I couldn't agree more with you.
Flame on me, hate me, I don't care. I am a college level Graphic Designer for nearly 15 years. What does that mean?!? It means I know how to use Photoshop and the tools. I've seen it all, from film to the first consumer digital camera files.
The 5D MKII is a great camera. I've never ONCE had a file I could not use in production, nor have I had a file that I've had to "push", within reason, keyword, in-reason, with bad results.
What defines the boundary of "in-reason"? Results, or some platonic rule of 'exposure"? If the camera did not result in banding, and only fine, random noise, would it still be out-of-reason? Take a shot at ISO 800 on a 39MP Hasselblad. Is that not "in-reason"? Did you know that ISO 800 on the Hassy is actually ISO 50 under-exposed by 4 stops? The hardware has a single gain; ISO and exposure are just logistics. Take many of the Nikon, Sony, and Pentax DSLRs; or even the Canon G11. They give the same noise, shooting at ISO 100 and -3EC as they do at ISO 800, except the latter has 3 stops more headroom, and the RAW file is
SMALLER . What is really "in-reason" here? The brightness of the review image, as the sole arbiter of reasonable exposure?
If it is not "in-reason" to underexpose the 5D2's ISO 100 by 3 stops, it is because
IT IS AN INFERIOR CAMERA FOR DR ,
not because RAW data, in general, shouldn't be pushed 3 stops.
EVERY photo I see is user error in capturing and expecting too much or WAY too much expectations from post processing.
... from particular cameras with horrible shadows.
Does the 5dMKII band. Yes. But if you push the file to unreasonable expectations.
Every 5D2 image has banding. The question is, when do you see it. You see it when the contrast of the banding reaches a certain percentage of the contrast of the subject. Normally, you see it only in pushed shadows, but it could come up in very flat midtone and highlight areas, if saturation or contrast is boosted.
The fact is, you can push many other cameras several stops more than where the 5D2 starts to show banding, without seeing banding, just random noise, giving a slightly grainy look.
You get someone like John Sheehy or whatever his name is thinking the only result should be random noise, not a pattern. Whatever.
This is a huge distinction that you are trivializing. People like you have no idea what the DR potential is without pattern noise. For small images, a 5D2 sans banding would have 4 or 5 more stops of DR, even if it would only improve a couple of stops at 100% on a monitor.
I still haven't seen any photos from this "worthy" photographer.
What does your bizarre philosophy have to do with anything? I am discussing empirical realities of the RAW data. That does not require one to be a "worthy photographer" by your arbitrary definition. I'm not about to start picking out photos to show you, because of this challenge. You're just one in a long line of irrational people posting here.
A troll is a person who says things to elicit frantic reaction, as an end in itself. I have not displayed any such behavior here. Everything I've said is my real belief and am discussing the subjects with genuine interest in them. Calling me a troll is slanderous. Using the term troll to devalue everything you don't want to see here is juvenile.
--
John
