My 5D2 Has Low Iso Banding

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10576068
LOL that dust spot is Canon's fault.

Hell yea it is!

This is funny and I dont know if its cus its a websize jpeg but download this file and try to push it to band...
http://web.canon.jp …s5dm2/html/samp​le3_e.html

No banding that I could find... but I did it on one of my Iso 50 shots of the san diego skyline and it banded... I wonder... hmm....

put fill light to 100% to see it. I did it to a night shot iso 320 of the sd skyline at night and it didnt band at all... this banding thing is weird. I can see why people get frustrated however.

I also pushed an underexposed 40d file and it had horizontal banding in the shadows... the plot thickens?

J_TULLAR wrote in post #10577936
This is funny and I dont know if its cus its a websize jpeg but download this file and try to push it to band...
http://web.canon.jp …s5dm2/html/samp​le3_e.html

No banding that I could find... but I did it on one of my Iso 50 shots of the san diego skyline and it banded... I wonder... hmm....

put fill light to 100% to see it. I did it to a night shot iso 320 of the sd skyline at night and it didnt band at all... this banding thing is weird. I can see why people get frustrated however.

I also pushed an underexposed 40d file and it had horizontal banding in the shadows... the plot thickens?

ISO 50 is an in-camera pulled ISO 100 shot. So it would be expected to see banding there as the camera used ISO 100 gain first.
Your ISO 320 shot is a pulled ISO 400 that was pulled in-camera, so one wouldn't expect much, if any, banding since ISO 400 doesn't behave like ISO 100.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #10577936
This is funny and I dont know if its cus its a websize jpeg but download this file and try to push it to band...
http://web.canon.jp …s5dm2/html/samp​le3_e.html

No banding that I could find... but I did it on one of my Iso 50 shots of the san diego skyline and it banded... I wonder... hmm....

put fill light to 100% to see it. I did it to a night shot iso 320 of the sd skyline at night and it didnt band at all... this banding thing is weird. I can see why people get frustrated however.

I also pushed an underexposed 40d file and it had horizontal banding in the shadows... the plot thickens?

That sample from canon image is a 20 second exposure, so it's going to be less noisy by default since long exposure noise reduction was almost certainly on.

How about someone with a pattern free 5D2 post a daylight shot at a low ISO - anything with a big dynamic range. Let's say ISO 100 or 160 - well within the pattern zone. Push the shadows to an unnatural extent just so we can see if you have the pattern or not.

-K

kurt765 wrote in post #10579474
That sample from canon image is a 20 second exposure, so it's going to be less noisy by default since long exposure noise reduction was almost certainly on.

How about someone with a pattern free 5D2 post a daylight shot at a low ISO - anything with a big dynamic range. Let's say ISO 100 or 160 - well within the pattern zone. Push the shadows to an unnatural extent just so we can see if you have the pattern or not.

-K

Better yet, post a link to the RAW file so we can see for ourselves that the pattern isn't actually there.

kcbrown wrote in post #10580555
Better yet, post a link to the RAW file so we can see for ourselves that the pattern isn't actually there.

Better yet, show us an iso 400 shot from your 5d2 that has banding.... oh, I see.....

timbop wrote in post #10580756
Better yet, show us an iso 400 shot from your 5d2 that has banding.... oh, I see.....

Isn't the topic of this thread the low iso banding of the 5D2? Like, you know, less than 400.

kurt765 wrote in post #10581042


Isn't the topic of this thread the low iso banding of the 5D2? Like, you know, less than 400.

Why, yes, yes it is.

kurt765 wrote in post #10579474
That sample from canon image is a 20 second exposure, so it's going to be less noisy by default since long exposure noise reduction was almost certainly on.

How about someone with a pattern free 5D2 post a daylight shot at a low ISO - anything with a big dynamic range. Let's say ISO 100 or 160 - well within the pattern zone. Push the shadows to an unnatural extent just so we can see if you have the pattern or not.

-K

Ill try to today, the thing is I had to use fill light at 100% to even see the pattern noise and even then it wasnt that noticable. How bout we all post shots just to see how this banding exactly occurs. High iso however banding galore lol.

Poe wrote in post #10581067
Why, yes, yes it is.

yes, it started that way and the thread is full of posts complaining about the same issue. Incessantly. Without end. I've posted several times the suggestion that owners could deal with the issue by "not going there" and shooting at mid ISO. You know, suggesting a technique that they could implement that would avoid their problem and let them persue a life of religious fulfillment. Kind of like learning how to use flash, or noise ninja, or whatrever.

So the real question is: is this thread a bitchfest without end, or an open venue for the exchange of ideas and the fruitful application thereof?

For those still posting here are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

Poe wrote in post #10581067
Why, yes, yes it is.

So let's see your 5d2 iso 100 shots... oh, I see again

I just read this whole thread

Just sayin'.

timbop wrote in post #10585076
yes, it started that way and the thread is full of posts complaining about the same issue. Incessantly. Without end. I've posted several times the suggestion that owners could deal with the issue by "not going there" and shooting at mid ISO. You know, suggesting a technique that they could implement that would avoid their problem and let them persue a life of religious fulfillment. Kind of like learning how to use flash, or noise ninja, or whatrever.

So the real question is: is this thread a bitchfest without end, or an open venue for the exchange of ideas and the fruitful application thereof?

For those still posting here are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

I agree, I posted that this was a rehash thread but I got attacked... some offered solutions but many just bitched. So im trying to play devils advocate and post my findings. I called for others to post their findings and yet nothing... nothing at all.

timbop wrote in post #10585076
yes, it started that way and the thread is full of posts complaining about the same issue. Incessantly. Without end. I've posted several times the suggestion that owners could deal with the issue by "not going there" and shooting at mid ISO. You know, suggesting a technique that they could implement that would avoid their problem and let them persue a life of religious fulfillment. Kind of like learning how to use flash, or noise ninja, or whatrever.

So the real question is: is this thread a bitchfest without end, or an open venue for the exchange of ideas and the fruitful application thereof?

For those still posting here are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

I think the best solution, with image quality in mind, is to use multi-exposure, HDR type, technique. This way you don't have to compromise on DR. Although, considering that read noise is lower at higher ISO, it may very well be better to use many more high ISO shots, such as 1600, versus fewer 100 shots. I suppose it will depend on your patience for working with blending frames.

timbop wrote in post #10585087
So let's see your 5d2 iso 100 shots... oh, I see again

I don't have a 5D2, so I can't supply. But I do have a 7D which has it's own set of low ISO FPN issues.

Actually, the solution isn't using ISO 400. That's a workaround to make up for Canon's mistake.

Why should anyone spend $2500, and then have to buy and mess around with ND filters instead of being able to use ISO 100? Especially for a vaunted portrait camera, where low ISO performance can be more important than high ISO. I guess that's why it's cheaper than the 5D was.

Of course, if you don't need to mess around with sync speeds or slow shutter speeds, then go ahead and use ISO 400 and don't worry about it. But that doesn't make it not a problem.