Firmware v1.2.0 seems to have solved a banding issue that was present in the Canon EOS R

    By 57 Comments2 Mins Read Canon EOS R
    polleosr 728x462 - Firmware v1.2.0 seems to have solved a banding issue that was present in the Canon EOS R

    When Canon releases a new firmware version, there is the usual list of fixes and feature enhancements, but there are also fixes that aren't for public consumption and won't be mentioned in the firmware documentation and it appears at least one such issue was fixed quietly in the Canon EOS R with firmware v1.2.0.

    Michael The Maven has posted a comparison of two EOS R cameras, one with firmware v1.1.0 which experienced banding issues and the brand new firmware v1.2.0 which seems to have corrected the issue.

    From Michael the Maven:

    Ladies and Gentlemen! WE HAVE DONE IT!! Thank you so much to the many of you who gave feedback, shared my videos, posted in forums and relayed the information you received from Canon, I can confirm that Firmware update 1.2.0 resolves the banding issue I reported back in November on the Canon EOS R!

    I received a lot of unfounded criticism from those who didn't understand the issue, but we stood by the results we were seeing, that it was a real issue, and now Canon has quietly released a firmware issue that resolves it! WELL DONE EVERYONE! This is how powerful social media can be when we work together! If you are an EOS R owner, I would strongly suggest you update to 1.2.0 and reap the benefits of improved sensor performance!

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    57 comments

    1. Technically, the problem he’s seeing is CMOS smear, and it affects all cmos sensors to some degree, although canon sensors have been leading culprits as they try to eek out every last drop of DR from their aging sensors. That maven man is running a crazily overexposed chart, and then lifting the shadows to illustrate the issue isn’t helpful, as, even in worst case landscape scenarios, it’s unlikely that he would overexposed the sun by 7 stops AND still be lifting his shadows by X number of stops. But it’s nice that canon has found a solution - perhaps they can port it to the c300 II which also exhibits cmos smear (to a much greater degree).
    2. I just hate it when folks use charts badly to prove problems that don’t exist. That Stouffer chart he’s using has a Dmax of 4.05, thus covers 13..5 stops of DR (which depending on your core philosophy, is a near match for the R sensor’s DR, or exceeds it by a stop or two. Either way, The opaque area around the chart well exceeds the DR of the camera by a good margin. By overexposing the chart by 5-7 stops as he has, that opaque area (in theory, if he’s doing it right, which I doubt :) doesn’t change value except for flare caused by the overexposure. So he’s increasing DR by an additional # of stops beyond what the sensor is rated for, and claiming a problem. As canon responded, his test exceeds the sensor’s capabilities, by a good margin, and in all the hdr sunsets I’ve seen posted from this sensor in the last few years, I’ve never noticed anything like what he’s showing us. Canon, in its fix, has simply masked an issue that is happening below the noise floor on this camera, so we can all sleep well again.
    3. Glad to hear the banding issue is gone, but "Couldn't use the 5DIV or EOS-R for serious landscape...." because of banding?

      :rolleyes::rolleyes:

      I like to understand the equipment I am using and have done several tests. About twice I have seen banding in some test shots where I was pushing/pulling my 5DIV. A bit odd, but I did not always see it, but a couple of times, sure. If I recall, this occurred fairly specifically, extremely underexposed image, longer shutter speeds, pushed ~4-5 stops in post. But I have never had this impact an actual image, landscape or otherwise.

      But, if you need to push an image 4-5 stops for your photography, ok, Canon may not be for you.
    5. Is this the same guy that used to troll this site with posts whose sole purpose were clickbait for his You Tube Channel? If so, I hate to see Canon Rumors Guy rewarding that behavior.
    6. Glad to hear the banding issue is gone, but "Couldn't use the 5DIV or EOS-R for serious landscape...." because of banding?

      :rolleyes::rolleyes:

      I like to understand the equipment I am using and have done several tests. About twice I have seen banding in some test shots where I was pushing/pulling my 5DIV. A bit odd, but I did not always see it, but a couple of times, sure. If I recall, this occurred fairly specifically, extremely underexposed image, longer shutter speeds, pushed ~4-5 stops in post. But I have never had this impact an actual image, landscape or otherwise.

      But, if you need to push an image 4-5 stops for your photography, ok, Canon may not be for you.

      He said landscape work with the sun in the image - in that case you would like to have 16-20 stops of DR. And IMO he is right.
    7. Great news... Canon should also fix the IS-always-on issue. For me it is the only problem with the R. My 300L II is unusable with this body.
      Oh, I thought it would be a M50-only issue - in my case with the 70-200 f/4 IS lens. Really annoying in my opinion especially because of the higher power draw of ML cameras.
    8. He said landscape work with the sun in the image - in that case you would like to have 16-20 stops of DR. And IMO he is right.
      Yes because it is impossible to take an image with a Canon camera with the sun in the frame and retain any kind of DR or shadow detail.

      Or is it......184194
    10. Yes because it is impossible to take an image with a Canon camera with the sun in the frame and retain any kind of DR or shadow detail.

      Or is it......

      Great shot! I don't expect to see anything comparable from the DRoners.
    11. Yes because it is impossible to take an image with a Canon camera with the sun in the frame and retain any kind of DR or shadow detail.

      Or is it....

      It's a very good shot but I think the necessary DR isn't that vast because the gray surface has around 20% reflection (looks like a Kodak gray card) and the sun is blown out. Do you have used a mask to make the person brighter?

      The sun in the frame in a deep forest is impossible right now with available photographic cameras so I would like to have 16 stops or more but I know very well that it will not always help if you try to compress that dynamics into a 6 or 8 stop wide print.
    12. Great news... Canon should also fix the IS-always-on issue. For me it is the only problem with the R. My 300L II is unusable with this body.

      I've used the 300 IS ii on the R, and I wouldn't remotely call it unusable. Mode 3 works almost exactly the same as before. I agree, it would be better if IS stops whenever the metering stops to save power (much like the DSLRs), but I haven't noticed a dramatic power hit beyond the usual living in live view. I have noticed that whenever I shoot with the main display disabled, after the viewfinder turns itself off upon removal of my face, IS seems to stop regardless of power savings settings.

      Presumably they want to keep the image stabilized for all the face and object tracking algorithms, but it would be nice to customize the operation. Still, I'm not worried about it.
    15. Under what circumstances would the sun not be blown out?
      If you do not saturate the photosites of your sensor. With enough DR you could map the tones to that result - or if you have the right display medium. OLED might be one step in the right direction if the OS of your computer delivers precise data to represent the brightness levels ... or micro LEDs (sub-mm anorganic LEDs) which are non-organic and burn-in-proof but expensive (now). They are state-of-the-art in cinema displays.

      A LEDs photon flux can be changed between 10 photons per second up to 10^12 photons per second should be possible resulting in a DR of roughly ridculous 25 stops ... theoretically.
      EDIT: 10^12 = 1 000 000 000 000 is a rough estimate
    17. Is this the same guy that used to troll this site with posts whose sole purpose were clickbait for his You Tube Channel? If so, I hate to see Canon Rumors Guy rewarding that behavior.

      I don't remember him on these forums, but there is folks that write in to me about DR and banding and I thought the content was relevant to those people.

      I'm personally not one of those people that care about DR specs and pushing shadows by a million stops... but to each their own.
    18. It's a very good shot but I think the necessary DR isn't that vast because...

      Every time. Every single time a wide DR scene is shot on a Canon someone comes back with "...it's not THAT wide a scene." Like clock work. No examples of their own...but the Canon example just isn't good enough. DxO and DPReview said so!

      ...and the sun is blown out.

      :rolleyes:

      When it's on the other side of the earth? :p

      Neuro...when the sun is on the other side of the Earth you should be able to aim your camera at the ground, take a shot, and reveal the sun by pushing the shadow detail. Of course Canon can't do that but I bet Sony can! :ROFLMAO:
    19. If you do not saturate the photosites of your sensor. With enough DR you could map the tones to that result - or if you have the right display medium.
      Or if your camera was turned off. At the risk of derailing your pedantry, the point of the question was under what practical circumstances would the sun not be blown out. A 13-stop ND (e.g. solar eclipse filter) would result in the sun not blowing out, but of course everything in the image that wasn't the sun would be pitch black.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment