5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding

Started Mar 6, 2012 | Discussions
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 15,678
Like?
Re: Why would anyone think this means anything?
In reply to Mikael Risedal, Mar 6, 2012

Mikael Risedal wrote:

or another camera than Canon

This is +5EV, do you see much of a practical problem with 5D Mark III here?

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike_V
Senior MemberPosts: 1,490
Like?
Re: 1Ds3 was different though, it did have less banding than the 5D2 as well ahve all
In reply to bronxbombers, Mar 6, 2012

1Ds3 has very little banding compared to 5D MK II.

Very, very noticeably different.

-- hide signature --

Graphic Design + Web Design + Photography

http://www.molecule.com.au

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,230Gear list
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to bronxbombers, Mar 6, 2012

bronxbombers wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

not if the scene has more than 10 stops of dynamic range it won't

you are confusing the flash turning to gray and what they are doing as the easiest quickest test to show dynamic range issues, a specific test, simply meant to demonstrate the issue most issue and most readily with something more which it is not

I am not confusing anything, I know what they are doing, and it is what they have been doing for quite some time now. You seldom if ever see a usable photo that shows pattern noise. They always somehow look like crap once, "properly adjusted" in post to expose the issue. Not only that, in most of the examples I have seen, the Sony equipped cameras don’t do much better when pushed that far either. In most cases the comparison goes something like this – “here I pushed a 5DII and a Nikon D7000 6 stops, which is more crappy?... there, you see… proof that Canon Sux” but in reality neither photo is usable.

Yes it looks like the noise si still there -- now the question is better or worse.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Adobe Photoshop CS6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gdanmitchell
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,730
Like?
Re: 5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding
In reply to rwbaron, Mar 6, 2012

rwbaron wrote:

Another 3 or 4 more years of John Sheehy and bobn2 posts.

Look at the bright side. They can just recycle their old posts.

Can't wait. Not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mkln
Regular MemberPosts: 156Gear list
Like?
Re: 5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding
In reply to gdanmitchell, Mar 7, 2012

banding on my 5d2 depends on the situation.

most of the time it is not a problem, but there's a specific situation in which I can always notice it.

take sunset landscape, single exposure.

you dont want the 5d to blow up highlights (thanks to its poor DR) so you expose with particular care on the sky. so meter weighting the sky more. then in post you lift the shadows (otherwise it's too dark).
there, you got banding at iso 100.
very annoying.

of course jpeg users or "quick postprocess" people will not notice and/or care about banding. neither will hdr fanatics.

oh and of course you can still get banding anytime you use higher isos and the 5d metering system underexposes a bit.

if production 5d3 will have banding, that would definitely be a very poor result for canon. as if nobody complained about the 5d2.

and no they're not giving it away for free so I would expect a $3500 dslr in 2012 to be close to flawless.
this is FAR from flawless.

boo canon boo

 mkln's gear list:mkln's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,831
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to David Hull, Mar 7, 2012

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

Actually, what is true is that there are many photo situations where you can avoid the issue, but it is also true that Canon is turning out to be the worst choice in demanding photo situations. Not everyone is willing to let a limited camera dictate what photos they can or can't take.

-- hide signature --

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,230Gear list
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to John Sheehy, Mar 7, 2012

John Sheehy wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

Actually, what is true is that there are many photo situations where you can avoid the issue, but it is also true that Canon is turning out to be the worst choice in demanding photo situations. Not everyone is willing to let a limited camera dictate what photos they can or can't take.

It is definitely not the best choice if you want to lift shadows a bunch. I wonder just exactly what they DID improve in terms of IQ?

-- hide signature --

John

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Adobe Photoshop CS6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: These are ISO 100 btw (nt)
In reply to Horshack, Mar 7, 2012

The 5D2 looks better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ESfishdoc
Senior MemberPosts: 1,457
Like?
I confess...
In reply to David Hull, Mar 7, 2012

I really don't have any idea what you are all talking about....

I'll go back to my photography....

R

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ghozer
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,863Gear list
Like?
My take
In reply to rwbaron, Mar 7, 2012

rwbaron wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

cs hauser wrote:

Horshack wrote:

Both files processed in CS5 ACR 6.7 RC, fill light +100.

Perhaps you forgot to mention the little fact that these 2 images were taken at different exposure settings, under different light, under different white balance, by different photographers, under different circumstances. Putting them side-by-side is not only foolishly misleading, but borderline malicious.

not since it shows that banding is still there at low iso

they do appear to have entirely fixed high iso banding though

Maybe Canon just thinks the camera is soooo good at high ISO that no one will ever shoot at any ISO below 400 ;).

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

I'm guessing Canon didn't think typical post processing involves taking a screwed up shot and pushing the fill light to +100. Hey, did I mention that the new Porsches are terrible? Yeah, when you plow the 2012 model into a tree at 100mph the passenger dies. In the 2011 model he would only have brain damage and be in a coma for the rest of his life. It's also overpriced.

-- hide signature --
 Ghozer's gear list:Ghozer's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7000 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
octane2
Contributing MemberPosts: 670
Like?
Re: 5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding
In reply to mkln, Mar 7, 2012

This is why graduated neutral density filters were invented.

If they were good enough for Galen Rowell, they're good enough for me.

Regards,
H

mkln wrote:

take sunset landscape, single exposure.

you dont want the 5d to blow up highlights (thanks to its poor DR) so you expose with particular care on the sky. so meter weighting the sky more. then in post you lift the shadows (otherwise it's too dark).
there, you got banding at iso 100.
very annoying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bronxbombers
Forum ProPosts: 18,226
Like?
Re: My take
In reply to Ghozer, Mar 7, 2012

Ghozer wrote:

rwbaron wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

cs hauser wrote:

Horshack wrote:

Both files processed in CS5 ACR 6.7 RC, fill light +100.

Perhaps you forgot to mention the little fact that these 2 images were taken at different exposure settings, under different light, under different white balance, by different photographers, under different circumstances. Putting them side-by-side is not only foolishly misleading, but borderline malicious.

not since it shows that banding is still there at low iso

they do appear to have entirely fixed high iso banding though

Maybe Canon just thinks the camera is soooo good at high ISO that no one will ever shoot at any ISO below 400 ;).

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

I'm guessing Canon didn't think typical post processing involves taking a screwed up shot and pushing the fill light to +100. Hey, did I mention that the new Porsches are terrible? Yeah, when you plow the 2012 model into a tree at 100mph the passenger dies. In the 2011 model he would only have brain damage and be in a coma for the rest of his life. It's also overpriced.

you really don't get it wow believe it not everyone who mentions it is not stupid or just making up crazy scenarios, those are just easy to carry out simple tests to most easily compare things and nothing more you are reading both too much and too little and the wrongs things into the tests

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bronxbombers
Forum ProPosts: 18,226
Like?
Re: 5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding
In reply to octane2, Mar 7, 2012

and when the bright parts happen to not fit a graduated filter and when things are moving too fast for a few frames??

last year there was an amazing sunset with mists rising and swirling up after a storm some getting hit and lit up by rays of the sun and the clouds were zipping by, just post storm, the dynamic range was intense but the bright and dark were mixed all over the frame and the mists were swirling so fast and the clouds racing about so much that every one shot was a failure and combining shots is going to take me hours of cutting and pasting and masking and even then it's going to be somewhat of a shambles

a truly glorious scene too

another 3 stops of exmore DR would have helped tremendously

octane2 wrote:
This is why graduated neutral density filters were invented.

If they were good enough for Galen Rowell, they're good enough for me.

Regards,
H

mkln wrote:

take sunset landscape, single exposure.

you dont want the 5d to blow up highlights (thanks to its poor DR) so you expose with particular care on the sky. so meter weighting the sky more. then in post you lift the shadows (otherwise it's too dark).
there, you got banding at iso 100.
very annoying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bronxbombers
Forum ProPosts: 18,226
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to David Hull, Mar 7, 2012

David Hull wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

not if the scene has more than 10 stops of dynamic range it won't

you are confusing the flash turning to gray and what they are doing as the easiest quickest test to show dynamic range issues, a specific test, simply meant to demonstrate the issue most issue and most readily with something more which it is not

I am not confusing anything, I know what they are doing, and it is what they have been doing for quite some time now. You seldom if ever see a usable photo that shows pattern noise. They always somehow look like crap once, "properly adjusted" in post to expose the issue. Not only that, in most of the examples I have seen, the Sony equipped cameras don’t do much better when pushed that far either. In most cases the comparison goes something like this – “here I pushed a 5DII and a Nikon D7000 6 stops, which is more crappy?... there, you see… proof that Canon Sux” but in reality neither photo is usable.

Yes it looks like the noise si still there -- now the question is better or worse.

your response just proved that you don't know what they are doing

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rwbaron
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,435Gear list
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to David Hull, Mar 7, 2012

David Hull wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

not if the scene has more than 10 stops of dynamic range it won't

you are confusing the flash turning to gray and what they are doing as the easiest quickest test to show dynamic range issues, a specific test, simply meant to demonstrate the issue most issue and most readily with something more which it is not

I am not confusing anything, I know what they are doing, and it is what they have been doing for quite some time now. You seldom if ever see a usable photo that shows pattern noise. They always somehow look like crap once, "properly adjusted" in post to expose the issue. Not only that, in most of the examples I have seen, the Sony equipped cameras don’t do much better when pushed that far either. In most cases the comparison goes something like this – “here I pushed a 5DII and a Nikon D7000 6 stops, which is more crappy?... there, you see… proof that Canon Sux” but in reality neither photo is usable.

Yes it looks like the noise si still there -- now the question is better or worse.

I agree completely and if this ability to torture the shadows is so valuable why hasn't Nikon promoted it? I've never seen or heard one marketing blurb about this unique capability so am I to assume Nikon sees this as a technical issue that has little real practical value? After tens of thousands of frames with my 7D, 50D, 40D XTi and 10D I've never once had a file compromised by low ISO banding even after what I consider heavy post work. It bothers me that Canon cannot address this purely from the standpoint of "are they keeping up with current sensor technology" but not from a practical aspect.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Horshack
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,813
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to rwbaron, Mar 7, 2012

rwbaron wrote:

I agree completely and if this ability to torture the shadows is so valuable why hasn't Nikon promoted it? I've never seen or heard one marketing blurb about this unique capability so am I to assume Nikon sees this as a technical issue that has little real practical value? After tens of thousands of frames with my 7D, 50D, 40D XTi and 10D I've never once had a file compromised by low ISO banding even after what I consider heavy post work. It bothers me that Canon cannot address this purely from the standpoint of "are they keeping up with current sensor technology" but not from a practical aspect.

Sony spent R&D dollars designing a sensor technology specifically to address it. They make a pretty big deal about it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ghozer
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,863Gear list
Like?
Re: My take
In reply to bronxbombers, Mar 7, 2012

bronxbombers wrote:

Ghozer wrote:

rwbaron wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

cs hauser wrote:

Horshack wrote:

Both files processed in CS5 ACR 6.7 RC, fill light +100.

Perhaps you forgot to mention the little fact that these 2 images were taken at different exposure settings, under different light, under different white balance, by different photographers, under different circumstances. Putting them side-by-side is not only foolishly misleading, but borderline malicious.

not since it shows that banding is still there at low iso

they do appear to have entirely fixed high iso banding though

Maybe Canon just thinks the camera is soooo good at high ISO that no one will ever shoot at any ISO below 400 ;).

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

I'm guessing Canon didn't think typical post processing involves taking a screwed up shot and pushing the fill light to +100. Hey, did I mention that the new Porsches are terrible? Yeah, when you plow the 2012 model into a tree at 100mph the passenger dies. In the 2011 model he would only have brain damage and be in a coma for the rest of his life. It's also overpriced.

you really don't get it wow believe it not everyone who mentions it is not stupid or just making up crazy scenarios, those are just easy to carry out simple tests to most easily compare things and nothing more you are reading both too much and too little and the wrongs things into the tests

Where did I say anyone is "stupid?" Though, I will stipulate that pushing the fill to +100 is a "crazy scenario." It's just not something people do in the course of normal post processing so any image breakdown that may occur I find irrelevant and not terribly helpful in making a camera purchase decision. If others do, more power to them and I think my sports car analogy is probably just as helpful to them.

I think a more appropriate test would be pushing the exposure a stop, stop and a half, and seeing, for example, how detail in the shadow regions holds up. That would be a much more practical example that I think more people would find useful.

-- hide signature --
 Ghozer's gear list:Ghozer's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7000 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,831
Like?
Re: These are ISO 100 btw (nt)
In reply to Peter 13, Mar 7, 2012

Peter 13 wrote:

The 5D2 looks better.

The 5D2 may have a slightly weaker AA filter, so contrasty edges cut through more, but the 5D3 has slightly less high-ISO noise in flat areas, with somewhat finer chroma noise, due, likely, to the much lower banding noise.

-- hide signature --

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,831
Like?
Re: 5dM2 vs 5DM3 banding
In reply to octane2, Mar 7, 2012

octane2 wrote:

This is why graduated neutral density filters were invented.

If they were good enough for Galen Rowell, they're good enough for me.

Galen Rowell died in the beginning of digital photography (Aug 2002).

-- hide signature --

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,230Gear list
Like?
Re: nothing at all to do with poor exposure settings
In reply to bronxbombers, Mar 7, 2012

bronxbombers wrote:

David Hull wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The "perfectly exposed" image, when properly processed, shows no issue.

not if the scene has more than 10 stops of dynamic range it won't

you are confusing the flash turning to gray and what they are doing as the easiest quickest test to show dynamic range issues, a specific test, simply meant to demonstrate the issue most issue and most readily with something more which it is not

I am not confusing anything, I know what they are doing, and it is what they have been doing for quite some time now. You seldom if ever see a usable photo that shows pattern noise. They always somehow look like crap once, "properly adjusted" in post to expose the issue. Not only that, in most of the examples I have seen, the Sony equipped cameras don’t do much better when pushed that far either. In most cases the comparison goes something like this – “here I pushed a 5DII and a Nikon D7000 6 stops, which is more crappy?... there, you see… proof that Canon Sux” but in reality neither photo is usable.

your response just proved that you don't know what they are doing

I think I made my point pretty clearly, but now that I re-read your statement above it, which makes no sense, I think I understand why you are having difficulty understanding my response.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Adobe Photoshop CS6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads