The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has horrific flare characteristics

boxerman wrote:

texinwien wrote:

It happens at 1600 ISO without raising shadows, as well: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51951109

You forgot to mention that this shot was post-processed +1 EV.

I didn't forget to mention it. That particular image that I shared was an example of a photo after processing - including adjusting exposure and using several tactics to try to mask the banding - significant NR, contrast at 0, and setting the purple hue to -100 (to try to hide purple-colored noise in the skies).

Here's the image straight out of Lightroom, with everything at default - no post-processing applied, and the banding is still visible:

Can I point out that the shot that headed that thread was at 6400 ISO, exposure +1, contrast +100? That's just an existence proof for me, which I don't need. Useless for calibration in MY world of photography.

I don't really care about those images. What I do care about is the banding visible at ISO 1600 in the above photo exported from Lightroom with the default settings.

I've seen claims of ISO 800 banding, but I haven't seen any actual images--though I certainly believe it could happen (though under conditions I don't expect ever to encounter). In addition, entries on that thread imply that banding is worse with longer exposures. (I think I recall that your posted banding at 1600 ISO was slightly long, too.)

0.8 second exposure.

Altogether, my take-away is that ISO 1600 is probably OK, as long as you don't do long exposures or expect somewhat-serious post-processing of contrast or exposure boosting (I bet shadow boosting also would make things worse). So, for photographers like me (evidently not you), I know what I'm dealing with and can manage that.

Yes, apparently you're willing to constrain photographic opportunities in ways that I am not, and, apparently, you expect less out of your equipment than I (and apparently many other photographers) do.

I expect to be able to take a shot like the one I shared in this thread at 1600 ISO with a 0.8 second shutter speed and not see banding prior to applying any processing, and I can do that with every other m43 lens I own attached to my E-M5 - the 20mm is the odd man out.

I don't have a feeling for example-to-example variation. And, posted examples of nice, non-banded 6400 ISO shots are a total mystery to me.

The problem is inconsistent given the same exact camera and lens in the same exact (visibly apparent) circumstances. I can take 10 shots of the same subject in quick succession, and end up with wildly varying patterns and intensities of banding in the resulting images.

On the other hand, FOR MY PURPOSES, I desperately hoped they'd fixed the slow focusing in the new version as it absolutely kills video in low light for me, in the situations I want to use it. Again, the point is for readers wishing to calibrate THEIR needs against the particular deficiencies of this lens to know how to think about it.

You've moved from 'ISO 6400 and lift shadows' in your first post to this discussion to 'ISO 1600 and longish exposure with exposure boosted in post' (my paraphrase of your response to the first image I shared). Now we have ISO 1600 and longish exposure with no exposure, shadow or contrast-boosting in post (with my second image). The question is how far you will continue to go with your vanishing argument.

I disagree entirely with your sentiment that you "don't feel it is sensible to be disappointed" with a camera-lens combination that often (at least in my experience) delivers images with visible banding in images taken at ISO 1600 with 0.8 second shutter speeds before applying any post-processing.

I think the negative vibes are coming from people who, like me, have had images unnecessarily ruined by this banding. It rubs me the wrong way to hear people try to minimize a problem that's very real for me, a photographer who also has max ISO set to 1600 on his E-M5.

I do think people took my comment as a denial of problems when, if it was read even reasonably carefully, it was intended to mark the boundary on personal expectations and use where banding is not that much an issue.

I believe you crossed over quickly from personal expectations to generalized, smug and offensive generalizations when you stated that you "don't feel it is sensible to be disappointed".