5D4 Sensor Defect Discovered

[Loswr]

As a group, when faced with incomplete data, we are fast to jump to the most disastrous scenario and ignore the probable

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be Canon's fault?

—Sherlock Holga

 

[unfocused]

Oh Ive done the 5d3 comparison. For my two units, the 3 is worse...
The 4 is definitely better, at least for mine...

So in 24 pages of a Defective Sensor thread we have determined that the perceived defect we find that in reality it wasn't a defect at all, the Mark IV is an improved version over the old III...

That's my conclusion as well.

 

[MichaelTheMaven]

FWIW - I have about 200 respondents now to the poll, about half are reporting the issue, the other half are not. I was originally in contact with Canon on both Twitter and FB and initially they said basically if I was seeing a problem in my own camera to send it in for an engineer to look at.

When I followed up with them and pointed out this is a more wide-spread issue than my own case, presented my video and asked what they wanted me to share with my subscribers they ceased communicating with me.

One user also mentioned that he is seeing the same problem in the 1DXii, but I do not have one to test.

Ill post a follow up video soon.

MM

 

[dak723]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

 

[PixelTrawler]

Oh Ive done the 5d3 comparison. For my two units, the 3 is worse...
The 4 is definitely better, at least for mine...

So in 24 pages of a Defective Sensor thread we have determined that the perceived defect we find that in reality it wasn't a defect at all, the Mark IV is an improved version over the old III.

Edit: In previous posts there were comments about Canon acknowledging this issue. It appears they have since they say the IV is an improvement over the III.

Not so fast: "They" is one person. I shot similar pictures and 5D3 did not have this color bands. The image was worse only in the 1% where there was nothing but pure black. In the rest of 99% the 5D3 image was better. Slight noise but NO color bands...

Correct, the 5d3 does not show colour bands at all. Its more random. Ive used it for over 3 years and never seen such banding.

As for feeling the 4 is better, I was careful to say with my two units. Im not claiming the results apply to others.
And basing that also on my use cases.

The 5d 3 looks like someone got a fork and scratched all over the image. The 5d 4 looks like someone has painted stripes over the image. But the Mark 4 doesnt show it (in limited testing) as easily. This is why I think its better.

I can definitely push images more on the Mark 4. I need to do more testing on Lightroom vs Dpp. I expected to see it in both programs if its definitely a sensor issue. It could be a raw processing problem.

I do feel this is a problem (limitation/defect/issue) that may limit the processing of some issues (for me). And I hope its reduced through firmware or software.

Even having said all I that I think its a brilliant camera and I cant wait to start using it properly. Its amazing how far the series has come from my first full frame, the 5d2 (now that had banding!)

 

[MichaelTheMaven]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

 

[PixelTrawler]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

Michael, your youtube video put me on to looking for the issue in mine. Thanks for doing that.
Not sure if your are on potn forum but theres a user Tally you should join forces with, hes been gathering samples from owners in relation to this.

Keep up the good work

 

[Mikehit]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

I find the use of the word 'concerned' interesting.
Nearly everyone who has seen this 'problem' also says that it does not affect images in normal everyday use. If that is the case why would you be 'concerned'?

 

[Alex_M]

Mike,

A single normal every day use that could be affected by this phenomenon I can think of is: very long bulb exposures. If the issue is related to readout noise, then I would hazard the guess that very long exposures (30 min+, 1 hour + ?? )can result in the phenomenon being detectable at normal exposure levels. Star trails is one of those normal everyday uses I can think of.

... Nearly everyone who has seen this 'problem' also says that it does not affect images in normal everyday use. If that is the case why would you be 'concerned'?

 

[tron]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

I find the use of the word 'concerned' interesting.
Nearly everyone who has seen this 'problem' also says that it does not affect images in normal everyday use. If that is the case why would you be 'concerned'?

5D Mark III and even 5D Mark II not to mention 5D classic would seem OK in normal everyday use. Then why do they get upgraded to something better?

EDIT: You can also read page 11 for my non normal every day use. On second thought it is my normal yearly use (2,3 times per year depending on the moon position...). Up to now I manage using 5D3+ML. I guess everyone has their own non normal everyday use...

 

[tron]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

Best answer in thread...

 

[wockawocka]

FWIW - I have about 200 respondents now to the poll, about half are reporting the issue, the other half are not. I was originally in contact with Canon on both Twitter and FB and initially they said basically if I was seeing a problem in my own camera to send it in for an engineer to look at.

When I followed up with them and pointed out this is a more wide-spread issue than my own case, presented my video and asked what they wanted me to share with my subscribers they ceased communicating with me.

One user also mentioned that he is seeing the same problem in the 1DXii, but I do not have one to test.

Ill post a follow up video soon.

MM

Did you ever post the raw files for people to look at? Because I'd of liked to of tried to replicate what you were getting but I have looked and I can't see it online anywhere, which most people would of done to validate the issue and lend credability to the claim.

 

[dak723]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

Best answer in thread...

I can assure you - I would not. Because I don't underexpose pics by 4 or 5 stops. Not once in 40 years. Now, if you notice this problem under normal usage (whatever that is for you) then by all means take the camera in for service or return it for a refund or exchange. But it seems the vast majority - with perhaps one or two exceptions - are finding this issue by pushing the camera to (or perhaps beyond) it's limitations. In other words, they could take pics for the next 5 years and never notice it. So, for them, it's not a defect. It's NOTHING.

But that is what we do here on CA, isn't it? Trying to make something out of nothing to create anxiety, anger, disgust and a negative feeling for anyone buying a new camera.

Sorry, I won't play that game.

 

[tron]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

Best answer in thread...

I can assure you - I would not. Because I don't underexpose pics by 4 or 5 stops. Not once in 40 years. Now, if you notice this problem under normal usage (whatever that is for you) then by all means take the camera in for service or return it for a refund or exchange. But it seems the vast majority - with perhaps one or two exceptions - are finding this issue by pushing the camera to (or perhaps beyond) it's limitations. In other words, they could take pics for the next 5 years and never notice it. So, for them, it's not a defect. It's NOTHING.

But that is what we do here on CA, isn't it? Trying to make something out of nothing to create anxiety, anger, disgust and a negative feeling for anyone buying a new camera.

Sorry, I won't play that game.

On the contrary anyone who wants/needs it should get it just make sure the camera is up to expectations. Actually not expectations, just better than 5D3. Don't forget that the initial expectations were created by dpr site where although not up to Nikon they mentioned a huge improvement in DR and posted examples up to -6EV. The didn't mentioned anything like color bands at anything below or equal to -3EV. So it is easy for someone to assume that their camera is faulty. I will not return my camera, I will try to use it but I know in every day use it will be OK and the real test would be in a specific type of shooting that will happen in June. Up to now I manage it using 5D3 with Magic Lantern's dual iso feature. the funny thing: the replcacement box contained the initial accessories. I do not mind of course but I hadn't removed the eycap in the returned camera (it had been left on it) and I got a replacement without one! I phoned to tell them and now I hope they will send me one. The more serious is what will happen to a 5D3 of me. I guess I will have to sell it before it loses value. That will require tests because apart from DR I like my 5D3 very much and I have to be certain about 5D4 (in other parts than DR) to part with my 5D3.

 

[JukkaS]

Quite amazing to see so many people more interested in baloney than in taking actual photographs exposed correctly. If you can't expose even close to correctly, then the problem is not Canon's nor Canon's sensor.

Maybe if you had a 5D4 that showed the issue, you would be concerned as well.

Best answer in thread...

I can assure you - I would not. Because I don't underexpose pics by 4 or 5 stops. Not once in 40 years. Now, if you notice this problem under normal usage (whatever that is for you) then by all means take the camera in for service or return it for a refund or exchange. But it seems the vast majority - with perhaps one or two exceptions - are finding this issue by pushing the camera to (or perhaps beyond) it's limitations. In other words, they could take pics for the next 5 years and never notice it. So, for them, it's not a defect. It's NOTHING.

But that is what we do here on CA, isn't it? Trying to make something out of nothing to create anxiety, anger, disgust and a negative feeling for anyone buying a new camera.

Sorry, I won't play that game.

On the contrary anyone who wants/needs it should get it just make sure the camera is up to expectations. Actually not expectations, just better than 5D3. Don't forget that the initial expectations were created by dpr site where although not up to Nikon they mentioned a huge improvement in DR and posted examples up to -6EV. The didn't mentioned anything like color bands at anything below or equal to -3EV. So it is easy for someone to assume that their camera is faulty. I will not return my camera, I will try to use it but I know in every day use it will be OK and the real test would be in a specific type of shooting that will happen in June. Up to now I manage it using 5D3 with Magic Lantern's dual iso feature. the funny thing: the replcacement box contained the initial accessories. I do not mind of course but I hadn't removed the eycap in the returned camera (it had been left on it) and I got a replacement without one! I phoned to tell them and now I hope they will send me one. The more serious is what will happen to a 5D3 of me. I guess I will have to sell it before it loses value. That will require tests because apart from DR I like my 5D3 very much and I have to be certain about 5D4 (in other parts than DR) to part with my 5D3.

In these great articles from 2013-2014 there is already a note about the problems in Canon with BASE ISO: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed/2 & https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening referring to especially 6D and 5D series.

Here the quote even though I recommend that articles:
"** It is also worth repeating here the substance of a footnote on page 1 of the article. A stop or two of ISO may be beneficial for certain cameras, like the Canon 5D and 6D series, that have banding issues at base ISO. Clearly if a camera's IQ is problematic at base ISO, higher values may profitably be employed. Further, some cameras, like the Nikon D300 or Olympus E-M1, have extended low ISOs that are not suitable to be used as base ISO. Other cameras, such as the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7Rii, employ a sensor technology (DR-Pix) that effectively has two base ISOs. As with any shooting technique, proper ETTR requires one to know one's equipment".

Canons are not completely ISO-invariant and therefore it is best to use ISOs from 400 up if you want to achieve the best results. Comparing to Nikon and Sony is not the same, since Canon is far behind them with lower ISOs. This is something I have noticed in my own testing as well. The banding/striking is horrible if there is very little information in the shadows. Do the same with a bit longer exposure with ISO 400 or higher and "expose to the right" = expose by highlights to save and boost 1-2 stops up in the camera. The results are grazy clean even when pushing shadows.

I shoot (will shoot) a lot of landscapes with my 5D4 and I am not happy with this fact. Maby too early to say that we just have to live with this even they could do something with firmware, but that is what I believe. But let´s see what they tell people who have their cameras still in for repairing/replacement.

I said earlier that I won´t post this thread anymore, but seems that I am too weak to stay away .

 

[wilier]

Photo taken from:

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery

Vignetting correction, + 1EV, + 100 shadow recovery.
Sorry, but this is not normal. My old 5dmk3 is way better.

 

[meywd]

Photo taken from:

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery

Vignetting correction, + 1EV, + 100 shadow recovery.
Sorry, but this is not normal. My old 5dmk3 is way better.

since you know its better can you give us the same shot with the 5D3?

the meaning is, unless you have both cameras same as the others who do in this thread, your comparison will mean nothing.

 

[JukkaS]

Photo taken from:

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery

Vignetting correction, + 1EV, + 100 shadow recovery.
Sorry, but this is not normal. My old 5dmk3 is way better.

since you know its better can you give us the same shot with the 5D3?

the meaning is, unless you have both cameras same as the others who do in this thread, your comparison will mean nothing.

YES . I said earlier that 6D never did this. I meant the striking/banding, but the noice is whole a lot worse and so is on 5D3. There are many examples of that on the former pages. That particular frame is a great example shot compeletely wrong. It is way underexposed, since shot/exposed by highlights, bot no lift in shadows in camera (+ BASE ISO 100). You can clearly see even from histogram that the shadows are clipping badly exactly from the area where the striking is the worst. I checked that photo earlier too. In same scenario you can hardly see any details with 5D3. As said, if you really need to shoot like that, Canon is not your camera. There are many workarounds though.

I am still struggling with this myself too. But let´s be realistic how amazing 5D3/6D has been in similar scenarios.

 

[Chaitanya]

Please give me, update to 180m or 59mm macro and also 400mm f/4 lens. I dont have cash for 2.8 lens nor do I care to carry 400mm 2.8 around but a f/4 lens woukd be perfect for trekking in himalayas.

 

[risc32]

I've been gone for a while. came back to look around and i see i haven't missed much. people who don't know what they are doing running around saying the sky is falling, but i guess that's the internet for ya'. at least we have moved on from photography with the lens cap on..... progress i suppose.