results are really mind boggling. Exellent colors and detail, no banding and a little bit of random color noise that is easily correctable.
Why can Nikon give me super clean underexposed low ISO RAW files with a lot of hidden detail/color and Canon can't At least not to the same degree...
brainiac wrote:
Although your post was long, this line seems to have been the crux of it. While you're entitled to an opinion, I do find it perverse that you dispute reports from people who have actually done the test you haven't, and have used the cameras you're talking about, even though you haven't.
There have been other examples kindly uploaded by 1Ds3+5D2 owners, and so far they all show that while the 5D2 is very slightly more sensitive, it shows significantly more noise in the shadows at low isos. I'll let you look up those other examples for yourself.
You can call what I am saying 'BS' all you want, but I have actually used both cameras extensively for real work, and I tell you that I did not get intrusive banding with my 1Ds3 in circumstances where it does become a problem on my 5D2. That's from the coalface, not complacent speculation....Show more →
thedigitalbean wrote:
If people are going to compare the results of their bodies, can I make a suggestion so that we can have a uniform basis for comparison.
Perhaps people should shoot a frame with no lens, the body cap on at ISO 100 for some predetermined shutter speed, say 1/50s or 1s or whatever folks agree upon, standard picture style. Then take the file, process in DPP boosting the exposure by 2 stops. Take the resulting image into Photoshop and auto adjust levels. You should get noise soup. The idea is not the amount of noise but the to see if there is structure in the noise. If everyone does the same thing, then we can get a more consistent idea of how many bodies (and serial number ranges) are affected and to what degree. Folks with 1Ds3s can do the same. Any takers or am I just out to lunch?...Show more →
I think that's a very good idea. Perhaps a levels preset would be better than auto-levels, since auto-levels would disguise any discrepancies between the quantities of noise. How about input ceiling 25, as shown here: http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/levels.jpg
The settings are as follows:
1/60th second exposure
DPP
+2 brightness
all image enhancement/NR off
style: faithful
contrast: minimum
sharpening: minimum
photoshop levels input highlight 25
resized for web to 900 pixels wide
At least not to the same degree...