Type I banding in Phil's D200 sample

every D200 has banding IMHO and not as Nikon said just a view !

so they should recall all of them and work on a D200s

ARClark said:

At least one of Phil's D200 photos has Type I banding. Check out
the spot lights and flourescent lighting in the following photo:

Click to expand...

ARClark said:

Alan

Click to expand...

--
If I dont miss something, this is extremly minor.

Updated jan 9: [ http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com/ ]
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

Tweedledee said:

So, potential buyers may not like it, but the
decision really is that simple.

Click to expand...

I think it fair to say in this image there is some CA and some double image effect as well as slight evidence of edge banding. Is anyone suggesting the body, lens or (if used) filter should be returned because of CA or flare.

If a filter was used page 181 of the instructions recommends it is removed in lighting like this.

100% on a 19 inch monitor is equivalent to bigger than an A1 print where interpolation and other work is needed to get acceptable print quality.
What do not have is

1/an approximate serial number to work out if this D200 was released pre or post fix

2/An indication of what percentage of shots show the banding - is this the only one?

3/A comparison shot with a D70 or D2x. There seems little doubt the advanced CA in the D200 removes a lot of flare and CA effect that can be residual in other cameras. Whether a small amount of banding on some cameras (I cannot get my D200 to produce type 1) is better than more CA or flare is perhaps the decision some might want to consider.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Other than CA I don't see anything wrong with this pic. Perhaps I'm blind and I should go for an eye exam ASAP. NOT all D200 are prone to banding, stop saying it because it ain't true. I've been working fully digital since 2001 and only slides when requested. I own a D200 from the first batch and it shows absolutely NO banding...I have done 3 weddings so far, something a wouldn't risk with a faulty camera. I shoot for several publications and one of them published some shots with the D200; I was summoned to photograph an event this weekend, here is a copy of the request via e-mail:

PerL said:

PerL said:

Hi George, I have downloaded the photos. thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm still working on the redesign of Bienvenidos and we need photos of Popular Culture & Folklore in Puerto Rico — Carnavals, Bomba & Plena Dancers, Parades, Fairs etc. etc. If you could make me a page of photos of that theme for me to choose from it would be great. we are using a lot of large photos (Fullpages & Spreads) in the redesign, so let me know what you're shooting with your new Nikon D200 SLR, I will need some of them in full resolution! By the way did you know that the Ponce Carnaval is this week, starting today Wednesday?:

Carnival in Ponce. February 22-28. Ponce. This is the largest and best known of the island’s carnival festivities, featuring vejigante costumes, parades, queens in spectacular dress, processions and local music. 1-787-841-8044. If you go bring your new Nikon D200 SLR, I will certainely use some of those

Best Regards,

Alain> >

I understand the frustrations from those fellows that received a faulty camera. But I think the banding issue has been overly and artificially inflated here. I'll be aquiring a second D200 soon with NO hesitations.

This request was made by one of the many Verizon Information Services publications. They are quite happy with my Velvias and now with the files from the D200. Peace...

PS,

No, I did not know about the Carnival, off I'm leaving with the D200, 17-55, 80-200 F/2.8 (2 rings), 10.5DX, F5 with Velvia attached to a 35mm F/2...Anyone here in DPReview interested in going with me? ) be my guest, I wish someone could

These are from a Mask event in another town.



D200 + 28-70 AFS







D200 + 12-24 & SB800

to dissect it and see if there are any imperfections, then you are way to anal.

If the print looks good, or the normal size looks good, fine by me.

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

So they did not complain about dull colors :-? Nice shots.

Perl, yes, for better or worse, that's it. I think most people would agree with your assessment, although there are some "purists" that seem to find even this unacceptable.

Alan

Look I'm no expert but are we all sure that's Banning? all those lights are behind that big thick glass window Phil took the picture through. are we sure it's not just some wierd reflections on the glass. I looked at the lights in the pictures of the army tanks and they look much better!

Rich if FL.

Taking this image up in photoshop and pixel peeping at RGB values in the dark areas and around the lights, I just don't see it. Photoshop does produce a few squirelly effects when I go up to 400% on a fixed pitch ie flat panel monitor but that is expected and doesn't end up in the print, being an interaction between computer software and monitor as far as I can tell. I also suspect that the in camera raw to jpeg conversion in some cameras can introduce some subtle banding - just another reason to shoot raw.

Mu trusty old Nikon D100 and my Canon 20d can both produce more measurable banding in underexposed areas when you provoke them, but I guess that's last years news.

We have all seen some examples of serious/ objectionable banding on the D200 and other cameras - I just don't think that this is one of them.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

So, potential buyers may not like it, but the
decision really is that simple.

Click to expand...

I think it fair to say in this image there is some CA and some
double image effect as well as slight evidence of edge banding. Is
anyone suggesting the body, lens or (if used) filter should be
returned because of CA or flare.
If a filter was used page 181 of the instructions recommends it is
removed in lighting like this.
100% on a 19 inch monitor is equivalent to bigger than an A1 print
where interpolation and other work is needed to get acceptable
print quality.
What do not have is
1/an approximate serial number to work out if this D200 was
released pre or post fix

Click to expand...

I believe he said it was an early one in his review. So I guess whether Phil's sample is representative of post-fix cameras is subject to debate. From the posts I've read here, and from my own experience, the "fix" is a calibration which does not actually eliminate all banding but reduces it to a vey low level such as in the picture I posted.

Leonard Shepherd said:

2/An indication of what percentage of shots show the banding - is
this the only one?

Click to expand...

No, it's also evident in the motocycle photo (no light bulbs by the way) and to a lesser degree in a couple others. Personally, I think the CA is more noticeable in most of the ones with banding, and I don't personally find this amount of banding objectionable.

Leonard Shepherd said:

3/A comparison shot with a D70 or D2x. There seems little doubt the
advanced CA in the D200 removes a lot of flare and CA effect that
can be residual in other cameras. Whether a small amount of banding
on some cameras (I cannot get my D200 to produce type 1) is better
than more CA or flare is perhaps the decision some might want to
consider.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Click to expand...

BackDoctor, there must be some confusion. Phil's print is original size. Not sure where the 200% came from. I would agree that I can be anal, but mostly in regard to facts.

You could argue that the banding in Phil's photo is insignficant, and I wouldn't disagree with you. As I've said before, I've got a D200 with this level of banding and I'm perfectly happy with it. My point isn't to put down D200s or mock Phil, but just use this as an example to try to clarify what typical Type I banding is, which I personally believe would be produced by most D200s in the above lighting situation, and to let others determine whether or not it's a problem.

Regards, Alan

I didn't have to enlarge the picture to see it. Just open the picture that was attached and take a close look at the upper diameter/curve of most of the rounded spot lights. You will see Type 1 banding.

It is more evident in the long horizontal fluorescent lights in the middle of the picture since the banding appears as short dark lines perpendicular to the horizontal lights.

One more thing, if the lights aren't too overexposed it will appear to have a greenish outer edge without banding... Then if it is very much overexposed it will have a purple/blueish outer edge and it is normally with banding..

Alan,

I have a D200 and I agree with what you have said. It is exactly what you will get in a shot like that. We use a lot of long fluorescent lights here where I live and I have taken many shots that shows the same thing. And mine has been calibrated by Nikon.

When you crop it and print it out, you will see it.

I think you concluded this pretty well.

I didn't have to enlarge the picture to see it. Just open the picture that was attached and take a close look at the upper diameter/curve of most of the rounded spot lights. You will see Type 1 banding.

It is more evident in the long horizontal fluorescent lights in the middle of the picture since the banding appears as short dark lines perpendicular to the horizontal lights.

One more thing, if the lights aren't too overexposed it will appear to have a greenish outer edge without banding... Then if it is very much overexposed it will have a purple/blueish outer edge and it is normally with banding..

El Taino wrote:

Other than CA I don't see anything wrong with this pic. Perhaps I'm blind and I should go for an eye exam ASAP. NOT all D200 are prone to banding, stop saying it because it ain't true. I've been working ully digital since 2001 and only slides when requested. I own a D200 from the first batch and it shows absolutely NO banding.

Alain, I agree and disagree with you. I agree that the banding is not really objectionable as it occurs in the above photo, and would could not even be detectable at a normally viewed size at less than 100%. I disagree with you on the extent of banding in D200s. I think it's interesting that you don't see banding in either your camera or the photo posted above. Perhaps like beauty, this level of banding is in the mind of the beholder. :> )

Regards, Alan

R. D'agostino said:

Look I'm no expert but are we all sure that's Banning? all those
lights are behind that big thick glass window Phil took the picture
through. are we sure it's not just some wierd reflections on the
glass. I looked at the lights in the pictures of the army tanks and
they look much better!

Rich if FL.

Click to expand...

Check out the motorcycle picture, you'll find it there as well. As you're finding, you really have to have a very very bright area abutting the sharp edge of a darker area to see it.

Alan

What ISO is that at?

I have found that my fixed camera produces a teeny weeny bit of banding in a particular type of high contrast scene with blown highlights at exactly ISO 400.

I can shoot loads of different shot with awful blown highlights at ISO 400 that don't show it though.

However 1/3 of an ISO stop above 400 all banding goes away and 1/3 stop below 400 it becomes so teeny weeny that I originally thought it was a distant tree.

All other ISO values produce no banding however I try.

Excitingly it am now the proud owner of a D200 that can shoot light bulbs at any ISO and at any amount of over exposure and display no banding at all.

The only thing stopping me from doing an exhibition of large, stretched canvas prints of my light bulbs is that they are utter cr@p.

Regards
--
http://www.photo.net/photos/wheely

I downloaded the motorcyle picture and viewed it at 300%. I don't see any in that picture.

RIch in FL.

no text

No, the "purple/red fringing around the lights" is not what
"we're" referring to.

(It is nice that you introduced your insult with an ackonwledgement
of ignorance

Lee Saxon said:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the purple/red fringing around the
lights what we're refering to?

Cause, maybe its that I wear glasses or something, but to ME, this
image is an accurate representation of what bright artificial light
sources look like at night.

Even if I'm mistaken, I agree with you that there's nothing worth
being a stupid troll baby about in that image. Freakin' people....

--
Lee Saxon
Tulane Hullabaloo
Photography Editor

Click to expand...