4 more years of banding posts :(

Started Mar 6, 2012 | Discussions
rwbaron Forum Pro • Posts: 14,139
Re: Same as it ever was....

Karl Burke wrote:

To wit: a bad workman blames his tools.

Totally agree.

With everything? Little anecdotes like his last line are deceptive, because they contain a certain truth; that a bad workman blames his tools when he doesn't know how to use them for what they are worth , but it is total BS that a good workman is always happy with his tools, and doesn't want, or can't benefit from, better tools.

This anecdote is usually quoted as a form of bravado, where people take pride in being able to say that they can do everything that needs to be done with the tools they have, fooling themselves into thinking that the people who want better tools can't use the old ones to their potential.

John, I think we can take it that a mature understanding of the aphorism includes the provisos that you mention, also as you say it's not a corollary to state that a good worker must always be happy with what he has when he has reached the limits of what those tools can do for him.

I just think that because everyone is effectively looking at the "negatives" with a microscope these days, which no-one did back in the day, that we're discovering problems that in the big scheme of things aren't serious ones, compared to what the photograph is all about. Yes, if the D800 or another camera has better DR control then, yes, it would be better to have that option rather than not. However, I'll bet that at the end of an inspirational day's photographing whatever it is you photograph, that whether there was 1 stop more or less DR in the DNG won't be the determination of a successful artistic work for you, but it'll be whatever beauty you've captured. I tip my hat to those with greater interest in technical comparative work, but there's a danger that for some it becomes an end in itself - like ceaselessly searching for the "ultimate" film/developer combination.. The rapid advance in the capabilities of digital cameras in the last 10 years is fascinating and to think you can take publishable shots at 25,600 ISO now is just incredible.

I've just returned from a Sebastiao Salgado exhibition here in Dublin and looking at his work makes me question my ideas and vision, not whether my cameras are wanting. Yep, let's keep (a bit of) one eye on the tech side - but not both. There are way too many hysterical posts (not including yours) which are generating heat but no light, and aren't advancing knowledge in any meaningful way.

Too much sound logic for this forum and it's making my head hurt but nonetheless I've bookmarked this post.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +8 more
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,359
Re: Can someone post teh link to the RAW file that generated this?

OK, pumping this thing up the same way you did, the deterministic noise is definitely there but it seems to be "determined" in a different way than the 5DII. As some have said, it appears that the horizontal stuff is no longer there.

I would love to see this same scene shot with a 5DII but in looking at my 5DII “backside lens cap” shots which show the crosshatch pattern when pumped, it seems to me that this is an improvement. Once someone physically gets their hands on one of these things, I would like to see a series of dark frames at each ISO from 50 to 102500 (or whatever stratospheric ISO it goes to). That I could compare. In the meantime, this looks a lot cleaner to me.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,919
Re: Can someone post teh link to the RAW file that generated this?

David Hull wrote:

OK, pumping this thing up the same way you did, the deterministic noise is definitely there but it seems to be "determined" in a different way than the 5DII. As some have said, it appears that the horizontal stuff is no longer there.

I would love to see this same scene shot with a 5DII but in looking at my 5DII “backside lens cap” shots which show the crosshatch pattern when pumped, it seems to me that this is an improvement. Once someone physically gets their hands on one of these things, I would like to see a series of dark frames at each ISO from 50 to 102500 (or whatever stratospheric ISO it goes to). That I could compare. In the meantime, this looks a lot cleaner to me.

I agree, the horizontal banding is gone and the vertical banding appears to have decreased in intensity although like you said we'll need an equal image from both to measure the relative differences.

Aeturnum Junior Member • Posts: 43
Re: Same as it ever was....

Karl Burke wrote:

They used to say that the mark of a Magnum photographer was that you could drop them anywhere in the world with a Leica, 50mm lens and 10 rolls of Tri-X and they would get you the story with that. They didn't bitch about the grain-structure of the film, they got on with the task at hand and created magic.

To wit: a bad workman blames his tools.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that they can't do their work because Canon cameras can't capture shadow detail very well. I think we can all agree that given any of the DSLRs released in the past decade, you could do good work in almost any photographic field.

However, considering that we discuss the relatively minute differences in noise levels, dynamic range, and other photo qualities, it doesn't seem "beyond the pale" to talk about this. Considering how amazingly good all modern DSLRs are, all that's left is the minutiae. We're all on a forum that spends most of its time talking about tiny differences, so let's not get too high and mighty. This is all just an exercise.

Also, on a personal note, there are people this matters to. Most of my shots are indoor, without flash, because I find it gives me the most candid portraits. Even at 3200 with an f/1.4 lens, I've had to underexpose by 1-2 stops to get sharp images. I've tried exposing properly using higher ISOs or lower shutter speeds, but each approach has its problems. I'm satisfied with my photos - as are the people who see them. I've been able to take the kinds of photos that I want for years without issues. It has not stopped me from "working."

That being said, if I had known that the ugly shadow noise that shows up on some photos was specific to Canon, I would have wanted to know that. A bad workman does blame his tools, but a good workman appreciates the subtle differences between tools. 10 years ago you needed a new DSLR because the old one couldn't do the job. Now we buy DLRs because it was too hard to do the job with our old DSLR and we want it to be easier.

gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,732
Re: Same as it ever was....

+1

Though if this thread holds true to the form of all others on this topic, you can expect to be insulted in various ways before long. Enjoy!

Dan

Karl Burke wrote:

So, this sensor has limitations when pushed to an bizarre and extreme degree. This is news ? I'm a professional and have never had the need to push fill light to 100. If you're pushing it over 30 IMHO your exposure and lighting is to blame, not the camera.

I know this is a gear-forum but seriously, this is Aspergers-like obsessional behaviour - not referring to anyone specifically but to the years of posts about this "issue" with the 5D Mark II, meanwhile photographers were out in the real world winning World Press Photo awards, Pulitzer prizes and so forth with these cameras. Film had limitations, digital has limitations: deal with it. These cameras have capabilities vastly beyond what was available before, and arguably vastly beyond the capabilities of most of their users to translate that into artistic vision.

They used to say that the mark of a Magnum photographer was that you could drop them anywhere in the world with a Leica, 50mm lens and 10 rolls of Tri-X and they would get you the story with that. They didn't bitch about the grain-structure of the film, they got on with the task at hand and created magic.

To wit: a bad workman blames his tools.

gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,732
Re: Same as it ever was....

Then buy the Sony and post in a Sony forum. Please.

John Sheehy wrote:

Karl Burke wrote:

To wit: a bad workman blames his tools.

Karl, no one is claiming that excellent pictures can't be taken with the cameras.

Some people just have a vision of doing things in new and different ways, and Canon's DSLRs are turning out to be amongst the worst for doing so, and unlike the latest super-zoom cameras, we have huge investments in Canon lenses and peripherals, and are in a bit of a trap.

Anyone who truly understands how digital cameras work know that there is really no reason to have ISO settings, per se, for their photography. On a well-designed camera, all manual exposure shots could be taken from one ISO which covers the full DR of the sensor. Shutter speed could float to faster values when light was overwhelming, as an option. We could concentrate on what really matters; the frame, and the moment. Canon's poor low-ISO shadows make this mode impractical, and make it impossible to shoot many scenes which could otherwise be shot in a single exposure. Taking care of ISO settings is not an ultimate photography skill; it is only a necessity created by primitive technology.

Shoot in the street, at sunny f/16 in manual. The dark side of the street is crap with a Canon, very usable with a Sony Exmor sensor. Walk into an alley, still at f/16 and base ISO, but under-exposed 4 stops, and you get garbage from the Canons, with far more noise than they would have had if you shot at ISO 25K, while the Sony Exmor delivers a normal ISO 1600 exposure. You can't deny the greater flexibility of a camera with much more DR. Sure, you could have lowered the shutter speed when you went into the alley, but you didn't have to.

Now, with a camera like the D800, under-exposing ISO 100 by 4 stops is nothing . You could walk around all day, in and out of the shadows, and get great shots, with the worst equivalent to ISO 1600 on a FF camera. Concentrate on the shots, not things on the camera that you have no real reason to deal with.

Of course, when you have the time, you can optimize exposure to the scene, if you choose to do so. A shutter button that was actually a wheel with EC affecting shutter speed could be used so that you fall back to your default as soon as you release the shutter button completely, or when the camera sleeps and wakes again; your choice.

rondhamalam
rondhamalam Senior Member • Posts: 2,582
Re: No Need for Switching Brand

John Sheehy wrote:

rondhamalam wrote:

GiovanniB wrote:

In landscape photography, clean shadows with the ability to lift them up in post to reveal details (as opposed to banding/noise) makes up for much of the difference between a good and a less useful camera. In that sense, the K-5, D7000 etc. are a lot better than any of the 5D (though with the original 12.8 MP still being better than the Mk. II and, as it seems, the Mk. III).

IMHO the 1Ds3 and 1D3 have much less banding.
Some people might not agree but I have my opinion.

It's true that they have less obvious banding, but they are still far from pure random noise. Subliminal banding causes blotchy chroma noise. Let's say an RGRGRGRGRG... line of pixels is elevated. This elevates all the reds in the line. Any reds in the RGRGRGRGRG lines above and below this line that are elevated now form clusters with the elevated reds in the elevated line. This is especially true in any light color where WB raises the red channel much, which is most light sources except incandescent. In incandescent, blue assumes the role of the problem channel.
--
John

You are right.
The right term is: They has less obvious banding.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads