Nikon's acknowledgement of banding for D200

Ease up. Sorry you missed them but not my fault. The thread was massive so don't know how you missed it. In order to save what little bandwidth I have remaining I did password protect the gallery. However, if you or anyone wants the password email me and I will provide.

Of course, as far as I am concerned this is a dead issue now. See my new post RE my conversation with Nikon.

--
Lance O

This information is really helpful. Thank you for pursuing this. The FAQ sorely needed clarification.

--
Sally S
aka pigasus
http://www.4pawsphotographic.net

Regarding this part of their statement:

"It is important to note that banding will generally be greatly exaggerated when an image is enlarged and viewed on a computer monitor. A useful printed image, even when enlarged to a size that relates to a substantially enlarged monitor image, will not exhibit the same banding (or for that matter, many other artifacts) that may be visible on a monitor. Therefore, artifacts that may be visible on a monitor often have very little practical correlation to the realistic use of an image file (e.g., an image viewed on a monitor in its entirety and enlarged prints)."


This is true. There are all kinds of quirky things in digital images that really don't amount to much once you print the image out. No problem there.

However, some people are buying the D200 for certain types of pro use, such as images for stock photo libraries. I've had three emails come to me via my own camera site about this problem. People are submitting their images to a couple of stock sites, and those images are getting rejected right off the bat due to the banding that can be seen at 100%.

We as users really should not be viewing images at 100%, and as Nikon stated, some of the quirks won't show up in prints. Stock libraries however, DO inspect images at 100%, and will normaly reject a banded image immediately. Again, it's only been three emails from stock users that I've received who have told me about this, but my site is a pretty small one and I don't get a ton of email anyway - so three about one issue such as this with stock services being sent to me, means it is an issue. It would be a shame to be a stock photographer and to spend nearly two thousand dollars on a camera, only to find out the images it produces will be rejected from the various services.

This could be any make, model, or brand. It's not exclusive to Nikon, but they're doing what's expected - waiting until enough people and press report on it before finally somewhat admitting there was a problem at some stage along the line. The only reason I'm taking the time to point this out, is that in case you are one of those people who are considering the D200 for use as a stock photo camera, that you thoroughly inspect your images under a variety of conditions immediately. Make sure you buy from a reputable seller that will allow returns/swaps if there's a problem. If you see the problem, swap out your camera with your retailer until you find one of the newer production models that has this issue fixed. I'm sure Nikon is ironing it out for good, but a fair number of early production models did go out, so it's worth taking the time to make sure yours isn't a problemed model, especially for certain types of pro uses such as stock.

I planned on buying a D200 this summer after initial production batches exposed whatever new-product issues there were. Unfortunately, this Nikon response does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Apparently, Nikon is telling us that this so-called short banding phenomenon is normal when the camera is presented with certain high-contrast image situations. Not being obsessed with geek issues, I don't care why this is. All I know is that my D100 doesn't do it. So, sports fans, I guess I sit this game out until next year and see what happens.

Lance O said:

Agreed. However, be aware that under the right circumstance you
could get the bad banding and then you will understand where we are
coming from. I did not get bad banding until a shoot I did the
other night (64 of 66 images had it bad). And I have not had it
since then, even on a shoot I did last night. So it could rear its
ugly head in your camera too. I truly hope not though

No way am I returning my camera for repair until Nikon is more
clear on this issue.

Lance O

Click to expand...

Lance, I'm wondering what conditions and/or settings triggered the banding in one shoot and what were the differences in the successful shoot which resulted in no banding. Any clues?

Greg Henry said:

We as users really should not be viewing images at 100%,

Click to expand...

That's poppycock. Why did I buy a 10.4 megapixel camera if I didn't expect to get a 10.4 megapixels.

If quality is only assured at 8mp or 6mp then the camera should be spec'ed as such.

The "mostly not visible during printing" argument doesn't really hold for digital. No one told me I get 10.4mp jpegs but the quality is only guaranteed if I print them. That's like Kodak saying that they only guarantee their film if I print on T-shirts or mugs.

This whole "100% is way too big" line of reasoning is ridiculous. 100% is what you paid for.

Hard to say. But the lighting was pretty bad and I was using high ISO. Low ISO and good light has been clean for me so far.

--
Lance O

I think the point was that the D200 was not designed to be a low end professional camera but rather a high end prosumer/enthusiast camera ;-)

This sounds like they added or changed a step in production to ensure proper calibration of new cameras--which means "reduced" banding.

Most everyone who has gotten their cameras back either report no banding, or very mild and rare banding that they are happy to live with. I think that's more than fine with me.

However, I won't buy one until I KNOW I'm getting one properly calibrated (by date, batch, S/N confirmation, etc) - I don't want to spent $10-50 in shipping and 2-3 weeks after purchasing to get something fixed that should have been properly calibrated in the first place.

if the D200 is expected to be in the lineup for a couple years, does anything produced/shipped to date qualify as early? ie. anything to date is likely within the first 10% of its lifetime?

Nikon is not going to do a blanket recall nor are they going to openly offer to exchange every D200 that someone sends in. Of course I could be wrong but it is more probable that they will evaluate the situation on a case by case basis and decide whether a repair is possible or if the unit needs to be replaced. If they decide not to replace and the owner feels that it should then they need to assert themselves in arguing for a replacement. If that fails then they should take it up the corporate food chain. Some of the more vocal folks in this forum who rage against banding apparently have never contacted Nikon directly about their issues. It reminds me of the old Transactional Analysis script of 'Let's you and him fight'. In any event the announcement for me was comforting because it did acknowledge that there were problems with some early production D200s, (As many of us suspected) and that they are addressing the issue. what I interpreted from their notice was that they feel they can in all practicallity eliminate banding as an issue in all but the most exreme circumstances. Give the number of 'lightbulb' shots which have been submitted to 'prove' banding I can appreciate Nikon's reluctance to guarantee you will never experience banding ever.

Thanks for the password. I saw your page. What I first saw was, that you dont know how to make good pictures. But now you got so much attention. You would net have got it without your "problem". There are thousands of people shooting extremely good pix with the d200. Neddless to say, all of us never had any banding (level I or whatever). Instead of going to nikon to let fix the camera you open one forum after another.

I am sure there more than 99,9% of D200 that don't show banding in any situation. I dont have the time to waste in this forums, because I have to go out and shoot with my D200.

Alfred Arzt

http://www.pbase.com/artalf

One of the reasons I have held off also, the tuning or image adjustment must have an overall effect on the image,? no? Just what that is unknown to me at this time.

It seems all you have time to do is pester me. F$$k off. I have been nice to you and even gave you my password to my gallery even though you were rude. I will no longer reply to your emails or your posts. You are an immature moron and cannot be reasoned with. Seriously, don't bother me anymore (forum or email). If you continue to be such a pest I will report you to the forum moderator and you will be banned.

--
Lance O

glacierpete said:

My D200 3007xxx is hardly early run and shows I II and
unpredictable III banding at ISO 100. This is not an early run
problem.

Click to expand...

What "early" means is subject to opinion. But even some D200 in earlier runs than yours are OK. My D200 is 3005xx, and it was sent to me by Roberts on 12/16. I have seen no banding, even when I followed the directions given by others for seeing banding. So now I'm able to send my D2x in for service, and still have high MP capability.

BTW, have you sent yours to Nikon? If yes, what have they told you? If no, why not?

JC

Alfred Arzt said:

Thanks for the password. I saw your page. What I first saw was, you dont know how to make good pictures.

Alfred Arzt

http://www.pbase.com/artalf

Click to expand...

Quote from Mr. Arzt's website:

"I try to be a speaker for the beauty and abundance in this world."

Thanks,

Maybe it is not a good idea to post in this forums. I did it the second time in my live, so it does not matter much to me weather I am band or not, that will not change my live in anything.

Sorry if I was too "rude" or something like that our broke some rules, I did not know. I did not want to insult or anything like that.

Alfred Arzt

http://www.pbase.com/artalf

Alfred Arzt said:

Sorry if I was too "rude" or something like that our broke some
rules, I did not know. I did not want to insult or anything like
that.

Click to expand...

If this is how you tried not to insult anyone, I don't want to imagine what happens when you try it...

Hi Don,

Thanks for posting this information. My D200 (second one - same as first) had long banding. (UK purchase) Second one went back to Nikon (UK) and now, I have little, or no short banding. But I am concerned about the comments on this thread, that the adjustment can reduce DR and also on Nikonians that it causes underexposure in 3d matrix metering.

Your answers from Nikon seem to put all of that to bed. I would just like to ask - which Nikon Service Centre did you get this information from ? There is also a response from a Canadian Nikon Service Centre on this thread that also rejects the DR/ image quality reduction after adjustment.

It is just so hard to know what is truth - and what is not. I want to keep my D200 - but I have only two weeks left to get a dealers exchange or my money back. If I thought for one moment that your Nikon response - was to be believed - then I would have no further doubts. I just do not want to go down the road of a short term fix and find myself with banding issues that I could have eliminated - had I changed the D200 and got a third one.

Finally - what actually IS an early model ? Nikon surely - need to define that. But maybe not - if your answers are 100% Nikon truth. Have you any reasons do doubt - that they aren't ??

Right now - I don't know what to do about my D200 !!

Kind Regards,

Zorpie
--
pbase supporter

OK Alfred. I accept your apology and I will assume you really somehow did not know you were being rude and taunting. And since you are new to forums I will give you some tips (which is what being a good forum member is about):

1. Don't accuse someone of being a liar and of being paid by another company to post invalid data unless you have proof. Most of us are here to learn from other and try to help others. The banding posts are tedious but necessary. And if you will read my thread below I think you will see sometimes out of chaos comes some genuinely good information:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17124145

2. Read the whole thread before you make assumptions and post something nasty. If not, you might make a fool of yourself.

3. Feel free to critique someone elses photos if they post them as ask for critique. But don't blast someone if they don't ask for critique. And try to offer some tips on how to make the photos better. Of course, if someone says many times that a set of photos are not very good but are posting anyway for a different purpose, then don't think you need to blast the person for "not knowing how to take good pictures."

So, Alfred, let me be the first to sincerely welcome you to this forum. I mean that. I have reviewed your gallery photos and I must admit I am impressed. You have some beautiful images. I believe you could probably offer some great advise to others on photographic technique. I hope you choose to remain and be a positive force on this forum.

Sincerely,
Lance O