Threads
Does "Banding" exist
- By Maui5150
- Canon General
- 11 Replies
the new crappy iMac 5K display got me thinking.
This iMac is 8-bit color (16.7 million) where monitors like the one I use are 1.07 Billion (10-bit color per channel)
To achieve an environment capable of 1 Billion plus colors, you need more than a monitor, you need a capable video card as well as you need applications capable of running 30-bit vs the standard 24. some earlier versions of Photoshop, for example were not 30-bit capable
A simple way of seeing if you are capable of 30-bit are images like this
My monitor at work shows banding... at home it is crisp and clean gradient that is as smooth as butter.
Got me thinking. Always hear about the 5d MK III has banding, the Nikon D810 has banding... on and on.
Is this banding on the sensor, or like, in the image above, is it the LCD screen on back of camera, or even that pricey monitor that only handles 8-bits per channel
Not saying that issues may not exist, but would be curious if when people are doing reviews, pixel peeping images and the like, more quantitatively environmental variables were specified.
I have really seen no issues with banding with my 5D MK III, then again, most of the time I am in a 30-bit environment
Just food for thought
This iMac is 8-bit color (16.7 million) where monitors like the one I use are 1.07 Billion (10-bit color per channel)
To achieve an environment capable of 1 Billion plus colors, you need more than a monitor, you need a capable video card as well as you need applications capable of running 30-bit vs the standard 24. some earlier versions of Photoshop, for example were not 30-bit capable
A simple way of seeing if you are capable of 30-bit are images like this
My monitor at work shows banding... at home it is crisp and clean gradient that is as smooth as butter.
Got me thinking. Always hear about the 5d MK III has banding, the Nikon D810 has banding... on and on.
Is this banding on the sensor, or like, in the image above, is it the LCD screen on back of camera, or even that pricey monitor that only handles 8-bits per channel
Not saying that issues may not exist, but would be curious if when people are doing reviews, pixel peeping images and the like, more quantitatively environmental variables were specified.
I have really seen no issues with banding with my 5D MK III, then again, most of the time I am in a 30-bit environment
Just food for thought
Not Another 6D vs 7DMKII Thread? well..... :D
First, i am not a pro, I have the 600D and planing on getting both of the 7DMKII and the 6D - when the cash available 
- for birds, action, astro, landscape, portraits, night and weddings\events photography.
I am still at 36K shots with mine, but am planning to keep it as a backup to the 7DMKII, i started trying to shoot birds recently when i got the 100-400, and once tried doing it with the 70-200, yeah AF is not that good for BIF, and even birds on trees, when there is a busy background the AF goes hunting too much, but i know that's the outcome of AI Servo and a small bird
I have two options, get the 7DMKII or the 6D first - i wish i can get both at once, yup self proclaimed GAS, and photography is only part of it - the thing is i can get both but i need a bunch of lenses with the 6D, as you can see in the sig, i don't have a FF wide lens, so a 24-70 f4 IS is duo with the 6D, also for astro i will get the samyang 14mm f2.8 and 24mm f1.4, i am still at milky way level, but that's enough for me now.
So, the question is, which to get first? we are going into winter so astro photography here will be on hold until april - as no milky way, and very cold weather in the desert - and for birds the season of migration is ending if not ended, but those are not the only factors, night events\weddings\portraits is a main reason to get the 6D, i have a flash, but that's not always an option, also landscape is an interest for me and wide lenses are not really wide with crop sensors.
- for birds, action, astro, landscape, portraits, night and weddings\events photography.I am still at 36K shots with mine, but am planning to keep it as a backup to the 7DMKII, i started trying to shoot birds recently when i got the 100-400, and once tried doing it with the 70-200, yeah AF is not that good for BIF, and even birds on trees, when there is a busy background the AF goes hunting too much, but i know that's the outcome of AI Servo and a small bird
I have two options, get the 7DMKII or the 6D first - i wish i can get both at once, yup self proclaimed GAS, and photography is only part of it
- the thing is i can get both but i need a bunch of lenses with the 6D, as you can see in the sig, i don't have a FF wide lens, so a 24-70 f4 IS is duo with the 6D, also for astro i will get the samyang 14mm f2.8 and 24mm f1.4, i am still at milky way level, but that's enough for me now.So, the question is, which to get first? we are going into winter so astro photography here will be on hold until april - as no milky way, and very cold weather in the desert - and for birds the season of migration is ending if not ended, but those are not the only factors, night events\weddings\portraits is a main reason to get the 6D, i have a flash, but that's not always an option, also landscape is an interest for me and wide lenses are not really wide with crop sensors.
Upgrade?
- EOS Bodies
- 10 Replies
Hello All,
I need some advice. I've been using my 600d for a while now, and I don't know whether it's time for me to upgrade, or whether I ought to be practising my skills and stop thinking about gear.
You can see my photographs here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhooper/
What do you think? Would a 7d ii be a good idea? Or should I think about improving some other area of my photography?
Things that bug me about the 600d:
• I can't select the iso as exactly as I'd like. With the 400 5.6 I often want to shoot between 400 and 800 and I can't.
• I can keep the centre-dot on the birds ok, but they still often come out a bit out of focus. I'd say I'd get 1 in 20 in focus with a bird in flight. Maybe 1 in 5 are pretty good, but not good enough. 1 in 100 is tack sharp. I have no idea why it's such a lottery, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not me!
• At 800 iso I have very little dynamic range to play with, so if the bird is black and white I'm in trouble if the exposure isn't perfect.
• I only shoot in manual, and having a bit more customizability might be good. Certainly having a couple of definable presets would be very useful.
I'm also worried that having taken a lot of photos with it over the past three years (easily 100000+), that it's going to die on me anyway. It already works better with some gaffer tape.
(It's surprisingly think plastic, and even sliding down a rock with it didn't get through the body, though it scraped quite a few millimetres from the corner. And the screen has little bits of white stuff in it, and has done for 2 1/2 years now. And the hot-shoe is a bit bent from said slide down a rock.)
I have the sigma 35 1.4 and the canon 400 5.6, and the 18-55 it came with, of course, though I almost never use it. I sometimes wonder if something in the middle would be useful! 100 2.8L? But I can't have everything and I'd rather stick to one or two lenses and get better at what they can do.
Thoughts? & Thanks!
Michael
I need some advice. I've been using my 600d for a while now, and I don't know whether it's time for me to upgrade, or whether I ought to be practising my skills and stop thinking about gear.
You can see my photographs here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhooper/
What do you think? Would a 7d ii be a good idea? Or should I think about improving some other area of my photography?
Things that bug me about the 600d:
• I can't select the iso as exactly as I'd like. With the 400 5.6 I often want to shoot between 400 and 800 and I can't.
• I can keep the centre-dot on the birds ok, but they still often come out a bit out of focus. I'd say I'd get 1 in 20 in focus with a bird in flight. Maybe 1 in 5 are pretty good, but not good enough. 1 in 100 is tack sharp. I have no idea why it's such a lottery, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not me!
• At 800 iso I have very little dynamic range to play with, so if the bird is black and white I'm in trouble if the exposure isn't perfect.
• I only shoot in manual, and having a bit more customizability might be good. Certainly having a couple of definable presets would be very useful.
I'm also worried that having taken a lot of photos with it over the past three years (easily 100000+), that it's going to die on me anyway. It already works better with some gaffer tape.
(It's surprisingly think plastic, and even sliding down a rock with it didn't get through the body, though it scraped quite a few millimetres from the corner. And the screen has little bits of white stuff in it, and has done for 2 1/2 years now. And the hot-shoe is a bit bent from said slide down a rock.)I have the sigma 35 1.4 and the canon 400 5.6, and the 18-55 it came with, of course, though I almost never use it. I sometimes wonder if something in the middle would be useful! 100 2.8L? But I can't have everything and I'd rather stick to one or two lenses and get better at what they can do.
Thoughts? & Thanks!
Michael
Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB