The 5D3 has banding issues. (pattern noise)

And by the way this is how Canon acknowledged the banding issue before updating the firmware to fix it:

So in RAW and JPEG it did not happen and the noise could have been reduced by setting the highlight tone priority 0 to Disable. Or is this a different issue than the one discussed here?

YunusEmre wrote in post #14075911
And by the way this is how Canon acknowledged the banding issue before updating the firmware to fix it:


So in RAW and JPEG it did not happen and the noise could have been reduced by setting the highlight tone priority 0 to Disable. Or is this a different issue than the one discussed here?

That's a different issue.

Banding certainly exists in RAW images. Disabling highlight tone priority reduces random noise, but does nothing for the banding. After all, HTP essentially involves underexposing by a stop and pushing the image to preserve highlights (but worsening shadow noise and dynamic range).

Shadowblade wrote in post #14075847
I couldn't disagree more with this point.
When it was 5D2 vs D700.....
In contrast, with 5D3 vs D800, the 5D3 is ...

I agree with you on the roles, but this also rings true if you're really stuck in ONE genre of photography. I shoot:

• landscapes
  
• arch
  
• people/wedding
  
• sports
  
• my kids
  

YunusEmre wrote in post #14075874
I cannot find the post you are referring to. Can you point me at it?

So Canon acknowledged the banding problem and released a firmware update (as well as fixing the black dot issue). So I gather it did not fix the problem? Canon site says:

Must have been one of the other threads - I forget which.

Anyway, here are the two examples I posted:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14075952
I agree with you on the roles, but this also rings true if you're really stuck in ONE genre of photography. I shoot:

• landscapes
  
• arch
  
• people/wedding
  
• sports
  
• my kids

I love FF and I've owned the 5D then 5Dii for ~6 years now. I had a 1Dii before the 5D, but I hate the size and the attention 1 series bodies draw. I've wanted the FPS forever and even owned a D700 for a year because it's a killer camera, nikons just aren't for me... So now Canon has ADDED kick ass AF and boosted the FPS and blackout and delay to acceptable levels while increasing the IQ a bit. No, it's not 36mp, but those D700 shooters are getting 3x the mp with 1/2 the FPS. Sure it's still got great AF, but it's now SUPER slow. The 5Diii is basically the middle road, do EVERYTHING well camera now. It used to be "slow" and "bad at sports" and "no sealed" etc etc etc. Canon's fixed most gripes. And the other thing to remember is canon claims the 18mp 1Dx sensor has the same resolution as the 21mp 1Dsiii... That means the MP increase isn't really 21 to 22, it's 18 to 22. Still nothing huge, but more than most people are thinking.

Personally, I'm excited for the 5Diii. I'm not racing out to get one, the price is a bit of a bummer and I wish it had 8fps, but eventually I'll get one as it's what I have now with my biggest complaints fixed (better AF and more FPS). The slight resolution bump is nice, but honestly I'd been considering 16 and 18mp camera for other reasons that this 5Diii now works in place of.

'Super' slow?

The D800 is still faster than the 5D2!

I can see that the 5D3 is very much a generalist camera - a bit like the D700. Trouble is, at this end of the spectrum, many (most) photographers are specialists. A studio photographer rarely shoots sports. A wedding photographer rarely shoots landscapes. A photojournalist rarely prints larger than 8"x10". A landscape photographer rarely prints smaller than 16"x24". Nikon has released specialists bodies that each cater to one end of the spectrum. Canon has a specialist body that caters to the high-speed, low-resolution end, and a general-purpose body that's somewhere in the middle, but nothing for the high-resolution/high IQ end. Which is where most of the pissed-off Canon shooters are coming from - after all, high resolution and high IQ were why we bought the 5D2, and we were looking forward to a nice improvement in the 5D3, after seeing what various Sony/Nikon sensors had done in the intervening years.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14075984
'Super' slow?

The D800 is still faster than the 5D2!

which was also super slow!

BTW, what are you showing with the sunset sailing shot? It's awesome, I don't see anything wrong with it? Or are you using it as a DR example? Because I don't think even film could pull that one off... Your vineyard shot is a good example of DR that's tough to handle. I'm one of the guys who had the initial banding issue with my 5Dii though. In a shot that wasn't even that tough... People who don't shoot landscapes just don't get that issues, I've stopped trying to explain it.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14075969
Must have been one of the other threads - I forget which.

Anyway, here are the two examples I posted:

Thanks, but I see two great shots What is the problem with these shots?

Shadowblade wrote in post #14075969
Must have been one of the other threads - I forget which.

Anyway, here are the two examples I posted:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

shadow, in the boat shot, if you exposed for the sky, wouldnt that do something similar to what you have now? i recall you saying you had to take multiple shots?

YunusEmre wrote in post #14076051
Thanks, but I see two great shots What is the problem with these shots?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14075994
which was also super slow!

BTW, what are you showing with the sunset sailing shot? It's awesome, I don't see anything wrong with it? Or are you using it as a DR example? Because I don't think even film could pull that one off... Your vineyard shot is a good example of DR that's tough to handle. I'm one of the guys who had the initial banding issue with my 5Dii though. In a shot that wasn't even that tough... People who don't shoot landscapes just don't get that issues, I've stopped trying to explain it.

It's not the shots themselves - it's what I had to do to take them. Obviously, the failed shots, or the shots which couldn't even be attempted - and there are probably dozens of these - never made it into real photos.

The boat shot is a composite of three shots - one exposed for the sun and sky, one for the sea, the third for the boat as it crossed around 15 seconds later. Extensive post-processing was needed to blend them. If I had just taken a single shot, something would either have been blown, or would have had irrecoverable shadows. The boat shows no banding, and little noise, because I pulled its final exposure by around 2 stops. With greater DR and no banding, it would have been much easier to capture, and I'd probably have a slew of other shots like this, which I missed because conditions weren't amenable to this technique (or the exposures taken at different times just couldn't be reconciled with each other).

The vineyard shot is a composite of two shots. There was a gentle, almost imperceptible breeze - yet it was enough to rustle the leaves on the vines and create exposures that didn't overlap, or didn't overlap sufficiently to avoid ghosting. I ended up taking hundreds of paired shots and, luckily, ended up with one pair which matched. With the ability to push shadows as demonstrated in a different photo posted earlier (now deleted - it was the photo with flowers against a bright sky) it would have taken one shot, not hundreds, and there would have been far fewer missed opportunities.

ilumo wrote in post #14076089
shadow, in the boat shot, if you exposed for the sky, wouldnt that do something similar to what you have now? i recall you saying you had to take multiple shots?

No - the boat would have been completely black, with no visible details in the sails, apart from a crosshatch of pattern noise. The sea would also have been much darker, needing substantial pushing and resulting in pattern noise in the sea, too.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14075969

This photo looks amazing on my screen. I love the subtle shadow detail in the silouette.

I wonder if a d7000 or the d800 can pull that shot off with a single frame.

jwcdds wrote in post #14076146
I wonder if a d7000 or the d800 can pull that shot off with a single frame.

Whether it can or can't, it'd certainly do a better job.

At least it could have reduced it from 3 frames to 2.

Banding is a joke.
Has anyone considered that Mk III has a serious issue of breaking into pieces, if you through down from top of Empire State building? Now I call that a serious problem...

samsen wrote in post #14076206
Banding is a joke.
Has anyone considered that Mk III has a serious issue of breaking into pieces, if you through down from top of Empire State building? Now I call that a serious problem...

Eh, it really isn't a joke. Take this shot for example:

IMAGE LINK: http://500px.com/photo​/1820825