The 5D2 has strong pattern noise at ISO 100

5D_USER wrote in post #8794977
I think it is alike. Tonal range or digital dynamic range is build of power of two, the analogue DR is build of power 2.2 if I remember right, that is, by the power of logarithm.

These are surprizing revelations; the power of logarithm is particularly good.

Nikolas wrote in post #8793990
What's the difference between tonal range and dynamic range and what's the main emphasis with the 5d2, dynamic or tonal range?

Caution with these terms. The tonal range is the darkest and brightest captured luminance; it is not the characteristic of the camera (lower the exposure and much brighter scenery can be captured). However, I don't remember to have seen tonal range in the previous posts.

The number of tonal gradations shows, how many different intensity levels the camera can record per channel (we are in the realm of raw data). For example a 5D classic can record max. about 3570 different levels, while the 5D2 records between 11800 and 14700 levels, depending on the ISO (approximate numbers).

The dynamic range is the proportion between the brightest and darkest recorded (and useful) intensities. Think of the contrast ratio: 500:1 means, that the brightest patch is 500 times brighter, than the darkest one, for example regarding a monitor (the lowest intensity is mean as created by the monitor, not the natural blackness of it).

If this proportion is expessed as the power of two, then we call it stop. For example the proportion in 500:1 is 500, which is about 2^8.97, i.e. it corresponds to nine stops.

Note, that the engineering/scientific usage of dynamic range is different and pretty much useless in photography.

Wow this thread has me down right nervous to upgrade from a 50D to a 5Dmark2. Ugh and I wanted full frame

Xereau wrote in post #8821711
Wow this thread has me down right nervous to upgrade from a 50D to a 5Dmark2. Ugh and I wanted full frame

Hey, keep things in context -- the 5D2 is a great camera. This issue is about trying to amplify deep shadows to reveal some amount of detail, but it's not a "slam" against the 5D2. Very few people will try to push their post processing to this degree. It's good to be aware of for certain types of photography, though -- what are you needing for the type of photography you shoot?

Xereau wrote in post #8821711
Wow this thread has me down right nervous to upgrade from a 50D to a 5Dmark2. Ugh and I wanted full frame

As I have already mentioned before - read this thread and then buy a 5Dmk2:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=608311

tonylong wrote in post #8821730
Hey, keep things in context -- the 5D2 is a great camera. This issue is about trying to amplify deep shadows to reveal some amount of detail, but it's not a "slam" against the 5D2. Very few people will try to push their post processing to this degree. It's good to be aware of for certain types of photography, though -- what are you needing for the type of photography you shoot?

I'm looking to upgrade to a FF camera for Landscapes and was hoping the mark2 would be my answer.

Xereau wrote in post #8821767
I'm looking to upgrade to a FF camera for Landscapes and was hoping the mark2 would be my answer.

If you check out the thread that pwm2 posted above you'll see the 5D2 produces fine landscape photography. But, as I said, if you hope to draw the maximum amount of detail out of deep shadows, you will eventually see this issue.

It's entirely possible that Canon will adress this issue, since it doesn't show up this way in other Canon bodies, but in the meantime you just have to decide based on what you shoot or aspire to shoot.

I have been checking out those posts for a while now and am 100% pleased with the pictures I have seen taken with this camera. I stumbled across this post earlier today and was thrown for a loop.

Sorry if this already mentioned.

Canon promised Digic4 will have more dynamic range,
and more details in shadows area,
and more post-processing capability from Raw,
and more data can be retrieved from shadows and highlight from Raw,
and less banding !!!!!!!!

Yesssss Canon definitely mentioned about "less banding" in shadows area pulled from Raw 14bit of Digic4.

That's Canon promise.

And Canon breaks the promise.

Okay, now where did Canon promise about them.

Here in this Canon website:
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=2748

See, Canon breaks the promise.

What can we do about it?

note:
please save that webpage (complete) to your hard-drive just in case Canon change their mind and delete that page to avoid "something", we'll have the backup

I have the 5D II and an uncle has the D700. This pixel peeping family member mocks me on the lower ISO noise. And I agree with him that his files are cleaner. But seriously, I don't care. As long as I can remove the color noise and the detail is not affected.

If you remove the color noise at lower ISOs, they look clean on print. And in the family photo album, people still prefer my pictures.


PS: I ordered an ISO 1600 print in 80*120cm size. I don't think even this noise will be that noticeable at even that size. (But I still have my fingers crossed)

ISO 1600???

I print ISO 6400 and its great 1600 is nottin!

Buy something else.

I think the banding referred to in the link is different than what this thread started out about shadow black frame banding. The banding in the link is the kind you get when you push tones in post processing to extend highlights or shadows and you get bands where the tones transition because of not enough bit depth in the data to get smooth tonal transitions. You often see this in blue sky on images when you try to process an 8 bit Jpeg file. The digic iV allows for two more bits of depth over the old `2 bit CPU which gives you more data to push or pull in the raw.

The Banding this thread started out talking about is pattern banding from unbalanced sensor read channels. The width of the bands corresponds to how many parallel rows of the sensor are read simultaneously. The way you eliminate the sensor banding is by using data from non visible rows and columns on the sensor that are not part of the image which are used to calculate a correction factor to apply to each read pass. There's a huge thread on this that goes into a great level of detail on the dpreview forums.

Net net is we're talking about two different kinds of banding from when this thread started, to what you are referring to in your link post.

rondhamalam wrote in post #8919992
Sorry if this already mentioned.

Canon promised Digic4 will have more dynamic range,
and more details in shadows area,
and more post-processing capability from Raw,
and more data can be retrieved from shadows and highlight from Raw,
and less banding !!!!!!!!

Yesssss Canon definitely mentioned about "less banding" in shadows area pulled from Raw 14bit of Digic4.

That's Canon promise.

And Canon breaks the promise.

Okay, now where did Canon promise about them.

Here in this Canon website:
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=2748

See, Canon breaks the promise.

What can we do about it?

note:
please save that webpage (complete) to your hard-drive just in case Canon change their mind and delete that page to avoid "something", we'll have the backup

lol... when will this thread die

J_TULLAR wrote in post #8921511
lol... when will this thread die

Yeah,,it's a bit like fish s**t.. It goes on and on..