-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Type I banding in Phil's D200 sample
- Thread starter ARClark
- Start date
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Yes, and strange thinking, too. Let's start with the 18-200mm lens and your desire for the resolution of a D2x. This gets back to what I posted in my NPPTRD thread: without a common language and testing procedure, people are drifting all over the map in their assessment. Let me make it clear to you: you'll see the defects of the 18-200mm lens more easily and more often than you'll see any Type I banding on the D200. So I immediately have to find fault with your logic here.
Next, the 5D and D2hs do not have the same lowlight capabilities. Moreover, the way you expose with each will show additional differences. Thus, I have no idea what you mean by the lowlight capabilities of those cameras. FWIW, I'd use a D200 before a D2hs at ISO 1600, I think.
I also have to wonder if you've actually ever printed, say, a 13x19" image from any of these cameras. Yes, printing adds its own idiosyncracies and inaccuracies into the mix, including something called dot gain, which tends to mask both noise and things like the Type 1 banding. That's especially true if you carefully pick your black output level.
Finally, I have to say something about small light cameras and high resolutions: the temptation is to run these on light tripods, which would be a mistake. Even minor vibration in the support system shows up in image degradation. It's a bit like designing a 1000 pound SUV for snow: there's a design conflict from the get go. Mass is good when it comes to resolution.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
It's very minimal, but there is some short banding visible in the original size photo around the chrome F and R. Banding is more evident in the 8th photo (glass-covered walkway). In that photo, it is most obvious where a black support pole partially obstructs the bright reflection from a window. As I've stated in other posts, it can be argued that these examples are inconsequential and perhaps no worse, or even less problematic, than artifacts such as moire or CA. But it does seem to commonly occur in predictable lighting situations.
Alan
Alan
Tweedledee
Forum Enthusiast
Your eyes are fine. Why some people easily see this type I stuff and others don't was a big mystery to me. Then I remembered reading something about how our brains interpret geometric patterns in different ways. The gist was that some brains are "tuned" to quickly recognize geometric patterns in a visual field and others aren't. Not good or bad, just is. Anyway, if you have one of those pattern-tuned brains like mine, you can always send it in for re-calibration . . . I'm thinking about it. [8^)
Gee Devendra, I hope you wouldn't jump ship over something as minimal as this. :> )
Alan
redwoodroadie
Veteran Member
Take the same shot with your D70 and compare them.
You say that Nikon should recall all D200 cameras, that's simply bogus. It reminds me of the Fawlty Towers sitcom when the hotelier snatches a plate of food from in front of a contented patron and says "Sorry, this is unacceptable; I'm taking it back to the kitchen." You don't like the camera and think your D70 can do a better job; fine, stick with the D70. If you bought one and weren't happy with it, return it or sell it to someone else. The vast majority of D200 owners would disagree with you and prefer that you not snatch it away from them.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach
You say that Nikon should recall all D200 cameras, that's simply bogus. It reminds me of the Fawlty Towers sitcom when the hotelier snatches a plate of food from in front of a contented patron and says "Sorry, this is unacceptable; I'm taking it back to the kitchen." You don't like the camera and think your D70 can do a better job; fine, stick with the D70. If you bought one and weren't happy with it, return it or sell it to someone else. The vast majority of D200 owners would disagree with you and prefer that you not snatch it away from them.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach
Tony Carpenter
Active member
Furthermore, the fact they are still sailing off store shelves still suggests the "They're all faulty brigade" are exagerating what is clearly a problem for a few.
--
Tony
--
Tony
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
If you change the pixel resolution to 92 dpi (without any resampling) 100% represents what the image will look like at 42" x 28". Your monitor is probably close to 92 dpi. What you see is what you get. Please note that this constitutes a 42" x 28" image. Pixel peeping can lead to a great deal of confusion unless you really know what you are doing. In PS simply go to Image - Image Size - type in 92 for resolution. Notice the image size. It is now being viewed as a 42" x 28" image. Make sure you have Resample unchecked. Also notice the picture did not change one single pixel worth.
Bottom line: This example would show not show banding as a 36" x 24" print - unless you got very, very close and inspected for it with a lupe.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Bottom line: This example would show not show banding as a 36" x 24" print - unless you got very, very close and inspected for it with a lupe.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
At least Nikon have a solution, though a few seem unhappy with it.
Canon have acknowledged you can get banding with the 5D - and the temporary Canon "solution" is not to take pictures where it is likely to occur.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Canon have acknowledged you can get banding with the 5D - and the temporary Canon "solution" is not to take pictures where it is likely to occur.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Thanks for this insight. Someone else also mentioned that the D200 outresolves the 18-200 and is not a good match. But I've seen people using the D200 + 18-200 VR combo with good results. Makes me rethink.
By lowlight capabilities I mean lack of noise at 1600iso and up. After Phil's review I think it's pretty well acknowledged that the D200's high iso performance doesn't match that even of the 20D. Not sure why you'd choose the D200 over the D2Hs in lowlight? Please explain.
I want maximum resolution and no banding more for cropping than for printing.
I don't think that's a problem as far as the 5D is concerned. A similar size body will do for the kind of work I need it for.
Thanks for your insights.
Raz
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears that is true.
http://www.pbase.com/bluethermal
You don’s have to blow it up to 200%. You can see it a 100% Not only that, I took a test shot and could clearly see it at around 67%. In fact, call me crazy, but I could see it at 51% as well but not at 50%. Im waiting to see how my eyes are tomorrow after they haven’t been looking ot my screen to see if I can see it again.
Ed
Senior Member
My D200 has a higher serial number than his (by over 4K) and can be coaxed into the shorter banding without trying very hard.
Not that I care.
Not that I care.
GBRandy
Forum Enthusiast
If you are yet dumb enough to look here after I wrote NT and after yet another banding post, shame on you...get a life. Take your camera and get photo that means something.....I am sick of this banding BS. I can make my D200 do it if I try REALLY hard...anxiously awaiting a test next week of a 5D...bet I can get a similar result...ENOUGH already...I have D200 prints now that are 16 x 20 with no visible artifacts....gah, get a grip
--
Photography...
the unwanted child of science left at art's doorstep.
http://www.tessfamily.com/Photos/Favorites/index.html
--
Photography...
the unwanted child of science left at art's doorstep.
http://www.tessfamily.com/Photos/Favorites/index.html
Sorry but what are you talking about? I've read some of your other posts and they were clearly written. Perhaps it's the late hour? :> )
Alan
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum