The 5D3 has banding issues. (pattern noise)

RDKirk wrote in post #14104477
Well, no. To eliminate shadow banding in the image, you simply let that shadow print to black. If you wanted detail in that shadow but have to print it to black to avoid banding, that means the image has less dynamic range than you desired.

It can't have "captured a great amount of dynamic range" and still have banding in the shadows--that's the definition of the low-end limit of dynamic range: The point that you have to print the shadows to black because of artifacts in the underexposed portions of the image defines the bottom end of dynamic range.

I kind of think you missed a bit of what have been said in this thread.

Do read some of my earlier posts, questioning exactly what is the corect definition of dynamic range. The dynamic range that 95% of the pixels in the image has. Or the dynamic range where the pattern noise isn't visible.

Sites measuring dynamic range will base their figures on statistical methods that will indicate the dynamic range for the 95% pixels. And Canon's claims about the 5D2 having more dynamic range will also base it on the majority of the pixels. After all - the the image do clearly show lots of real details with a very high dynamic range.

The whole point about people being angry about the dynamic range of the 5D2 is that measurements and Canon claims are not meaningful. Just because the usable range isn't so good. Just because you have to throw away all these captured details just to get rid of the patterns.

.

Statistical methods, shmatistical methods. The picture is the thing, after all. Being "angry" about a camera is silly.

RDKirk wrote in post #14105089
.

Statistical methods, shmatistical methods. The picture is the thing, after all. Being "angry" about a camera is silly.

Exactly my point. But then you would know that if you did read the posts.

So why did Canon promise extra dynamic range if it was dynamic range that had to be cut away from the print?

pwm2 wrote in post #14106087
Exactly my point. But then you would know that if you did read the posts.

So why did Canon promise extra dynamic range if it was dynamic range that had to be cut away from the print?

So why do auto manufacturers promise miles per gallon that nobody will ever achieve except on a dynometer?

This is not a new issue with digital photography. Even with film, we could always see faint detail in shadows that we could not reproduce on the print without dodging shadows to an ugly gray instead of a pictorially superior black.

So with digital, we see the same problem. There is faint detail in the shadows, but to print it, we get ugly shadow artifacts.

Same problem, same solution: Sacrifice those details and print those deep shadows to black.

Actually, we do have in digital somewhat of a remedy for many cases. We can use a tool like Topaz Adjust to jigger the contrast just in the shadows and bring out a bit of that detail while letting the absolutely detail-free shadow areas go black. (That was kind of possible with B&W film, using multi-contrast paper and dodging the shadows through a high-contrast filter. But it was a lot less practical than we can do with digital.)

RDKirk wrote in post #14107095
So with digital, we see the same problem. There is faint detail in the shadows, but to print it, we get ugly shadow artifacts.

Same problem, same solution: Sacrifice those details and print those deep shadows to black.

Why is better readout electronics not a solution?

Poe wrote in post #14107673
Why is better readout electronics not a solution?

Because there are no simple routes to "better". Our cars now are better than the cars from 1930. But it has been incremental improvements. You couldn't just have thrown billions of dollars to researchers 1930 and said: I want a better car. They were already busy trying to make a better car. The best way they could right then.

Canon is also busy trying to make better cameras. But they can still only improve in small steps unless someone makes a great break-through. With real production 5D3 cameras, it will be interesting to see exactly how much Canon have managed during this time.

Poe wrote in post #14107673
Why is better readout electronics not a solution?

Because Sony/Nikon hold the patent to the solution

Here's the link and a quote:

pwm2 wrote in post #14107686
Because there are no simple routes to "better". Our cars now are better than the cars from 1930. But it has been incremental improvements. You couldn't just have thrown billions of dollars to researchers 1930 and said: I want a better car. They were already busy trying to make a better car. The best way they could right then.

Canon is also busy trying to make better cameras. But they can still only improve in small steps unless someone makes a great break-through. With real production 5D3 cameras, it will be interesting to see exactly how much Canon have managed during this time.

A model A Ford is good for 30mpg. My 89 crx is good for 50 MPG. 60 with hypermile techniques. Now we need hybrid tech to get 35-45mpg. Yup progress.

AJSJones wrote in post #14107836
Because (I read that) Sony/Nikon hold the patent to the solution

Here's the link and a quote:

So, the obvious way to get out of this hole is to buy (or manufacture under licence) the Sony sensor, stay ahead in the lens game, improve on other body features (e.g. weather sealing) and, meanwhile, work on the next generation of sensors that can compete with the Exmor.

friz wrote in post #14107892
A model A Ford is good for 30mpg. My 89 crx is good for 50 MPG. 60 with hypermile techniques. Now we need hybrid tech to get 35-45mpg. Yup progress.

You are just doing a very bad comparison there.

Skip air condition and you would instantly gain extra mileage.
Skip sound isolation and your car would be hundreds of pounds lighter.

We always complement progression with luxury that eats up some of the technological gain.

pwm2 wrote in post #14107686
it will be interesting to see exactly how much Canon have managed during this time.

My guess is, not that much. It seems more improvements are coming with the digic technology than with sensor technology. As for FPS, metering or focus, well those improvements have been on earlier, much earlier cameras. Though they might be improvements with the 5d, they are not "true" or ground-breaking improvements in their own right.

Canon seems to be trying to squeeze every ounce of profit out of thier customers. Rightfully so, it is after all, we are in a capitolist scociety, but the rubber has to meet the road somewhere or the markets will begin to fight back. Canon has done an excellent job thus far. They have followers willing to worship Canon branded equipment almost to a fault, and thus helping to keep equipment prices, very high.

Canon professionals have waited 4 years for the emergence of the new 5d. Let's hope it's all they imagined it will be. Otherwise I think we can see the pack turning into a wild group of ravenous dogs, eating away at Canon's profits as they use POTN to thier advantage. I have found the group here on POTN to be very, very, discriminating, and wouldn't put it past them to try and stick it to the "man".

In my opinion, dealing with the mark3, Canon has done just enough to satisfy the majority by allowing more FPS, much better auto focus, and metering zones. Having said that, there are so many pixel peepers which may not be too happy about how that new sensor, and/or its performance. I'm anxious to see more reports about that subject, and how the regulars react.

Regards,

David

pwm2 wrote in post #14107984
You are just doing a very bad comparison there.

Skip air condition and you would instantly gain extra mileage.
Skip sound isolation and your car would be hundreds of pounds lighter.

We always complement progression with luxury that eats up some of the technological gain.

Indeed. That Model A engine was little better than a lawnmower engine, and the car itself had fewer amenities than some riding lawnmowers...and riding lawnmowers get 30 miles per gallon, too.

Over on professional forums, there's no outrage nor is there any exuberance. The fact is, the professional forums exhibit rarely a hint of the gearism or fanboyism common to amateur forums. When it comes down to business decisions, there's little emotion involved: Decisions are based on profitability.

If something about the latest Nikon will make that camera profitable for what you do, then more Nikon power to you. If the latest Canon won't make me any more money than my current Canon, then I can afford to wait until I need a maintenance replacement...and that's okay, too.

If the latest Nikon will make me more money than my current Canon makes me, then I switch systems--and there is no emotion involved. It's just business.

RDKirk wrote in post #14108093
Indeed. That Model A engine was little better than a lawnmower engine, and the car itself had fewer amenities than some riding lawnmowers...and riding lawnmowers get 30 miles per gallon, too.

Over on professional forums, there's no outrage nor is there any exuberance. The fact is, the professional forums exhibit rarely a hint of the gearism or fanboyism common to amateur forums. When it comes down to business decisions, there's little emotion involved: Decisions are based on profitability.

If something about the latest Nikon will make that camera profitable for what you do, then more Nikon power to you. If the latest Canon won't make me any more money than my current Canon, then I can afford to wait until I need a maintenance replacement...and that's okay, too.

If the latest Nikon will make me more money than my current Canon makes me, then I switch systems--and there is no emotion involved. It's just business.

That depends on what kind of professional forum. Different types of photographers have their own forums.

You won't find much in the wedding/event/sports forums, since they're all about going in, getting the shot and getting paid, but you'll find a lot more on the landscape/fine art pro forums, where there is a lot more of an artistic focus, and generally a lot more time and effort (and profit) invested in each individual shot.

After all, a single large landscape print can sell for more than an entire wedding package.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14108135
That depends on what kind of professional forum. Different types of photographers have their own forums.

You won't find much in the wedding/event/sports forums, since they're all about going in, getting the shot and getting paid, but you'll find a lot more on the landscape/fine art pro forums, where there is a lot more of an artistic focus, and generally a lot more time and effort (and profit) invested in each individual shot.

After all, a single large landscape print can sell for more than an entire wedding package.

I've been on landscape forums. I can't recall ever seeing the kinds of extended gear arguments that I see on amateur forums...at least not between professionals.

Funny thing is, I've had my mark II for 2 years and never ran into issues....

So many people think that if they spend 3000 dollars on a camera that it should produce the best pictures ever when they don't even know how to properly expose an image or even use the camera.They think oh it's got an auto mode, the camera will do all the work...