Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?
What is: exposure compensation?
Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).The guy would not stay still, you know.
What does that have to do with the instructions on how to best post process this image? Did you even read what he said? Do you think he's telling you to shoot multiple exposures? (Hint: ETTR means Expose To The Right.) I just tried those two steps on your unprocessed JPEG and there's zero noise or banding on a properly calibrated monitor. (Key point I'm going to address in a moment.)
Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.
I can confirm that in ACR8.1 +35 NR eliminates the noise and banding, again on a properly calibrated monitor.
Why do I keep throwing in that phrase? Because if you shove the brightness on a monitor up (or stand up and stare down at an extreme angle) you can see some noise again. That's not how a print will look. And that's not how it will look on any normal monitor. But I've seen monitors with brightness / contrast / saturation shoved up so high that it's like adding 3EV to a photo while pushing the colors into neon. Since we're actually picking apart an example with instructions it's critical to view the results properly. If your monitor is not calibrated...and that includes more steps then just using the color pucks...fix it.
Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what?
You're not exposing or processing correctly and you're not listening. The instructions had nothing to do with multiple exposures. Please re-read the post.
I went one step further in that I used the instructions with the unprocessed file and added 35NR and 50% sharpening to clear any noise but retain detail in the face, hands, etc. Guess what? There's not really any noise to see even if I shove the brightness up on my monitor. Even your poorly processed example would not show any noise in print. The properly processed one doesn't show any noise at all.
Now do you understand why we're sick of hearing about Sony sensors? Yes, they have cleaner shadows. Yes, that means they can take more abuse. But it's difficult to even imagine an edge case where it matters. To come up with such edge cases you have to imagine the absurd, like shooting with a broken flash. (You don't realize the flash isn't firing? You don't have a spare? You can't crank up the ISO when you realize...on the first shot...hey the flash is broke?)
Yet the people who push this in canonrumors (and I don't see this come up nearly as often any where else) act like the difference in shadow noise and pushed DR is literally the end of the world. Throw your Canon cameras away because it's just impossible to work without a "modern sensor."
That phrase also ticks me off. We all know that the difference in shadow noise comes down to a Sony patent. That doesn't mean Canon sensors aren't "modern." The sensor in my M is cleaner then the sensor in my 7D, and the 70D sensor is cleaner still. And I would say the 6D has a 1 stop high ISO noise advantage over the D600 with a normal exposure (as opposed to a +5EV no NR torture test zoomed 200% into a shadow). But somehow these sensors and improvements are not "modern"?
Whatever. Learn how to process your files, then maybe complain about a sensor.