D750 banding - questions

[davikabo]

Would be nice to know, what they response, but im not gonna bother about issue, what occurs with some lenses(the ones what produce heavy flare) in less then 0,014% of photos. less then 0.014% is my percentage according to 7k frames shot without seeing the issue and 0 with the issue in actual photos till now.

According to some lenses, the ones with decent hood and flare protection like 24-70 2.8 ED G wont show this issue, no matter how hard i try. With 50 1.8G i can force it, but it haven't appeared in real photos.

I always check image after i take the shot though, if it appears i can change the angle 2 degrees and i'ts gone.

Also some1 said Polarizer filter(actually useful in bright sunlight) removes the issue?

IMHO the black edge appears only, when photo is ruined with too much flare, to be any use even without it.

I would love to know if a polarizer does in fact remove it. That would be good to know, can anyone confirm this?

Darnit!!! I was out today and I had my Hoya HMC circular polarizer on. I could have checked it. In all reality, I think we're all out, enjoying our D750's and have forgotten about this non issue.

 

[helltormentor]

I've gotten a photo with flare not blocked at the top. If you are a person who likes to put flare in your image you have to be aware of this issue with the D750. Aware of this issue you can work around it. A circular polarizing filter will also fix the issue. I recommend a CP filter for taking photos in bright sunlight.

Put another way: It's important that you know about this issue but once you know about it it's not important.


I saw the blocked flare in another photo I took and tilted the camera a little to get this one.

Wrong, the sun behind the head would not be ruined by this camera, the sun would have to be out of the frame. We still have not seen a single photo from a wedding photographer that was ruined by this phenomenon. The shots that were posted were garbage to begin with & could have been fixed in post or cropped if they weren't. The issue is there, it does exist, in almost all the cases that have been shown, the flare was so over the top the shots weren't usable or were just provoked by people showing what you can do. It's not a band, its not banding, it's an abscess of flare obviously blocked by some edge in the mirror box. It's something to be aware of, but not anything else...

Yes - behind their heads out of the frame - this does happen on a wedding day you know! The point remains that it shouldn't be happening with a semi professional DSLR and it is a fault. Doesn't matter if the shots you have seen that had it where crap, completely irrelevant. Many people have DSLRs could be just starting out and not be great at picture taking yet but it's besides the point, they should be able to have a fully functioning unit without daft flaws like this flare issue. Everyone starts somewhere.

--
facebook https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/
flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/

I was going to respond, but it all has become to silly. Its a great camera, I highly recommend it. The issue has never shown up for me unless I forced it with a 50 1.8d.....

For your own sake, get your eyes checked, they might need serious medical treatment. Just look at this video to see how easy it is to replicate it.

 

[Tharaphita]

So you are telling me that you would have liked those photos without that some of that flare blocked?

 

[helltormentor]

So you are telling me that you would have liked those photos without that some of that flare blocked?

Did you watch the video? The light source was not very close to the frame. Here, fanboys say this is a common problem between all cameras. All I am saying is that it is an attempt to hide the problem. If anybody could show such a phenomenon with D800/e in a situation like what we saw in the video, I would accept that I was exaggerating. The guy in the video is not replicating the issue in his room pointing a flash light into the camera. He is on the street and he can easily show the issue. One way is to force Nikon to come up with a solution, the other way is to try to make the problem look trivial and let Nikon come up with a new product that doesn't have this problem. I understand that some people can afford to upgrade their gear whenever new ones get to the market but this is not the case for every body. What about a guy who bought this camera with intent to keep it for 3 years and now he cannot do anything about it? I was lucky enough to notice the problem in time and return the camera but the guy in the video sounds very unhappy with his purchase and this is sad.

When you choose the cheaper D750 over the D810, you know what compromises you are making. Worse built quality, 1/4000 max shutter speed, less AF points coverage, higher base ISO, AA filter, 24 MP,... All these things are compromises that you know you have to make by choosing the D750 over the D810 but a design flaw is not one of them.

 

[Tharaphita]

I watched the video. Please answer the question. Would you have liked that flare more on pictures without a part of it not blocked? Because this is what you get mostly with other cameras in same situation. Some will show same blockage.

Also it heavily depends on lens. Did you noticed that he did not used hood. On some lenses this issue is nonexistent, even without hood, for example 24-70 2.8.

But still i have shot 7k pictures with 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G combined and NONE of the photos have been showing this issue.

What that tells me? Im happy using the camera. As you see the trend about this issue here is that.. ppl complaining here are not D750 users. D750 users are mostly happily taking pictures.

But still there is and issue, but it is easily avoidable with

decent lens hood,

flare resistant lens,

Not trying to take pictures filled with flares what would be ruined without some of it blocked anyway

CP filter what cuts the flares before entering lens

You decided to return you camera with fear it may affect heavily your photos. It is okay. But what is weird is why you still throwing out this issue here while obv. not having even to deal with it personally. All you do is copy paste intentionally ruined photos/videos by this creating trying to create hysteria?

Fact is that actual D750 users are not complaining here and there are A LOT of them here. What it tells you? Issue is pretty much non existent IRL. But it is somehow very big amongst forum warriors not even using the camera.

 

[helltormentor]

I watched the video. Please answer the question. Would you have liked that flare more on pictures without a part of it not blocked? Because this is what you get mostly with other cameras in same situation. Some will show same blockage.

Whether these photos are pleasing or not is out of question. The point is that you become afraid as soon as you shoot a backlit scene. You have to keep chimping which is a pain in the neck IMHO.

Also it heavily depends on lens. Did you noticed that he did not used hood. On some lenses this issue is nonexistent, even without hood, for example 24-70 2.8.

You are so willing to deny all evidence that do not even pay attention to details. The first lens that he is shooting with has the hood on. I am very surprised you didn't notice, it is at 0:16 if you are interested.

But still i have shot 7k pictures with 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G combined and NONE of the photos have been showing this issue.

What that tells me? Im happy using the camera. As you see the trend about this issue here is that.. ppl complaining here are not D750 users. D750 users are mostly happily taking pictures.

But still there is and issue, but it is easily avoidable with

decent lens hood,

flare resistant lens,

Not trying to take pictures filled with flares what would be ruined without some of it blocked anyway

CP filter what cuts the flares before entering lens

You decided to return you camera with fear it may affect heavily your photos. It is okay. But what is weird is why you still throwing out this issue here while obv. not having even to deal with it personally. All you do is copy paste intentionally ruined photos/videos by this creating trying to create hysteria?

Fact is that actual D750 users are not complaining here and there are A LOT of them here. What it tells you? Issue is pretty much non existent IRL. But it is somehow very big amongst forum warriors not even using the camera.

Honestly, I do not know how yo gathered your information regarding majority of happy users and minority of unhappy users but if your observation is as accurate as your inference from the video, probably it is better to give it a second thought. I am sure that your following the forums more than I do. I could ask you the same question. Why do you do that. You do not have problem with your camera so go and shoot. I would never do that because I have no right to tell you what to do. Do not think that there is a conspiracy in the DPR forums to make Nikon look bad. It's there because there is equally unhappy users hoping Nikon come up with a solution. I, personally, am waiting for that and if Nikon acknowledges the issue will buy back the camera immediately because apart from this design flaw it is the best camera that my money can buy. Do not think that people are getting unhappy with their purchase because of the unhappy users posting on the DPR forums. The guy that you see on the video barely speaks English, most probably he hasn't become sad due to the post on DPR. He is sad because he think his camera is faulty. The problem is that you, happy users, do not want unhappy users voice to be heard at all which is an enigma to me. The only possible outcome of the unhappy users complaint is that Nikon might offer a solution. Are you afraid of that?

 

[chuxter]

CP filter what cuts the flares before entering lens

Several people have commented that a CP filter mitigates the effect. I have not seen any "evidence" like a setup w/ and w/o a CP filter. Do you have or know of any such evidence?

I have tried experimenting w/ my D810 [which has up-side-down haze shadows] and a CP filter and I could see no change when I rotated the CP filter.

Frustrated that my experiment was a failure, I commenced to rant...

The term "Flare" is a bad one, because it was already used in "Lens Flare", which is a different animal. The correct term should be "Haze"! When we refer to two quite different effects using the same word, we confuse people. Some of you people are confused and don't even realize it. :-(

Further, the expression, "flares before entering lens" is nonsensical. Before it enters the lens, it is just light that is bright and slightly off-axis. Only after it enters lens/camera does it exist as "Haze", which is something normally undesirable. "Haze" permeates the image and reduces contrast. "Haze" is most pronounced near the source [even if the source is outside the frame of the image] and gradually falls off from that location in most cases.

"Haze" is a blight on an image. It has been avoided in images since the earliest days of photography. There are well known techniques for reducing "Haze":

• Lens hood
• Black paint inside lenses and camera bodies
• Better black "paint"
• Black baffles

In recent years, some artists started using "Haze" to distinguish their photographic product; they sold this look as moody and attractive. As far as I know, no camera manufacturer ever touted his products as having superior Haze! There was never any guarantee that any camera body was suitable for use when pointed at the Sun. Most, if not all, User's Guides strongly recommend against this.

OK, I am an advocate for occasionally including the Sun in images. I do so understanding there are dangers [both to my eyes and to the camera]. I do not like Haze, however. Haze is UGLY!

An associated artifact is called "Lens Flare":

Loading…

commons.wikimedia.org

The difference is obvious: "Lens Flare" artifacts have sharp edges and often are obvious images of lens components, which are round or multi-faceted. "Lens Flare" does not reduce the contrast of the overall image; it is a separate image superimposed on the underlying image. "Lens Flare" is caused by reflections + refractions inside the lens. "Haze" is caused by scattering inside the lens and body. These are totally different mechanisms!

Unlike, "Haze", "Lens Flare" can be beautiful and artistic. It is often used in movies and videos.

 

[chuxter]

The problem is that you, happy users, do not want unhappy users voice to be heard at all which is an enigma to me. The only possible outcome of the unhappy users complaint is that Nikon might offer a solution. Are you afraid of that?

I can't speak for Tharapita, who I have "issues" with...so I won't.

I am afraid of unhappy users who make complaints more because they are uninformed than because the product is "defective".

I consider you unhappy because:

• You made the decision that the D750 that you bought was defective. You returned it, which was the correct thing to do. However, if other more knowledgeable people [whom you call "happy users" which is a soft insult] try to ask questions and to collect facts and data, this makes your lack of knowledge and your stubborn refusal to expand your knowledge clear. Heck, other people might notice too?
• What if the final accounting shows that the D750 was not as defective as some of it's owners? You are fighting to preclude such an outcome, IMO.

No camera is designed to produce beautiful "haze". That some do, in the opinions of a few "artists" is a miracle. These "artists" should avoid cameras like the D750 which have "ugly haze"!

 

[vazquezji]

CP filter what cuts the flares before entering lens

Several people have commented that a CP filter mitigates the effect. I have not seen any "evidence" like a setup w/ and w/o a CP filter. Do you have or know of any such evidence?

I have tried experimenting w/ my D810 [which has up-side-down haze shadows] and a CP filter and I could see no change when I rotated the CP filter.

Frustrated that my experiment was a failure, I commenced to rant...

The term "Flare" is a bad one, because it was already used in "Lens Flare", which is a different animal. The correct term should be "Haze"! When we refer to two quite different effects using the same word, we confuse people. Some of you people are confused and don't even realize it. :-(

Further, the expression, "flares before entering lens" is nonsensical. Before it enters the lens, it is just light that is bright and slightly off-axis. Only after it enters lens/camera does it exist as "Haze", which is something normally undesirable. "Haze" permeates the image and reduces contrast. "Haze" is most pronounced near the source [even if the source is outside the frame of the image] and gradually falls off from that location in most cases.

"Haze" is a blight on an image. It has been avoided in images since the earliest days of photography. There are well known techniques for reducing "Haze":

• Lens hood
• Black paint inside lenses and camera bodies
• Better black "paint"
• Black baffles

In recent years, some artists started using "Haze" to distinguish their photographic product; they sold this look as moody and attractive. As far as I know, no camera manufacturer ever touted his products as having superior Haze! There was never any guarantee that any camera body was suitable for use when pointed at the Sun. Most, if not all, User's Guides strongly recommend against this.

OK, I am an advocate for occasionally including the Sun in images. I do so understanding there are dangers [both to my eyes and to the camera]. I do not like Haze, however. Haze is UGLY!

An associated artifact is called "Lens Flare":

The difference is obvious: "Lens Flare" artifacts have sharp edges and often are obvious images of lens components, which are round or multi-faceted. "Lens Flare" does not reduce the contrast of the overall image; it is a separate image superimposed on the underlying image. "Lens Flare" is caused by reflections + refractions inside the lens. "Haze" is caused by scattering inside the lens and body. These are totally different mechanisms!

Unlike, "Haze", "Lens Flare" can be beautiful and artistic. It is often used in movies and videos.

A video of D750 where both effects can be seen:

 

[9ck]

I tried with rented Nikon 24-70 2.8G today. Was unable to produce that flare blocking i can with 50 1.8g on same spot. Tried also hoodless and filterless. Same.

Thanks Tharapitia - very usefull info for me. I've seen on FM that the 14-24 f/2.8 also seams to handle the flare differently - is it the nano?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1331716/20