My 5D2 Has Low Iso Banding

poah wrote in post #10569951
well if you don't know you're not going to understand the simple explanation are you.

Oh, the simple explanation of "adjusments are sett according to each image"? Such a nice cop-out, don't you think? Why don't you bring some actual data to the table to refute your lack of low ISO banding?

smorter wrote in post #10570487
5 to 1, my nominations for most unhelpful responses in this thread

5.

Completely tasteless, yet also completely misses the mark.

4.

Right, maybe by learning how to use my camera, it will eventually be able to cook breakfast for me too. Hard work and dedication will overcome any adversity won't it!

3.

obviously your level of intellect and maturity is not suited for this forum. I suggest you sell your dSLR and buy some lessons in adult education.

2.
(in response to someone saying "IMHO, banding at low iso is no bargain ..... a total failure")

Did you suffer inattention and neglect as a child, and hence have to give off this sad, sad attitude onto others?

and by the same poster:

1.


Right. Of course, one has to be a professional photographer, otherwise they are stupid and don't deserve to own a camera.

Of course. Earning money from photography is everyone's purpose in life. How can I be so naive to think it wasn't?

Of course. Only the professional's opinion matters. How dare the rest of those plebs even discuss this issue? We should bow before their might in reverance.

This really sums up some of the stupidity that goes on within these forums. Nicely summarized and called out for.

CyberPet wrote in post #10570426
This made me laugh... and is fitting for this thread.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

As Homer Simpson put it once, "Its funny cause its true"

On the same note i dont see why people get so angry about all this. As far as I can tell some 5dII's seem to have this problem and some dont. In any case it would be good for canon to fix this along with adding a few other upgrades to the 5d series to really make it a killer camera.

Yeah, some here are missing the point. Some (apparently not all) 5D2's exhibit offensive noise patterns in shadows, particularly at low ISOs. Whether you push the blacks or not, the offensive pattern is there. This has sidestepped into the purely subjective discussion about how much post processing you should do, etc, etc, where some people are trying to assert some kind of superiority over others by claiming only they know how to expose properly so that you wouldn't even want to push the shadows, etc. All that trollish discussion completely misses the point, as does the guy with the 5D2 that doesn't (apparently) have this problem. For plenty of people - enough to have this issue come up time and time again on this and other forums, the problem exists.

Canon is almost certainly going to do nothing about this problem since it doesn't get a lot of press. Looking at DPReview's review of the 5D Mark II for example shows no such problem, but their photographic noise tests don't show the noise in any real shadow areas. Their dynamic range tests only show corrections trying to restore highlight detail and don't bother to show pushing DR out of the shadows. The Digital Picture doesn't appear to have even bothered to look at the noise under ISO 400, etc, etc. It's probably just something that those of us with 5DII's that are affected will either have to live with or sell the camera and get something else.

-K

elitejp wrote in post #10571091
As Homer Simpson put it once, "Its funny cause its true"

On the same note i dont see why people get so angry about all this. As far as I can tell some 5dII's seem to have this problem and some dont. In any case it would be good for canon to fix this along with adding a few other upgrades to the 5d series to really make it a killer camera.

Well, as kcbrown pointed out here: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=10565877&pos​tcount=225 the T2i which has the same sensor as the 7D, doesn't exhibit the FPN like the 7D does, which I think, implies that there's something faulty in the 5D2/7D electronics that was either fixed or left out of the T2i.

kurt765 wrote in post #10571317
Yeah, some here are missing the point. Some (apparently not all) 5D2's exhibit offensive noise patterns in shadows, particularly at low ISOs. Whether you push the blacks or not, the offensive pattern is there. This has sidestepped into the purely subjective discussion about how much post processing you should do, etc, etc, where some people are trying to assert some kind of superiority over others by claiming only they know how to expose properly so that you wouldn't even want to push the shadows, etc. All that trollish discussion completely misses the point, as does the guy with the 5D2 that doesn't (apparently) have this problem. For plenty of people - enough to have this issue come up time and time again on this and other forums, the problem exists.

Canon is almost certainly going to do nothing about this problem since it doesn't get a lot of press. Looking at DPReview's review of the 5D Mark II for example shows no such problem, but their photographic noise tests don't show the noise in any real shadow areas. Their dynamic range tests only show corrections trying to restore highlight detail and don't bother to show pushing DR out of the shadows. The Digital Picture doesn't appear to have even bothered to look at the noise under ISO 400, etc, etc. It's probably just something that those of us with 5DII's that are affected will either have to live with or sell the camera and get something else.

-K

Yep, it is sort of Déjà vu all this my 5DII does not have a problem so you must be an idiot if you get banding. Sounds exactly like the 1DIII fiasco. Photos are being posted that show no problem, so the obvious assumtion being made is it's the photographer at fault. These same types of photos were posted when the 1DIII focus issues were being discussed. See, I can take a sharp photo with my 1DIII so that means there is no problem in general with the 1DIII and you are an idiot for not knowing how to use the camera properly.

When it was all done and said with all the firmware / hardware / yellow dot fixes Canon had for the 1DIII, where were these people who stood so animatedly proclaiming there were no issues with the 1DIII.

I wonder if history will repeat itself again?

I wish Canon would provide a fix for this. Maybe I'll drive down to the Canon service center and ask them about it while I get my camera cleaned. I bet they have nothing to say.

-K

kurt765 wrote in post #10571670
I wish Canon would provide a fix for this. Maybe I'll drive down to the Canon service center and ask them about it while I get my camera cleaned. I bet they have nothing to say.

-K

You'll probably get a blank stare.

CyberPet wrote in post #10569598
Me?

I'm confused. Why am I quoted? When did I offend you?

I wasnt commenting on you petra I basically pulled the whole response from rx7speeds post. Sorry to include you.

Aaah. Make sense. Thanks, J_TULLAR.

CyberPet wrote in post #10570426
This made me laugh... and is fitting for this thread.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

LOL its ok we settled it off the thread... I apologize to everyone by the way... continue with your lovely topic.

Stealthy I bet your eating popcorn while reading this huh? lol

smorter wrote in post #10570487
5 to 1, my nominations for most unhelpful responses in this thread

5.

Completely tasteless, yet also completely misses the mark.

4.

Right, maybe by learning how to use my camera, it will eventually be able to cook breakfast for me too. Hard work and dedication will overcome any adversity won't it!

3.

obviously your level of intellect and maturity is not suited for this forum. I suggest you sell your dSLR and buy some lessons in adult education.

2.
(in response to someone saying "IMHO, banding at low iso is no bargain ..... a total failure")

Did you suffer inattention and neglect as a child, and hence have to give off this sad, sad attitude onto others?

and by the same poster:

1.


Right. Of course, one has to be a professional photographer, otherwise they are stupid and don't deserve to own a camera.

Of course. Earning money from photography is everyone's purpose in life. How can I be so naive to think it wasn't?

Of course. Only the professional's opinion matters. How dare the rest of those plebs even discuss this issue? We should bow before their might in reverance.

LOL oh great another fan of my witty banter...nice to see your following the same thread on different forums lol

Hey, all those negative Nikon Post/threads and you've turned into a Noink =P JK

What convinced you to make the switch?

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10569230
This is turning into a major internet fight.

poah wrote in post #10569947
adjustment depends on the image - there is no set amount you can adjust before artifacts show up or the image looks completely unnatural hence my comment.

And there is no set amount you'll need to adjust before you get the results you're after. That, too, depends on the image.

And the amount you need to adjust before you get the results you're after may exceed the amount you can adjust before the artifacts we're talking about here show up. That is the problem.

smorter wrote in post #10570372
P.S. Poah, here's my thread showing 4 images with 0 Post Production which you conveniently ignored when you mentioned photos being "raped" by photoshop

Um, somehow, the link to the thread you're referring to never actually made it into your message. Could you try again, please?