The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has horrific flare characteristics

Henry Richardson wrote:

I can't speak for everyone, but your impression that one must boost the shadows to see the banding is wrong. It is in the mid-tones too and ruins photos. Why do you make claims about things that you admittedly have not experienced?

Could I politely suggest that you did not read my post very carefully? I said "I am sure it [banding] exists..."

Then I noted that USUALLY posts use high ISO and low-level boost to demonstrate banding, and I am pretty sure I can stand by that without doing a statistical analysis. When I said usually, I meant usually. I did not say that one must boost the shadows to see banding, which is what you attributed to me.

And then I explained that the reason--almost certainly--that I haven't experienced banding is that "I limit my ISO to 1600." Olympus describes the problem as a "high ISO" issue. Not seeing banding below 1600 (or at it) is my experience, not something that I have not experienced. I think it is useful to know that. I think it is consistent with what most people who have looked at ISO-dependence of the phenomenon report.

I'm not sure why you seemed to want to read my post in such a non-literal and challenging way. Do you need people to deny banding (and made me into one) in order to make your points?

markitosh also insisted on ignoring my calibration that I shoot at or below 1600 ISO and went on to say he found banding from 2000 - 4000. Excellent additional information. Now, together, we've got probably a decent calibration where you do and don't see banding (...much--please, again, I'm not making categorical statements).

Gee, a lot of negative vibes. I guess people just got riled up with the thread and poured out the rile somewhat indiscriminately.