# 5D4 Sensor Defect Discovered



## LSXPhotog (Oct 16, 2016)

Well Michael the Maven made a post (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30990.0) that got me to do my own testing so see if it was an isolated occurrence, or something that impacted my 5D4 as well. Turns out, YES...my 5D4 sensors experiences the same phenomena that could actually impact real-world results. Also worth noting is just how poorly my camera recovers shadows at ISO 100 versus ISO 50.

The details on what generated this phenomena: I underexposed by 5 stops and then recovered the RAW file 5 stops and pushed the shadows 100% to intensify the ability to see the problem. I then repeated 4 stops under and pushed them the same 5 stops and 100% shadows. The pattern appears to streak across the frame as if the results of the reading on the left side of the image impact the remaining photo-sites horizontally from it.

Obviously I never underexpose an image my as much as 5 stops, and the problem doesn't seem to appear when you're 3-stops under...but let's be real! This shouldn't happen at all PERIOD. I think I may be exchanging my 5D4 after I call Canon next week and see what they have to say about it. This could very well be a defect.

Image 1: 5D3 on the left and 5D4 on the right: ISO 50, 5-stops under, pushed 5-stops and 100% shadows






Image 2: 5D3 on the left and 5D4 on the right: ISO 100, 5-stops under, pushed 5-stops and 100% shadows





Image 3: 5D4 ISO 50 on the left and ISO 100 on the right: 5-stops under, pushed 5-stops and 100% shadows





Image 4: 5D4 ISO 50 on the left and ISO 100 on the right: 4-stops under, pushed 5-stops and 100% shadows





Image 5: Zoomed in to show detail on Image 3.





Image 6: Zoomed in to show detail on Image 4.





Just wanted to share my results here and I'll add more information after I speak to Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2016)

We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 17, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.



Photography was a skill, a talent, and art. It has become so easy for anyone to pick up a camera, with a electronic viewfinder and the ability to push exposures 5 stops. why does anyone need to learn anything any more. Change your sething until the evf looks right. Ugh.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 17, 2016)

this camera's been out for 1 month and change 
WHY IS EVERYBODY TRYING TOO FIND AS MANY FLAWS as possible for the 5d4 smh :
either buy it be happy or don't buy it use what you have leave too nikon or sony


----------



## Alejandro (Oct 17, 2016)

I just had to see this for myself, so i did this:

Underexposed a pic by 5 stops with iso 50.
Then underexposed 5 stops in post.
Then export in tiff.
Then underexpose 5 stops again.
Then export again in tiff.
Then overexpose by 15 stops.

The result was this:


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> my 5D4 sensors experiences the same phenomena that could actually impact real-world results.
> [snip]
> *Obviously I never underexpose an image my as much as 5 stops*



Then how is it going to affect your real world results?



LSXPhotog said:


> I think I may be exchanging my 5D4 after I call Canon next week and see what they have to say about it.



I'd love to hear what the engineers would say when someone calls asking about image artifacts occurring after increasing brightness by 3100%.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 17, 2016)

In the real world...

Standard process in Lightroom the day it supported the Mark IV raw files



Canon 5D Mark IV test LR6 3255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

5 stop push just for fun... Lots of clean stuff in the dakness



Canon 5D Mark IV 5 stop push LR6 3379 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Final image



Reno 2016 Steve working on Voodoo 4255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 17, 2016)

"Some of the posts in here might break the Internet. LOL Some people will never be happy with what Canon delivers...just continue worrying about your gear and taking awful images and blaming the gear. (Hint: it's not the gear)"

Anyone care to guess who made this wise statement? Hint: it wasn't me. 

Jack


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 17, 2016)

Can't wait to get my Mk4, looks way better than the Mk3.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2016)

5d4 is miles ahead of Canon's previous bodies in raw editing latitude.
Even i'd consider using a 5d4 for cat pictures and would likely have little to complain about, unlike the 2 previous versions.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 17, 2016)

Spock said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



And CFast was supposed to fix the bent-pins problem. BS. I jammed my CFast into my 5D4, and got F*** bent pins! Such huge design flaw.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 17, 2016)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> this camera's been out for 1 month and change wHY IS EVERYBODY TRYING TOO FIND AS MANY FLAWS as possible for the 5d4 smh :



Because before I spend 3k I want to be sure I get something better than I have today...


----------



## meywd (Oct 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Spock said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Oct 17, 2016)

Its all well and good testing but surely it should be based on real life situations and needs , just when are you going to need to do that ?

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Because before I spend 3k I want to be sure I get something better than I have today...



Well, as you keep on reminding us, this camera this camera is clearly not it so buy a ******** Sony.


----------



## kiwiengr (Oct 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Well Michael the Maven made a post (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30990.0) that got me to do my own testing so see if it was an isolated occurrence, or something that impacted my 5D4 as well. Turns out, YES...my 5D4 sensors experiences the same phenomena that could actually impact real-world results. Also worth noting is just how poorly my camera recovers shadows at ISO 100 versus ISO 50.
> 
> The details on what generated this phenomena: I underexposed by 5 stops and then recovered the RAW file 5 stops and pushed the shadows 100% to intensify the ability to see the problem. I then repeated 4 stops under and pushed them the same 5 stops and 100% shadows. The pattern appears to streak across the frame as if the results of the reading on the left side of the image impact the remaining photo-sites horizontally from it.
> 
> Obviously I never underexpose an image my as much as 5 stops, and the problem doesn't seem to appear when you're 3-stops under...but let's be real! This shouldn't happen at all PERIOD. I think I may be exchanging my 5D4 after I call Canon next week and see what they have to say about it. This could very well be a defect.



Have you performed this test with other Canon models, other manufacturer's equipment? Is there a benchmark for this?


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > this camera's been out for 1 month and change wHY IS EVERYBODY TRYING TOO FIND AS MANY FLAWS as possible for the 5d4 smh :
> ...


I see that you have 5DMkIII. Isn't 5DMkIV something better than what you have today?


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 17, 2016)

tron said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



I contrast to Mikehit's claim i never said it isnt. However I'm struggling if it is justifying the spend over what I do currently have.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 17, 2016)

tron said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



i see that your really trying too troll and need too mind your business


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 17, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Because before I spend 3k I want to be sure I get something better than I have today...
> ...



Why so thin-skinned?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2016)

I'm not. But virtually all your posts have been about how Canon is patently behind the curve in areas that are so important to you and because the camera has already been released nothing is going to change that. On the other hand Sony seems to do everything you want - unless of course if it doesn't I presume Sony are equally incompetent and you are posting on the Sony boards as well to explain this.

But the OP in this thread does nothing to really address any concerns that anyone has ever made about this (or any!!) camera's real-world operations so how it is supposed to show anybody anything useful is beyond me. Unless you can explain to me how how the link in the OP can be interpreted and is relevant to taking photos...


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Well Michael the Maven made a post (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30990.0) that got me to do my own testing so see if it was an isolated occurrence, or something that impacted my 5D4 as well. Turns out, YES...my 5D4 sensors experiences the same phenomena that could actually impact real-world results. Also worth noting is just how poorly my camera recovers shadows at ISO 100 versus ISO 50.



actually how do you know it's the sensor versus LR's handling of the data when it attempts to extract information from the shadows.

You are aware that just about every sensor including the D810 bands at extreme pushes and no one seems to mind?

Do the math on what are you doing to digital photon data .. lol. you are taking ADC data which is very low precision and multiplying it digitally, which is why even the best sensors start to fall apart with extreme shadow pushes. the photon and ADC error is magnified by two orders of magnitude, and is simply less precise.

Heck the D5 starts to fall apart with serious banding after an EV +4 push.

But I do wish you luck telling Canon that their sensors have a defect when using a third party application that is manipulating raw data. also ISO 50 is more likely software clipped so it's pretty immaterial as a demonstration.

good god, give someone a piece of software with a slider .. and they are an expert all of a sudden.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> I expected myself to order the MKIV relatively quickly after announcement. However I'm somewhat heistant. Yes it is an across the board improvement but i'm having a hard time justifying the spend for the incremental performance.



That's a perfectly reasonable attitude. Many people feel the same way. But, most don't feel compelled to repeatedly post about it. Many of your posts are, at a minimum, borderline trolling and that's what aggravates people.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> I expected myself to order the MKIV relatively quickly after announcement. However I'm somewhat heistant. Yes it is an across the board improvement but i'm having a hard time justifying the spend for the incremental performance.



Definitely a reasonable attitude.... I tend to skip models myself, unless met with catastrophic failure and the need for an immediate upgrade.....


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2016)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...


I hope you answered to me by mistake. But in case you didn't (and only then!)
1st It is not your job to tell me to mind my own business. 
2nd If you mean I am a troll try to formulate a correct sentence. 
3rd He has a 5DIII. 5DiV is definitely BETTER!
4th FYI, I do have 2 5d3s and I have ordered a 5DIV and it is coming in 2 days from now!


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2016)

@romanr74 you can justify the cost if you sell your 5D3 afterwards. I have ordered a 5D4 to get the increased DR in low ISO and the increased Mp. As soon as it passes the tests I will put a 5D3 on sale...


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I expected myself to order the MKIV relatively quickly after announcement. However I'm somewhat heistant. Yes it is an across the board improvement but i'm having a hard time justifying the spend for the incremental performance.
> ...



if only you didn't talk about what many people feel and what aggrevates people but if you talked for yourself, which i would consider credible...


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2016)

Although roman's comment borderlined with trolling I do not believe it was intentional. I see he has many specialized/top Canon lenses in his signature. More than many fanboys. So it is just the fear of new. I have ordered a 5D4 and I too fear a little. NOT for the specs which I like a lot, NOT for what someone discovered at the limits of ... (mis)use but just on focusing. I will put it to very good test and when all is well I will put a 5D3 for sale so as to make the cost easier to swallow. But it was the same with my 5D2->5D3 transition. Finally I sold my 5D2 and enjoyed my 5D3 ALOT!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Thanks for illustrating my point.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 17, 2016)

tron said:


> Although roman's comment borderlined with trolling I do not believe it was intentional. I see he has many specialized/top Canon lenses in his signature. More than many fanboys. So it is just the fear of new. I have ordered a 5D4 and I too fear a little. NOT for the specs which I like a lot, NOT for what someone discovered at the limits of ... (mis)use but just on focusing. I will put it to very good test and when all is well I will put a 5D3 for sale so as to make the cost easier to swallow. But it was the same with my 5D2->5D3 transition. Finally I sold my 5D2 and enjoyed my 5D3 ALOT!


Roman has $10k worth of Canon stuff. More than Neuro I think.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Although roman's comment borderlined with trolling I do not believe it was intentional. I see he has many specialized/top Canon lenses in his signature. More than many fanboys. So it is just the fear of new. I have ordered a 5D4 and I too fear a little. NOT for the specs which I like a lot, NOT for what someone discovered at the limits of ... (mis)use but just on focusing. I will put it to very good test and when all is well I will put a 5D3 for sale so as to make the cost easier to swallow. But it was the same with my 5D2->5D3 transition. Finally I sold my 5D2 and enjoyed my 5D3 ALOT!
> ...



Think again. He lists what he has and that includes a 600mm f4 IS MkII and a 1DX, combined over $10,000 for just those two.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 19, 2016)

Well first off, I'd like to say that about 90% of the posts made in this thread miss the point of why made this topic.

Secondly, to those that felt the need to bring my personal ability as a photographer into question: I invite you to actually research into my work and my clients before you make such an asinine statement - especially since the topic has no correlation to what I can or can't do behind a camera. To which I will humbly say is quite a bit.

The fact of the matter is this: I've never seen any digital camera I've ever owned (all CMOS) that have exhibited this sort of strange 'bleeding' to adjacent pixels. I included images from my 5D Mk III to show that even it's 4+ year old sensor didn't show this issue. It's weird. And, according to Michael the Maven, he's also never seen it either and he tests cameras for a living.

I made this post to say 'hey what a weird issue, what does everyone else think about it?' and apparently there isn't much thought on the issue...other than attacking me and saying I'm blaming the gear. Haha

Yes, I understand the level I'm pushing a file, but was curious if anyone knew what would cause this when no other camera does this. This isn't banding, folks.

Now if anyone would like to explain what's happening or why this weird phenomena occurs, I'm all ears.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 19, 2016)

LSXPhotog,

Can You plese see if the same fenomenon applies to DPRAW shots? idealy, you would like to use Canon DPP to process the file just to be on the safe side. I thank you in advance.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Can you enlighten me on the relevance of this?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Well first off, I'd like to say that about 90% of the posts made in this thread miss the point of why made this topic.



I think the cynicism comes from your original post where you define it as a 'problem'. If you can't see it in your photos and it does not change the way you shoot it most certainly is not a 'problem'. You say it 'could' impact real-world results...but how? Woo on earth wold underexpose 4 stops then push 5 stops and push shadows 100%??
You say it 'shouldn't happen at all PERIOD' - do you really think that a sensor designer sits in their laboratory thinking 'hmmm, I wonder if anyone will ever need to do this....'.

There is a bit of a cliche in QC and safety circles that runs along the lines of no system being idiot proof....
(no slight intended on you personally but to point out you can make any system fail if you try hard enough)


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 19, 2016)

WOW, people really do need to put the hatchets down. Chill folks. Maybe LSXPhotog use of the word defect isn't quite the right choice of word but no need to assassinate them for it and. For all you know English might not be their first language, even if it is it's still very easy to pick the wrong word. 

So LSXPhotog, yes I've seen this issue too. When I first got my mkiv one the first test I did was to see how far I could push the files. And what became apparent once I started to push the files was the issue you see - horizontal colour banding. I've attached a file with a 5 stop push to show this but it starts to appear once you start to push more than 3 stops. I also did a direct comparison with a Nikon D750, which I was able to push 5 stops without seeing any banding. You start to get a slight colour shift with the D750 which is easily correctable but the banding on the mkiv files render them unusable. 

There's some more info about this with more images on the review on my website. . .

http://simonbrettellphotography.co.uk/canon-5d-mk-iv-review/

At the time I was a little disappointed. A few friends had also bought mkiv and were not seeing the problem that I was. However, what I was doing was a very extreme push and they were only shooting in real world conditions. I posted some examples on DP Review and some people thought it looked suspect so I arranged to get a replacement camera. The replacement also does the same but it's not quite so severe - I've not had time to update my website review yet to discuss this. 

Now we come to the crux of the issue . . . does this matter? And the answer is, for some people, maybe! Some people are shouting down why someone might want to push a file 4 or 5 stops. Ordinarily you wouldn't but there are a couple of cases where it might be useful such as when you are exposing to the right in order to capture as much dynamic range as possible or lets say your a wedding photographer and your flash fails to fire during a shot (maybe due to the recycle time) but you missed a killer moment. The wider the ability to push files before they experience degradation opens up more creative opportunities that might not otherwise be available. Just because you might not see any value in a 4 stop push it doesn't necessarily mean that this is a redundant discussion. I frequently run into issues with my 5D mkiii where you can only really push the files two stops when exposing to the right. I want as much headroom as possible. Is 4 stops enough - probably. Would I like more headroom? Yup. Am I really going to run into a real world scenario where I need to push a file 4 or 5 stops . . . I honestly don't know, I've not had the mkiv long enough to see.

What is interesting is that the Sony sensor in the D750 can achieve this. So what we can objectively say is that you can push the D750 files more than the mkiv. Please don't shout "Get a D750"!!!

So yes it appears that if you push the mkiv files more than 3 to 4 stops you can get colour banding. Does it happen to all mkiv cameras? This we don't yet know, it certainly happens to some. Does it really matter? To some people it might.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

PhotoSimon said:


> Ordinarily you wouldn't but there are a couple of cases where it might be useful such as when you are exposing to the right in order to capture as much dynamic range as possible



Is ETTR the same as pushing shadows? ETTR is there to give the light chance to override noise. What you are talking about here is the light competing with noise which is not the same thing. 



> The wider the ability to push files before they experience degradation opens up more creative opportunities that might not otherwise be available.


LXS described underexposing 4 stops, pushing image 5 stops then pushing shadows a further 100%. I don't shoot many sunsets but that sounds like shooting into full sun then making the foreground as light as the sunset itself. That is some creativity! 


In your link you say that Canon replied _on the phone _that that this should not happen and they sent a replacement, and that replacement was 'mighty impressive' when you did a 'real world' dynamic range test. A shame you did not mention that here. So I would say it is not a design defect but a sample defect and that can happen to any product. 
I recall when the 1D3 came out they had issues with AF and all sorts of posts were made saying how the 1D3 was step backwards. Canon fixed it quickly with a firmware and it was then lauded as being a great camera.


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 19, 2016)

Hi Mikehit,

As I've noted in my posting above . . . I'm not necessarily calling this a defect and I'm not sure the OP used the correct word. Some people are simply trying to find what the performance envelope is of the 5D mkiv. How far can things be pushed? I know I can only push my mkiii files 2 stops so when I shoot I take this fully into account. I'm trying to find what the limits of the mkiv are. Does this allow me to widen my shooting envelope? And as I've kept stressing . . . is a 4 stop push valid in real world conditions? Maybe for some people., maybe not. I'm sure the OP was using the 5 stop push with a shadow push just to make the issue easier to see, there are unlikely to be real world situations where you're going to be doing this.

No I've not included every single detail from my blog posting on here . . . That's why I put the link in, so that those who want to read the full story can. Yes Canon replaced the camera but the replacement exhibits the same phenomena. I've not had chance to repeat the full test but it doesn't look quite as severe, but the banding is still there around the 4 stop mark. And as noted in the blog posting the real world conditions shot is excellent. So does it matter . . . I'll say it again . . . maybe, maybe not.

I think what we're seeing is the limits of how far the sensor can be pushed . . . it's not defect. Unless others can do similar testing and show they have no issue. So if you've got a mkiv do a test and show us what you get. Do you see the colour banding?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

I take your point Simon, but LXS did say that this 'should not happen PERIOD'. All he has done is find the limit of the sensor (if this is indeed a limit) and his whole post implies defect. Why not push the Sony/Nikon sensor 8 stops and say 'this should not happen PERIOD'? People have been saying for years that Canon is behind Sony/Nikon in sensor technology so why is this such a big surprise (in comparison to Nikon)? The only thing I have heard from Canon users is how much an improvement they have made and this sensor reduces the gap considerably (unless, of course, you want to be 'creative')? The thing that surprises me is people get so emotional about this yet still buy Canon - if something like that causes me such upset I would ditch the brand. If it is all part of the compromise I would note it and move on. 

I don't mind people finding a limit to a technology but to then imply the incompetence of the manufacturer because it does not meet what they want is what grates. On a forum the only thing we have to go on is words - no tone of voice, no body language. And if someone uses 'the wrong word' or gets carried away in their phrasing you can't be surprised if there is blowback.


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 19, 2016)

All valid points Mike...I completely agree. I'd not noticed the 'this should not happen PERIOD' bit... I blame my poor ability at skim reading a three page long forum thread ... well reading in general... That why I take pictures!

I think we can agree that this is the sensor envelope and it's not at all bad, a massive improvement on the mkiii. Not quite as pushable as the D750 but we're unlikely to need to push to that leve anyway in the real world. And if you didn't make it all the way down to the bottom of my review... I think it's a bloody great camera, the more I use it the more I love it


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 19, 2016)

May I ask 5D Mark IV owners to repeat the test conducted on DPRAW enabled file (60Mb) and process in current version of Canon DPP? thank you.


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 19, 2016)

Hi Alex,

I think DPP will only allow you push a file 3 stops, therefore the issue will not be visible


----------



## RGF (Oct 19, 2016)

Defect or limitation?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 19, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Well first off, I'd like to say that about 90% of the posts made in this thread miss the point of why made this topic.



Probably. I surely did. 



LSXPhotog said:


> The fact of the matter is this: I've never seen any digital camera I've ever owned (all CMOS) that have exhibited this sort of strange 'bleeding' to adjacent pixels.



Was this ever explained? I don't have any desire to read the entire thread.

Puzzling 1DX Mark II Sensor Issue?

Here's a random unqualified idea: Given on-sensor ADC, could it like like rolling shutter (sensor moves relative to subject during readout), but of such low intensity that you don't see it unless you deconstruct the file?


----------



## gruhl28 (Oct 19, 2016)

I think this whole thread would have been different if the OP had presented it more like, "look at this, never seen something like this before, any idea what could be causing it?", more like the way Michael the Maven did in his similar post, instead of "this is a defect, I'm going to return the camera".

On the other hand, the fact that the OP presented it as a defect doesn't require other respondents to completely dismiss the issue, regardless of how unlikely it may be for someone to see it in real world shooting.

This isn't Trump vs. Clinton; why do people have to make so many exaggerated and extreme statements and get so belligerent?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 19, 2016)

gruhl28 said:


> I think this whole thread would have been different if the OP had presented it more like, "look at this, never seen something like this before, any idea what could be causing it?", more like the way Michael the Maven did in his similar post, instead of "this is a defect, I'm going to return the camera".
> 
> On the other hand, the fact that the OP presented it as a defect doesn't require other respondents to completely dismiss the issue, regardless of how unlikely it may be for someone to see it in real world shooting.
> 
> This isn't Trump vs. Clinton; why do people have to make so many exaggerated and extreme statements and get so belligerent?


Everybody wants to be an a-hole online because no one can punch them in the face at the moment of a-holeness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



Can you explain your lack of obvious comprehension?


> _
> "Roman has $10k worth of Canon stuff. More than Neuro I think."_



I was pointing out that that comment is incorrect. How is that difficult?

Now if you ask me what relevance either statement has to the OP then I gotta be honest and say I haven't a clue, but that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was to correct an incorrect statement, the relevance of that incorrect statement is not my concern, my concern is that fallacies are not perpetuated.

For the full picture of Neuro's gear is here http://community.the-digital-picture.com/member.php?u=1413&tab=visitor_messaging#visitor_messaging


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



can you guys explain the relevance of the value of the gear one is owning...?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> can you guys explain the relevance of the value of the gear one is owning...?



Depends on the context. In this case, I assume that ritholtz was reasoning that you are not trolling since you own some significant amount of gear, but you'd have to ask ritholtz.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The point of my post was to correct an incorrect statement, the relevance of that incorrect statement is not my concern, my concern is that fallacies are not perpetuated.



This is a noble cause...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> can you guys explain the relevance of the value of the gear one is owning...?



Well, it speaks to credibility. I have more gear than you, so I have more credibility than you. Bryan Carnathan (TDP) has more gear and thus credibility than me. LensRentals has oodles of credibility. Since the US Government likely has far more Canon gear than LensRentals, they have even more credibility. Ok, even I can't stomach that one. Or any of the rest of it. 




romanr74 said:


> This is a noble cause...



Give me the sixty-five, I'm on the job. ;D


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > can you guys explain the relevance of the value of the gear one is owning...?
> ...



Just placed a hell of an order at my local photo gear retailer...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Just placed a hell of an order at my local photo gear retailer...



That's either the 1200D with 55-250 for knockabout stuff or 1DX2 with the 600mm f4 for going paparazzi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck!


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Iiifersuchtsbolze...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since the US Government likely has far more Canon gear than LensRentals, they have even more credibility.



BH and Amazon have a heck of a lot, although it comes and goes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



No. And I said I couldn't.

P.S. I get most of the Princess Bride comments but that one ws a new one for me, well done guys.........


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 19, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.



Thank you for stating the obvious. I stopped reading after, "I underexposed by 5 stops ..." Insanity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2016)

Unfivestopliftable. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## quod (Oct 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unfivestopliftable. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


Stop correcting others. Nobody cares what you think you know.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 20, 2016)

I recall speaking to a friend who joined one of these 4 wheel-drive fanatic clubs and was somewhat bemused to hear how some of them relish torrential rain so it gives them chance to find a big wallow, and drive into it, fully intending to get stuck so they can use their new toy (aka the winch mounted on the front grille) to pull themselves out again, wrapping the towline round the nearest tree. 

Some of these 'tests' remind me of that...

Perhaps there is a new phrase to be added to the photographer's lexicon 'To do an Exmoor'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Unfivestopliftable. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
> ...



*con·text* ˈkäntekst/ _noun_
1. the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

*hu·mor* ˈ(h)yo͞omər/ _noun_
1. the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.

*quod* kwäd/ _noun_
1. a forum entity who fails to appreciate context and apparently lacks a sense of humor


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 20, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Unfivestopliftable. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
> ...



Difficult to disagree...


----------



## M_S (Oct 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Always the same lately. One writes something he/she encountered which points out something. That someting could be interpreted as a negative point on the Mark4 or Canon by some and very soon the defenders are there and the whole bashing starts. And goes on and on and on. 
It sometimes seems or reads, that most here in the forum are either payed by canon or go to bed with canon or work at canon. And Canon in general is the best thing since sliced bread and no critique, no pointing out is in order. Almost as if pointing out or putting out a thesis is immediately a general war against canon and the fans are here to the rescue. Who gives really. If this is the getting the norm than improvements are out of the window. 
If Dave Dugdale can post a video what he wishes the next Sony iteration should have, then I don't see a lot of people complaining that this is not true and the latest Sony is perfect fault free and there is nothing, really nothing to improve. This here in the forums is utter bull as of late. Mark IV is not perfect as is every other camera on the market. Putting the finger on things can help to improve on that. Praising doesn't help. Ever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2016)

M_S said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



Oh, the sot has spoken. What happens to the 5DIV is not truly your concern.


----------



## tron (Oct 20, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.
> ...


+1 In addition of the +5 stops he lifted the shadows so he practically lifted the shadows a total of 7 to 8 stops????????????


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 20, 2016)

M_S said:


> Always the same lately. One writes something he/she encountered which points out something. That someting could be interpreted as a negative point on the Mark4 or Canon by some and very soon the defenders are there and the whole bashing starts. And goes on and on and on.
> It sometimes seems or reads, that most here in the forum are either payed by canon or go to bed with canon or work at canon. And Canon in general is the best thing since sliced bread and no critique, no pointing out is in order. Almost as if pointing out or putting out a thesis is immediately a general war against canon and the fans are here to the rescue. Who gives really. If this is the getting the norm than improvements are out of the window.
> If Dave Dugdale can post a video what he wishes the next Sony iteration should have, then I don't see a lot of people complaining that this is not true and the latest Sony is perfect fault free and there is nothing, really nothing to improve. This here in the forums is utter bull as of late. Mark IV is not perfect as is every other camera on the market. Putting the finger on things can help to improve on that. Praising doesn't help. Ever.



A-a-and you miss the point. 
This is not about fanboy at all - please point to me who has said that the 'improvements' pointed out should not be included. Some have said that they do not find them necessary or would not use them. No-one is defending 'the norm' but many of us (as has been said countless times) understand the compromises any manufacturer makes when designing a product to a price (and all products are designed to a price) and think Canon make the best compromises _for them_.

What there has been is a response to those people who ue ridiculous statements like (a) Canon is incompetent in defining what photographers need , (b) Canon will go bust due to their lack of ability to work out how the market is changing (c) claiming Canon is missing the market yet want a combination of features that no other manufacturer is even close to offering (d) insisting on changes that will increase the cost of an already expensive camera to the point it will be a financial failure or (e) wanting a combination of the Sony A7 series, the 1Dx2 and the 1Dc in a body the size of a 5D with no increase in cost (it has even been suggested it is a good idea that Canon slash their profits in a bid to corner the market).

If someone says 'I would like to see....' is one thing. It is helpful. It is a critique. But on the internet, words and tone are the only thing we can use, and there are far too many (often those with single-digit posts, coming onto the site just to complain) who come across as whiney 5 years olds who didn't get what they wanted in their Christmas stocking. 
But making comments like that then slamming anyone who disagree as a 'fanboy' is no better than what you accuse those 'fanboys' of.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 20, 2016)

Looks just like the normal Canon banding "issue" to me. They always got this stuff. 5dmk2, 1dx, etc. Its just how Canon sensors work. But well whos gonna push so many stops anyway and never resizes their photos? So i dont think its a serious issue. Just an unimportant one.


----------



## tron (Oct 20, 2016)

There is a CR3 that there will be a sensor "defect" in 5DMkV when we underexpose 8 stops during shootings and then add 8 stops in post and at the same time boost shadows to 100% ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 20, 2016)

tron said:


> There is a CR3 that there will be a sensor "defect" in 5DMkV when we underexpose 8 stops during shootings and then add 8 stops in post and at the same time boost shadows to 100% ;D ;D ;D



It's like he classic Henny Youngman joke:
The patient says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." 
Doctor says, "Then don't do that!" 

Updated for Canon Rumors:
Photographer says, "CR Forum, I see defects when I underexpose by 8 stops."
CR Forum says, "Then don't underexpose by 8 stops!"


----------



## tron (Oct 20, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > There is a CR3 that there will be a sensor "defect" in 5DMkV when we underexpose 8 stops during shootings and then add 8 stops in post and at the same time boost shadows to 100% ;D ;D ;D
> ...


Except for the 8 stops case updated for the doctor's case:
The patient says, "Doctor, it hurts when I hit my head on the wall!"
Doctor says, "Then don't do that!" 

EDIT: Now I feel a little fool. I have the same problem in blacks and I underexposed 4 stops. After that I overexpose 4 stops and there is not even need to increase shadows. The problem is there. This behavior is even worse than my 5D3. I have posted photos at page 10 of this thread.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 20, 2016)

The purpose of this demonstration was to show the problem easier for readers to see, not to say this is what I do and what you should do. The problem exists at any push and is only exaggerated at this level to show it more clearly. I saw these same issues pushed 3 stops and 4 stops, albeit to a lesser extent.

I appreciate your responses, how off topic and diluting it may be to the thread. It's a shame nobody could explain why this sensor does this when other sensors don't...not that anyone here should be doing this in their everyday photography, it just shows a peculiar flaw that the sensor exhibits that others don't. But, I suppose it's hard to get any answers when the banter becomes a mockery of the topic.

Good day,
Kevin


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 20, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> The purpose of this demonstration was to show the problem easier for readers to see, not to say this is what I do and what you should do. The problem exists at any push and is only exaggerated at this level to show it more clearly. I saw these same issues pushed 3 stops and 4 stops, albeit to a lesser extent.
> 
> I appreciate your responses, how off topic and diluting it may be to the thread. It's a shame nobody could explain why this sensor does this when other sensors don't...not that anyone here should be doing this in their everyday photography, it just shows a peculiar flaw that the sensor exhibits that others don't. But, I suppose it's hard to get any answers when the banter becomes a mockery of the topic.
> 
> ...



Problem...flaw...those very words will get a response. 

Any reasons as to why the Canon happens but not other sensors requires a technical understanding of multiple manufacturer's technology and I would be very surprised if anyone could answer it. So banter happens _because_ no-one knows, rather than the other way round.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > The purpose of this demonstration was to show the problem easier for readers to see, not to say this is what I do and what you should do. The problem exists at any push and is only exaggerated at this level to show it more clearly. I saw these same issues pushed 3 stops and 4 stops, albeit to a lesser extent.
> ...




Agreed and, in addition, nobody knows exactly how Adobe's software affects the end result.


----------



## M_S (Oct 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



I rest my case.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



I agree. However, when someone starts a thread with the title "defect detected" using the very thin evidence presented, no one should be surprised that that claim is criticized. 

It's also a bit disingenuous (or incredibly naive) to pretend that the sole purpose for starting this thread was an academic discussion of characteristics that a sensor may demonstrate when pushed beyond the limits it was designed for. Particularly when the OP wrote _"but let's be real! This shouldn't happen at all PERIOD..."_

The fact is, anyone who has read any reviews of Canon's latest sensors should not be surprised by the results. As the much-maligned DPReview has pointed out in their generally glowing reviews of the 1DX II, 80D and 5D IV, Canon has made significant improvements in their sensors, but for those for whom the ability to push shadows beyond what most users would consider reasonable is of utmost importance, Canon is still slightly behind their competitors at low ISO.

For most of us, including me, it doesn't matter. I bought into the Canon system for many, many reasons and pushing shadows was never in the top 50. That's not to say, that I don't appreciate the latitude that the new technology provides me, I'm just saying it was never my top priority or even a major concern. 

When you post to a forum and make assertions, you cannot later whine when others disagree. Two lessons, that should be self-evident, but apparently aren't: 1) As Mikehit points out, if you are looking for detailed technical explanations for obscure phenomena, this ain't the place; and 2) Just like baseball, there is no crying in forum posting. If you make a assertion that obviously is designed to spark controversy, don't go crying when some of the controversy get tossed back in your face.


----------



## Azathoth (Oct 20, 2016)

Comment removed by Moderator


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 21, 2016)

OK, I've learned my lesson with this group. They get offended by anything that doesn't talk about the awesomeness of Canon...

Please take note that at no point did I try to backpedal, many of you just simply couldn't read and even admitted to stopping because of the context. God forbid anyone discover another weird anomaly with this camera!

Meanwhile, I've been using my 5DIV daily and love it. Already shot a race weekend, 5 automotive magazine features, a portrait session, a journalism story, a home, and a promotional poster.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 21, 2016)

M_S said:


> Always the same lately. One writes something he/she encountered which points out something. That someting could be interpreted as a negative point on the Mark4 or Canon by some and very soon the defenders are there and the whole bashing starts. And goes on and on and on.
> It sometimes seems or reads, that most here in the forum are either payed by canon or go to bed with canon or work at canon. And Canon in general is the best thing since sliced bread and no critique, no pointing out is in order.



No one minds a fair review. No one minds a fair critique. No one minds an interesting discussion. No one minds a legitimate question.

What we do mind - because we are Canon users who like photography and want to dicsuss our gear and photography - are threads that declare "Defect Discovered" or "Why Canon is way behind" or "Canon sucks and cripples their cameras". Those threads are not fair reviews or critiques. Those threads are not an interesting discussion. If you think they are - well, good for you. You're entitled to your opinion. Some of us don't think so and believe the endless whining and complaining ruins this forum. 

If you think your Canon camera is defective, then return it for a refund. Maybe it is defective - I don't believe anyone ever states that no Canon camera has ever been defective and needed to be returned. When I bought my 6D, I thought it was overexposing a bit. I didn't start an internet thread about it, I exchanged the camera for another (which was much better). In other words, I dealt with it. I didn't assume that all 6D's were overexposing. I didn't assume that Canon sucks and can't make a good camera. I didn't whine and complain. Not saying the OP of this thread is guilty of these things, but so many here are. They whine and complain, rather than dealing with reality as an adult does. Is that asking too much - that people here act like adults? Maybe it is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> God forbid anyone discover another weird anomaly with this camera!



Start your car's engine and put the transmission in neutral, then floor the gas pedal for an hour or so. When it overheats and/or seizes, log onto a forum for your car make and post about how your car is defective. I'm sure your opinion will be warmly received.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Always the same lately. One writes something he/she encountered which points out something. That someting could be interpreted as a negative point on the Mark4 or Canon by some and very soon the defenders are there and the whole bashing starts. And goes on and on and on.
> ...



Thank you. I appreciate the support and hate being bashed all the time.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 21, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> The purpose of this demonstration was to show the problem easier for readers to see, not to say this is what I do and what you should do. The problem exists at any push and is only exaggerated at this level to show it more clearly. I saw these same issues pushed 3 stops and 4 stops, albeit to a lesser extent.
> 
> I appreciate your responses, how off topic and diluting it may be to the thread. It's a shame nobody could explain why this sensor does this when other sensors don't...not that anyone here should be doing this in their everyday photography, it just shows a peculiar flaw that the sensor exhibits that others don't. But, I suppose it's hard to get any answers when the banter becomes a mockery of the topic.
> 
> ...



What real world results could this possibly affect if you have to go to such extreme extremes to show it? You're doing stuff to the image that boggles the mind: "The details on what generated this phenomena: I underexposed by 5 stops and then recovered the RAW file 5 stops and pushed the shadows 100% to intensify the ability to see the problem."

That's just so unrealistic. I have never in my photo career thought to do that (or anything near that) to any photo for any reason. Never.

No one can explain it because no one can take it seriously. With that approach, I can make any camera appear "defective". Just do something far beyond anything it is designed to do, and announce the discovery of a defect.

You said in the first post, "problem doesn't seem to appear when you're 3-stops under." Now you're contradicting that, saying that it does appear 3 stops under. If it does appear at 3 stops, why not show that?

Forget far-fetched mind-numbing tests. Show real-world non-test photos made normally where there is an actual problem, and then people will look more seriously. Otherwise this sounds like a classic case of FUD.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 21, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> OK, I've learned my lesson with this group. They get offended by anything that doesn't talk about the awesomeness of Canon...
> 
> Please take note that at no point did I try to backpedal, many of you just simply couldn't read and even admitted to stopping because of the context. God forbid anyone discover another weird anomaly with this camera!
> 
> Meanwhile, I've been using my 5DIV daily and love it. Already shot a race weekend, 5 automotive magazine features, a portrait session, a journalism story, a home, and a promotional poster.



the hyperbole in your original post kind of put a target on your back.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2016)

M_S said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...



I hear that brandy can help people to lighten up.


----------



## jakdaniel1975 (Oct 23, 2016)

I bought the 5D mk4 a few days and also I have noticed of the sensor defect in some scenes, that can happen not only when searching recoveries 5 stop but also with much less !! Thanks to the odious policy of canon who declined to give the spot metering linked to the af points, reportage where you need it to be fast and use the av mode shooting backlit can happen often in the room measuring errors and find yourself with shots like what you attaching ... that if you want to recover it has an obvious flaw, which is not only the banding but much more!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ftcnduq69wx8stu/_H9A3340.CR2?dl=0

excuse my language but use google translated.


----------



## ivanku (Oct 24, 2016)

So, what I've noticed is, if a shot is underexposed by one stop or 1.5, then you can bring the exposure back and also lift shadows without seeing any banding.

However, if the entire shot is underexposed by two stops or more, and to get to a proper exposure histogram you need to add two or more stops to the exposure, you will start to see very distinct, irregular horizontal banding. 

is this what you guys are seeing as well?

I'd love to hear more experiences from other 5D IV users


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 24, 2016)

ivanku said:


> So, what I've noticed is, if a shot is underexposed by one stop or 1.5, then you can bring the exposure back and also lift shadows without seeing any banding.
> 
> However, if the entire shot is underexposed by two stops or more, and to get to a proper exposure histogram you need to add two or more stops to the exposure, you will start to see very distinct, irregular horizontal banding.
> 
> ...



You apparently didn't get the memo: the 5D Mark IV is the best camera ever with no flaws at all and if you find an issue with the sensor you are a bad photographer.

The issue isn't simple banding because it doesn't follow a pattern that banding does. However, it is influenced by the brightness of the left side of the frame. I'm seeing the issue 3 stops under but not with 2 stops under. I feel it's a sensor issue, but clearly by this thread I'm wrong. The 5D IV is the greatest thing ever.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

ivanku said:


> So, what I've noticed is, if a shot is underexposed by one stop or 1.5, then you can bring the exposure back and also lift shadows without seeing any banding.
> 
> However, if the entire shot is underexposed by two stops or more, and to get to a proper exposure histogram you need to add two or more stops to the exposure, you will start to see very distinct, irregular horizontal banding.
> 
> ...



This guy doesn't seem to have a problem with a 4-stop push

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/137014-5D-Mark-IV-Shot-from-Today-(With-4-stop-push)


----------



## ivanku (Oct 24, 2016)

This successful and clean 4 stop push may indicate that a) either the original photograph was not underexposed more than 2 stops, or b) this phenomenon does not affect all 5D sensors


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 24, 2016)

ivanku said:


> This successful and clean 4 stop push may indicate that a) either the original photograph was not underexposed more than 2 stops, or b) this phenomenon does not affect all 5D sensors



I'm trying to find out if all sensors have the issue. Because apparently, according to what I've seen around the web, it doesn't....which is why I started this thread.


----------



## jakdaniel1975 (Oct 24, 2016)

But it does not always occur, but only in units with strong contrast and controluce.In these cases is always presented with my camera.


----------



## Labdoc (Oct 24, 2016)

I read this thread and almost got a case of dystopia myself. Maybe I am missing the point but I took this picture the other morning at dawn and maybe I'm doing it wrong but I don't see anything. The first pic is obviously underexposed by a lot (1/60, ISO 100, f5.0 , 35mm), taken with the 5Dmk4, 16-35 MK3. The second pic was processed with LR and pushed 5 stops, highlights 100%, shadows 100%, no banding. 

P.S. If this is a real issue maybe my camera is not affected.


----------



## gowiththeflow (Oct 24, 2016)

I know this thread has come full circle a couple of times. But I'll add this comparison as it might appear in another profession/hobby:

**My GE Oven Has a Defect**

I cooked a soufflé in my oven. The correct cooking time should have been 20 minutes. I intentionally undercooked it by 5 stops. (20 minutes divided by 2. Divided by 2. Divided by 2...) for a total of 37.5 seconds. The soufflé was very undercooked, just as I had expected. I then opened the very undercooked soufflé in my microwave and increased the cooking time until it was no longer undercooked. It didn't turn out the same as if I had correctly cooked it in the first place. Can someone please explain, in this day and age, why GE can't make a better oven???


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 24, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> Please ask those who have the mk4 to do the same backlit tests to see if it's my faulty sensor or are all so!
> 
> Sorry i use translate.



DPReview did up to +6EV pushes and didn't see anything like what you're seeing. I would guess that your particular camera is indeed faulty.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 24, 2016)

gowiththeflow said:


> I know this thread has come full circle a couple of times. But I'll add this comparison as it might appear in another profession/hobby:
> 
> **My GE Oven Has a Defect**
> 
> I cooked a soufflé in my oven. The correct cooking time should have been 20 minutes. I intentionally undercooked it by 5 stops. (20 minutes divided by 2. Divided by 2. Divided by 2...) for a total of 37.5 seconds. The soufflé was very undercooked, just as I had expected. I then opened the very undercooked soufflé in my microwave and increased the cooking time until it was no longer undercooked. It didn't turn out the same as if I had correctly cooked it in the first place. Can someone please explain, in this day and age, why GE can't make a better oven???



haha! That one got me.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 24, 2016)

You are seeing the issue because you are trying to lighten under exposed black, that is black, dark, can't see anything, coal hole - you know, it was black and you under exposed it. 

I downloaded the CR2 file from dropbox of the graduation. I had to lift 5 stops and then I could just about make out some banding. To get to the same brightness and banding as the other examples that have been shown I had to then lift shadows by about 50%, so its probably a 7 stop lift. What if there is some banding when you have done this ? It's making the information up anyway; it didn't actually record anything !

I'd say there is nothing wrong with any of these cameras. For the record here's what happens when you lift the exmor sensor by 5 stops and then do a 50% lift on the shadows slider. It's not pretty. Do you think that bank really had magenta and green bands running through it ?


----------



## ivanku (Oct 24, 2016)

Thank you guys for posting more sample photos!

@gowiththeflow, your analogy is funny and makes sense if this is simply the limitation of the sensor. However, what we are trying to figure out in this thread is whether this phenomenon is true for all new 5D sensors, or is a defect or variance, and occurs in only some of the new cameras. I think there's a big difference between those conclusions, right?


----------



## bwud (Oct 24, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I'd say there is nothing wrong with any of these cameras. For the record here's what happens when you lift the exmor sensor by 5 stops and then do a 50% lift on the shadows slider. It's not pretty. Do you think that bank really had magenta and green bands running through it ?



I'm not exactly sure what Exmor sensors have to do with this particular discussion, but that doesn't match my experience. Rather, I get flat flat flat images. They aren't banded or disturbingly noisy like your example, they're just flat.

Perhaps your scene was initially even darker than mine.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 24, 2016)

Yes, much darker, much later in the day, very thin light etc, but also my subject was black, or at least very dark colour. Mine is also 100% crop which I think yours is too.


----------



## ivanku (Oct 24, 2016)

here's the difference


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

the capacitors or whatever charge store they are using is being overloaded.

it could also be that LR is still not using floating black offset values, so this is "mis reporting" based upon not decoding the raw data fully.

since you can boost midtones in DPP well above +5EV .. has anyone actually tried it with DPP?


----------



## bwud (Oct 24, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Yes, much darker, much later in the day, very thin light etc, but also my subject was black, or at least very dark colour. Mine is also 100% crop which I think yours is too.



Gotcha.

Yes, that was a 100% crop, and it was pushed beyond what was necessary - it wasn't nearly that bright in real life. I was just messing around to see what I could "recover" (not really the right word in this context). It's pretty silly; there is absolutely no depth when pushing such tiny signals. ND filtering or multiple exposures remain the appropriate tool.

In the final image, which I don't particularly like anyway, I reeled it in to realistic levels, and I suspect I could have done the same shooting with my 5D3.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 24, 2016)

^
Yes indeed, but your exposure is spot on, you've pushed those highlights in the clouds to the limit. Now as you were shooting a Sony camera I can only assume that the reason you're still able to expose correctly is because you still shoot Canon too !


----------



## ivanku (Oct 25, 2016)

5D IV


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 25, 2016)

There's some interesting stuff posted in the thread that a lot of people are simply being dismissive about. As I've previously posted in some of my other comments - just because you don't see the value in a 4 stop exposure push it doesn't mean that others don't either. People like Sam Hurd, Ryan Brenizer and Ross Harvey - who are some of the most in demand wedding photographers in the world at the moment, regularly push files 4 stops or more for specific techniques. So if you're saying it's wrong and there’s no value in it please also go and tell these guys. In some of the situations where they would be using a 4 stop push you could say the same or a similar effect could be achieved using off camera flash. However; this adds further complexity to the shot, increases setup time which means you could be missing moments and lugging lighting gear around reduces your mobility. Some of these techniques are about trying to make the job a little easier, which is always much appreciated when your 12 hours into a wedding!

As some of you have already said - pushing a file 5 stops and then pushing the shadows is extreme. Would you ever do that in the real world? No . . . probably never. However; LSXPhotog and jakdaniel1975 have said that they are doing this to make it easier to see the issue. 

I came across this phenomenon when I was testing the sensor out on my mkiv to find out how far I can push the files. I know I can't push the mkiii files more than 2 stops so I shoot accordingly. From my initial tests I've found it looks like 4 stops is the limit on the mkiv. Is this enough for most real world situations . . . maybe. Would I like to be able to push the files more? Of course. The more malleability in the files the easier my job becomes. I'll say it again, this will not apply to everyone, you won't all see the value in these types of manipulation as it depends on what and how you shoot.

Ok so some of the wording in LSXPhotog original post is way off the mark but there's still some interesting stuff in the information that he's posted for those of us that are interested in finding the limits of the sensor.

What I find really interesting is jakdaniel1975 post which has this file attached . . .

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ftcnduq69wx8stu/_H9A3340.CR2?dl=0

I can see from this that his camera (in that particular situation) shows banding with a 3 stop push. 

Mikehit posted a link which shows a clean 4 stop push

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/137014-5D-Mark-IV-Shot-from-Today-(With-4-stop-push)

Also Labdoc provided a file which doesn't appear to have the issue after a 5 stop push and a 100% shadow push . . . I'd be interested if Labdoc could provide the original RAW file so that I could have a play too. 

So when comparing to LSXPhotog and jakdaniel1975 do the files in Mikehit's and Labdoc's links show that there is some variability in the sensors or is this due to something else such as the lighting conditions or the contrast in the scene or something else? From the information posted so far I'd say it's too early to tell.

Some people have raised the issue of if it's a Lightroom problem. I can confirm that it isn't I've tested this with my own files and also the one provided by jakdaniel1975 by loading them into DPP and I still see the issue. Others have said it could be that you're trying to read from a charge site with a very low or zero value. This could hold some merit but the banding doesn't always appear in the darkest parts of the frame. In jakdaniel1975’s file it looks like the banding is present or at least smeared into the lighter areas. 

This thread is now quite long so some of you might have missed one of my earlier postings where I put a link to my review of the mkiv and compared exposure pushed files to the Nikon D750. What was apparent was the D750 files could be pushed further. Feel free to take a look if you wish. . .

http://simonbrettellphotography.co.uk/canon-5d-mk-iv-review/

My personal opinion (which is worth not much) is that the limits of the mk iv sensor are around a 4 stop push. It's not a defect, just the limits of what's capable. There may be some mkiv cameras that are a little better and some a little worse due to manufacturing variation. It may be that some particular scenes enhance the issue. We need to do a little more analysis to find out. Is a 4 stop push enough for most real world situations? Maybe . . . I’ll find out when I’ve got a few more weddings under my belt with the mkiv.

So if you've got a mkiv what would be interesting would be if you could take some 4 or 5 stop under exposed shots in a couple of different situations (high contrast, low contrast, backlit, frontlit etc) and post them here as RAW files so others can take a look.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 25, 2016)

All sensors are a compromise and regardless of how sensors & processing have improved, some are better at dynamic range whilst others provide better color or better resolution. Sony market three different A7 cameras, if one was perfect for every situation they would not be making three. Canon make two different 5 series cameras, the 5D MKIV and the 5DS/R, again both do slightly different jobs.

The problem is no matter what engineers produce someone will want more or push the design to a point it was not designed to do. I would argue pushing any camera 5 stops is really asking for trouble and unrealistic and whilst sensors are not film no one would have pushed film 5 stops without expecting issues. 

Cameras are giving anything from the equivalent 12-15 stops of dynamic range that's pretty incredible but pushing a camera to give effectively 17-18 stops is asking too much, just because you can do something doesn't mean its right or the product is defect.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

Here is the absolutely horrible DPP software, so we can rule out the software being the influence here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Here is the absolutely horrible *CPP* software, so we can rule out the software being the influence here.



CPP? Do you mean DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional)?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

Going through loads of images I took with a rental 5D Mk IV last month, the images DO NOT show this behavior on any file when pushed while my personal 5D IV does. I have concluded there is a variance in sensors and mine suffers from an issue not all 5D IV sensors do.

Also:

de·fect1
ˈdēfekt/
noun
a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.

Understanding the definition of the word helps.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the absolutely horrible *CPP* software, so we can rule out the software being the influence here.
> ...



You're correct. Changed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Going through loads of images I took with a rental 5D Mk IV last month, the images DO NOT show this behavior on any file when pushed while my personal 5D IV does. I have concluded there is a variance in sensors and mine suffers from an issue not all 5D IV sensors do.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



Phrasing is also important. There's a significant difference between, "My 5DIV is defective," and "The 5DIV is defective." Did you ever contact Canon?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 25, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.
> 
> Understanding the definition of the word helps.



Well, going by that standard, literally every product ever engineered is defective. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

Well, I just got off the phone with Canon. The representative I was speaking to was pretty adamant that what I'm experiencing is not normal. We are going to be exchanging photo files this afternoon so they can look into it further, but the conclusion was I will probably need to exchange the camera body. I'll keep the thread posted, but it sounds like this indeed shouldn't be happening, at least not to this level.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Going through loads of images I took with a rental 5D Mk IV last month, the images DO NOT show this behavior on any file when pushed while my personal 5D IV does. I have concluded there is a variance in sensors and mine suffers from an issue not all 5D IV sensors do.
> ...



Dunno if OP changed the wording from the original post, but the current post talks about "my 5D". 
Hence the post would have been perfectly right and spot on...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



The only changes made to the post were the order of the images and not the phrasing. It's the result of people getting upset and not actually reading the post before they comment... which people admitted to. LOL


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 25, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sounds like your mailbox should be full of apologies then...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

Haha, doubtful. People just act ridiculous on the internet and I was expecting some of this.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

Since my abilities and competence as a photographer was questioned in this thread a few times, I'd just like to share some images I've captured with the 5DIV in the last 3 week. My experience with files I captures at a wedding this past weekend were positive, but images of high contrast/dynamic range are unacceptable in some limited cases... obviously not what you're looking for after dishing out $3499.


----------



## ivanku (Oct 25, 2016)

Kevin, thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've noticed this with my camera as well and I'm glad you started a thread for all of us to compare notes on a new camera with unknown problems and limitations. 

It's not your responsibility to write a post that is perfectly worded and diplomatic. You didn't say anything racist, bigoted or offensive. But, you did bring to attention what may or may not be a defect in some of the new 5D's. As we get more feedback from 5D owners, we can get a better perspective on what's going on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

ivanku said:


> Kevin, thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've noticed this with my camera as well and I'm glad you started a thread for all of us to compare notes on a new camera with unknown problems and limitations.
> 
> It's not your responsibility to write a post that is perfectly worded and diplomatic. You didn't say anything racist, bigoted or offensive. But, you did bring to attention what may or may not be a defect in some of the new 5D's. As we get more feedback from 5D owners, we can get a better perspective on what's going on.



Well spoken, Sir. 

Even if you don't have six fingers on your right hand.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Start your car's engine and put the transmission in neutral, then floor the gas pedal for an hour or so. When it overheats and/or seizes, log onto a forum for your car make and post about how your car is defective. I'm sure your opinion will be warmly received.



Well spoken, Sir.


----------



## yungfat (Oct 25, 2016)

Was wonder how many people will really "purposely" under exposed an imaged and recover the exposure back to 5 stops and push the shadow by 100%?
Just curious...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

yungfat said:


> Was wonder how many people will really "purposely" under exposed an imaged and recover the exposure back to 5 stops and push the shadow by 100%?
> Just curious...



I guess people still aren't reading...

This exaggerated what I'm seeing. If I dial back the push and the underexposure it's still there. This was only given as an example of what my particular camera is doing and shown to the extreme so that it's very obvious.


----------



## yungfat (Oct 25, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> yungfat said:
> 
> 
> > Was wonder how many people will really "purposely" under exposed an imaged and recover the exposure back to 5 stops and push the shadow by 100%?
> ...



Well, enjoy your "real world" testing then


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 25, 2016)

yungfat said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > yungfat said:
> ...


Does a 1 stop exposure correction with a +40 shadow adjustment sound reasonable? Because if you do and you use the 11-24 or 16-35 f2.8 MkIII wide open and you use lens corrections you have a total five stop corner lift.


----------



## ivanku (Oct 25, 2016)

Kevin, please let us know what comes of showing photos to a Canon technician, and what he has to say about all of this


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2016)

ivanku said:


> Kevin, please let us know what comes of showing photos to a Canon technician, and what he has to say about all of this



I will! Canon doesn't like saying anything like "defect" or "problem", but they were quick to say what I'm seeing shouldn't happen...much to the dismay of the smartasses that have posted in here. Hahah


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 26, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> ivanku said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin, please let us know what comes of showing photos to a Canon technician, and what he has to say about all of this
> ...



+10


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> ivanku said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin, please let us know what comes of showing photos to a Canon technician, and what he has to say about all of this
> ...



When I uncovered a firmware bug in the 1D X and called Canon, they said that shouldn't happen and since they couldn't reproduce it, I should send it in. I declined, worked out the root issue with help from another member of these forums, created a video demo and sent it to Canon, then they _could_ reproduce it. 

Point is, I hope they find it's defective, but they may tell you it's within spec. 

In this case, you're drawing conclusions based on them having only your verbal description, not even pics. Put another way, if you rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.


----------



## Haulien (Oct 26, 2016)

Can confirm with my 5D4. 70mm @ f/2.8, ISO 100.


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2016)

And... my camera has a similar problem. I was going to take it to a trip tomorrow and now I have packed it back in its case hoping the dealer will tell me to ship it back


----------



## zim (Oct 27, 2016)

Would using the latest version of camera raw make any difference 9.6.1 I think?

Edit:. Anyone able to replicate with DxO optics pro? I didn't upgrade to the latest version so can't test


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

zim said:


> Would using the latest version of camera raw make any difference 9.6.1 I think?
> 
> Edit:. Anyone able to replicate with DxO optics pro? I didn't upgrade to the latest version so can't test


I have tested with latest DPP (4.5.10.1) and I also converted the raw to dng. Even 5D3 gives a more tolerable result


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

But I have to admit these tests are a little extreme. The jacket is black! Even so 5D4 seems to have worse banding (in absence of a more precise term) than 5D3...


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> But I have to admit these tests are a little extreme. The jacket is black! Even so 5D4 seems to have worse banding (in absence of a more precise term) than 5D3...



What are we supposed to be seeing here?


----------



## Haulien (Oct 27, 2016)

zim said:


> Would using the latest version of camera raw make any difference 9.6.1 I think?
> 
> Edit:. Anyone able to replicate with DxO optics pro? I didn't upgrade to the latest version so can't test



Can't comment on DxO Optics Pro, though I get similar results both in Lightroom and Capture One Pro.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2016)

unfocused said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > But I have to admit these tests are a little extreme. The jacket is black! Even so 5D4 seems to have worse banding (in absence of a more precise term) than 5D3...
> ...



+1

Looks very good to me on a 4.75 stop lift.


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

unfocused said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > But I have to admit these tests are a little extreme. The jacket is black! Even so 5D4 seems to have worse banding (in absence of a more precise term) than 5D3...
> ...


Horizontal color bands in the 5D4 version. These do not exist in the 5D3 photo which is even more pushed.


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


The 5D3 version pushed even more does not have the color bands! Tue in the very dark small parts of the photos it has worse noise - that's 5D3 after all. But you can see the difference in the major part of the 5D3 photo.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 27, 2016)

I was told that one can push exposure by +3 stops in DPP at Maximum?? Is that right?

can you do me a big favour and take Dual Pixel RAW (60Mb) shot and process in DPP with DPRAW enabled and see if the fenomenon is still present. I somehow suspect that what we are seing is somewhat related to DPRAW tech. I thank you in advance.



tron said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Would using the latest version of camera raw make any difference 9.6.1 I think?
> ...


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > ivanku said:
> ...


Neuro or anyone with a 1Dx or 1DxII can you help by trying a similar setup? I know I have exaggerated in the photo and underexposing much is not what I should do but since my 5D3 behaved better (in most part of the photo at least) I want to decide between 1DxII and 5D4 in a moonrise photo behind a temple where similar conditions apply (so as to both preserve the moon surface and the temple). Up to now I revert to taking some photos using Magic Lantern's Dual Iso feature but a better camera would be preferable. In page 10 of this thread I attached two photos of a black jacket, one shot with 5D4 and one shot with a 5D3. I underexposed (manually) 3.5 to 4EV (using evaluative metering and including most of the jacket in the photo).


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I was told that one can push exposure by +3 stops in DPP at Maximum?? Is that right?
> 
> can you do me a big favour and take Dual Pixel RAW (60Mb) shot and process in DPP with DPRAW enabled and see if the fenomenon is still present. I somehow suspect that what we are seing is somewhat related to DPRAW tech. I thank you in advance.
> 
> ...


Right now I have packed the camera and at the same time leaving in a few hours for a small vacation for 4 days. I hope that dealer answers quickly so as to have time to send the camera back.
I cannot use latest raw for now (no photoshop cc or lightroom). But both DPP and dng converter produce the same results... As for +3 I do not know the units used I just test the result by mooving the slider.

Something I noticed. The key issue is NOT how much you move the slider after underexposure but how much you underexpose. In the first case the issue exists in the second it does not.
If I underexpose less photo seems OK.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



That's really weird because I could not see that banding earlier this morning, now I can ! And I wasn't smoking anything last night before you ask


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> Neuro or anyone with a 1Dx or 1DxII can you help by trying a similar setup?



I could, but given that this phenomenon seems camera-specific, I'm not sure it would mean anything. Especially in my case, since you'd be using a 1D X II. 




tron said:


> I know I have exaggerated in the photo and underexposing much is not what I should do but since my 5D3 behaved better (in most part of the photo at least) I want to decide between 1DxII and 5D4 in a moonrise photo behind a temple where similar conditions apply (so as to both preserve the moon surface and the temple).



Temples generally don't move. The moon moves, but not fast enough to matter at an AoV sufficient for a temple and an exposure time appropriate for the moon's brightness). Is there some other reason you are limited to a single shot of the scene? If not, you'd be far better off taking two images and blending the exposures (regardless of the camera you're using).


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


No worries. I have followed you in this forum. I know you are a serious person. As you saw I was not offended. The good thing is that the dealer agreed to pick up the camera (it will happen on Tuesday) and to make some tests with the replacement camera  so as to send me a good copy (I hope there is one!)


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro or anyone with a 1Dx or 1DxII can you help by trying a similar setup?
> ...


A day (night) after full moon the temple is lighted (usually). Since the moon is not very high, If I use ML I am at the limits of DR. I like shooting one instance although I do understand that there are cases where no matter how good a camera we need to take many photos. Fortunately the dealer agreed to take back the camera. We will see how this proceeds. If the new copy is OK (I am talking about the banding, some noise from Exp Comp is acceptable of course) I will settle with this. Although familiar with just buttons (eos 620,600,rt,1n/1nHS) I prefer the small size and the silent shutter of 5D series.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Keep us updated. I downloaded the file of the graduation (?) from Dropbox that another member had posted, and my version didn't have as obvious banding as his conversion that he posted here, but then looking at his screen grab of ACR I had used a slightly different method to achieve more or less the same picture by moving mid tones more and shadows less.


----------



## Labdoc (Oct 27, 2016)

PhotoSimon said:


> Also Labdoc provided a file which doesn't appear to have the issue after a 5 stop push and a 100% shadow push . . . I'd be interested if Labdoc could provide the original RAW file so that I could have a play too.



I went back and tested every picture taken with the MKIV and can not make the banding appear which is a good thing. One pic I expected to have problems, underexposed at 32000 ISO shows only noise but no banding when pushed 5 stops. The fact it happens on some cameras is still disconcerting. I'm not sure if it matters, but I was one of the people who waited on Amazon to deliver, they were at least a week behind all the other vendors, maybe it was from a later batch of cameras. No problem providing RAW files but I have no place to post them and my internet is very slow but still willing to try.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



You mentioned a "similar situation" to the 3.5-4 stop push. That's going to hurt your tonality, even in the absence of any banding or other artifact. ML dual ISO will cost you resolution. 

Full moon landscapes work at golden hour with a single exposure, but at blue hour or later you really should consider blending multiple exposures IMO.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2016)

Labdoc said:


> PhotoSimon said:
> 
> 
> > Also Labdoc provided a file which doesn't appear to have the issue after a 5 stop push and a 100% shadow push . . . I'd be interested if Labdoc could provide the original RAW file so that I could have a play too.
> ...



Is this not predominantly a low ISO problem, if indeed it really turns out to be a batch problem.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> hi,
> a test that you have to do to see the defect is a wide dynamic scene that includes deep shadow as well as bright areas. A real life situation. The quickest way to find such a scene is to find a dark room in your home with a window with some detail and bright sunshine outside. Expose for the scene outside and let the shadows in the room fall where they may . Then try some shadow lifting. If you don't get banding here, then it is not likely you will routinely find this kind of under-exposure in most things you will shoot.
> 
> 
> ...



Your only problem there is where the camera has recorded nothing in the first place, so you have no problem. Or maybe that's what your saying.


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


You are right of course. I admit I do not feel very comfortable with blending although I have used it once successfully (5 stop difference: I was shooting.... you guessed it: moonrise again). But I enjoy much more to just manipulate in ACR raw files.
In the specific case I had used ML in some and not in others. The best result (with difference) was the ML version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

tron said:


> You are right of course. I admit I do not feel very comfortable with blending although I have used it once successfully (5 stop difference: I was shooting.... you guessed it: moonrise again). But I enjoy much more to just manipulate in ACR raw files.
> In the specific case I had used ML in some and not in others. The best result (with difference) was the ML version.



As far as exposure blending goes, the moon is pretty simple if it's an isolated element – just cut it out, drop it into the other image (over the blown out moon), and blur the edges a bit. It's more complex if you're shooting from a distance with a telephoto lens and the foreground is superimposed on the moon. But there are ample tutorials on exposure blending, luminosity masks, etc. I'm assuming you have PS, if not it might be more difficult. Regardless, good luck!


----------



## ivanku (Oct 27, 2016)

Hey Kevin (OP),

Have you gotten any more response from CPS?
I reached out to them and they were fairly dismissive, saying that every camera they produce shows fixed-pattern noise when the files are pushed. I'm disappointed, but I'm keeping my camera and not juggling bodies back and forth to find one that shows less banding. I am curious what kind of response you got from Canon


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 27, 2016)

So I tested my 5d4 for this banding using a 5 stop push with 100 shadows raising (something I don't come close to needing myself, but this is just to see if the sensor is even capable of that). I do understand that this technique is useful to some, but I do suspect this is pretty rare. 

I mostly don't see banding, but perhaps 1 out of 3 shots, I do see some limited banding. I am including the worst of the banding I was able to reproduce in an image below, along with a 1:1 crop. 

Thinking that perhaps this sudden need for 5+ stop pushes is not a reasonable standard by which to call a sensor deficient all of a sudden, I wondered how my 1DX would do, it being the much-vaunted flagship camera for Canon just a few months ago. What I discovered was that the noise and banding were consistently much worse on the 1DX, which has the advantage of having a much larger area per pixel. I also include a shot below, taken by the 1DX at a 1:1 crop. 

I then looked to see what had the most beneficial effect to fix any banding on the 5D4 in Lightroom. I found that upping the "color" slider under noise reduction helped a little, but the "smoothness" slider took away about 2/3rds of the banding. 

Pretty freaking impressed how much dynamic range this 5D4 is giving me, and how many stops of push I can do. I would judge it (by my tastes and standards) to give me 3.5 to 4.5 stops of push. My old 5D3 gave me 2 to 3 stops before I didn't like the results. The 1DX gives me roughly 2.5 to 3.5. This is all pretty subjective in terms of what I consider acceptable, but the relative performance between the three cameras is fairly demonstrable. 

The upshot: The 5D4's sensor improved noise and banding enormously, although perhaps a stop or so away from the Sony sensors. I think this thread has been fantastic in establishing how much things can be pushed, but this limit is no more a "defect" than the Nikon D5's fps being a couple less than the 1DX Mark II. The Nikon's frame rate is a good improvement, but not the industry's best, which doesn't make it defective. 

Pictures below:
1- 1DX crop of banding and generally unusable noise levels at 5 stop push +100 shadows.
2- 5D4 equivalent (worst example I could create just now)
3- Same as above, but with some noise reduction to see how it handle the banding (color and smoothness)
4- The 5D4 image slightly cropped, just to show that even with a 5 stop push and 100 percent shadow recovery, it's usable.


----------



## geekpower (Oct 28, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> hi,
> a test that you have to do to see the defect is a wide dynamic scene that includes deep shadow as well as bright areas. A real life situation. The quickest way to find such a scene is to find a dark room in your home with a window with some detail and bright sunshine outside. Expose for the scene outside and let the shadows in the room fall where they may . Then try some shadow lifting. If you don't get banding here, then it is not likely you will routinely find this kind of under-exposure in most things you will shoot.
> 
> 
> ...



what is this supposed to prove? the 2nd picture is not a push of the first, unless pushing 5 stops can magically turn a white pillow blue, and a smart phone into a laptop sleeve.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 28, 2016)

geekpower said:


> jakdaniel1975 said:
> 
> 
> > hi,
> ...



Nice catch 

Alternatively people could learn to use their cameras better, but no, wildly unrealistic expectations of 14 bit capabilities shouldn't get in the way of a rant, should it?

This from yesterday..........


----------



## dcm (Oct 28, 2016)

geekpower said:


> jakdaniel1975 said:
> 
> 
> > hi,
> ...



Or move the plant? And open the door?

I'll assume jakdaniel1975 just picked the wrong first image when posting. But it would be nice to see an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## tr573 (Oct 28, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > jakdaniel1975 said:
> ...



He posted the whole set of RAW's on DPR forums, and with both of those photos (the before and after which are of course different photos) if you do a reasonable conversion there's no banding. 

It's only when you blast everything all the way to the right , which sure is a fun experiment, would not result in a nice exposure even if the banding weren't there. It's far too bright as anyone can see looking at it - you can dig a remarkable amount of detail out of the shadows, but you can't go kookoo on it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Nice catch
> 
> Alternatively people could learn to use their cameras better, but no, wildly unrealistic expectations of 14 bit capabilities shouldn't get in the way of a rant, should it?
> 
> This from yesterday..........



Nicely exposed. Situations like that always bother me (when the primary subject is level, but the ultimate horizon is not).


----------



## tr573 (Oct 28, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> I thought it was obvious that I exaggerated to lighten to show no banding but the most thick strips ....
> 
> file raw dowload :
> 
> ...



Sorry man, I didn't realize that file wasn't actually in the archive - there's so many similar  That one appears to have a stop less exposure given than even the darkest of the other bed shots in the archive, so yeah I'm not surprised it showed banding even sooner - on some of the others with a natural looking conversion there wasn't any, but if I pushed them super bright it showed up. 

Wasn't trying to accuse you of anything nefarious, just saying that it wasn't showing up when making normal looking pictures out of most of these so people probably shouldn't worry too much about the results of experiments vs actual picture making.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 28, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Nice catch
> ...



It's just a rough edit not a delivery file. I can straighten everything up but it was impossible to get leveled as the tripod was on the bed and it moved as I did to adjust it, and the house is not set square on the hill looking out. I'll pull it all around to make it 'square' before I deliver it. I triggered it when I was off the bed via a CamRanger, best real estate/architecture tool ever!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 29, 2016)

I would like to update this thread with the fact Canon has now has my images for 3 days and hasn't responded back. I called them yesterday and got a new technician because mine had already left for the day. Nothing has been resolved yet. They also brought up that I was using Adobe software and I told them I included images from both DPP and Lightroom and the phenomena exists in both.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> you may also learn how to better look at the pictures I posted ... instead of putting a completely different situation with low contrast ... and with lights on inside the room !!
> 
> before you say to those who make the tests to learn to use the SLR !!!!!!!!



We can all test anything to failure and we rarely learn anything from it. With skill and application we can also use whatever equipment we have to get the result we need in any conditions that we are confronted with.

Your 'test' images made it appear that it was impossible to take a well balanced image of a room showing an extremely high dr view outside. I put my image up to show that scenario is not only perfectly possible but it is possible to a more than acceptable standard with the equipment we have.

To be honest I find images that demonstrate what is possible far more instructive and helpful than images, even tests, that show what isn't. 

Now there are many 'real world' situations where I can get my camera to not cover the scene dynamic range, but there are few instances where I can't create the image I actually want or need because of it.

Current camera sensor DR capabilities are within a stop or less at base iso from all manufacturers. As has been discussed many times, lifted shadows are incapable of giving an acceptable tonal range when they cover large or important areas of the frame. In actual fact the camera with the RAW files with the largest DR seems to be the dual pixel RAW files from the 5D MkIV as they give a stop more in the high tonal range where it can be used.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> you may also learn how to better look at the pictures I posted ... instead of putting a completely different situation with low contrast ... and with lights on inside the room !!
> 
> before you say to those who make the tests to learn to use the SLR !!!!!!!!



To be sure, my image contains over 17 stops of dynamic range so I don't understand why you'd say it is low contrast! Maybe it is because I am good at what I do and I don't live my life seeing issues but working around them?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jakdaniel1975 said:
> ...



If you write a coherent answer I will be able to address it :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jakdaniel1975 said:
> ...



Privatebydesign has long history of accurate and helpful posts, and demonstrated experience as a photographer. I'm certain he can determine the DR of a scene he's shooting. 

You have an extremely short history, which wouldn't be a detriment except that you've already managed to demonstrate your ineptitude by posting an underexpose-push comparison of two different images. 

All the derisive laughter in the world won't make you correct. It does effectively make you look foolish, however...


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2016)

I'm not sure why, but reading this thread reminds me of this book: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/how-satan-came-to-salem/407866/

It's amazing what people can believe when they get caught up in mass hysteria.

I'm not saying that people aren't sincere, I'm just wondering how much can be attributed to the power of suggestion. And how much is attributable to exceeding the normal tolerances that the sensor has been designed for.


----------



## zim (Oct 29, 2016)

#179 from jakdaniel1975 shows me that the 5d4 has more dr than I'd ever need without going to blending to avoid flat horrible toneless images


----------



## d (Oct 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'm not sure why, but reading this thread reminds me of this book: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/how-satan-came-to-salem/407866/
> 
> It's amazing what people can believe when they get caught up in mass hysteria.
> 
> I'm not saying that people aren't sincere, I'm just wondering how much can be attributed to the power of suggestion. And how much is attributable to exceeding the normal tolerances that the sensor has been designed for.



Seems we need a separate thread titled, '5D4 Owner Defects Discovered' for some of the "photographers" here.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> > If you write a coherent answer I will be able to address it :
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jakdaniel1975 said:


> > over 17 stops
> 
> 
> ;D ;D ;D ;D : : : :



What did the translation get wrong? What is coherent?

As for your images, they are all bad to the point if unusable, we know that, now show me comparison images from other manufacturers sensors that are usable in the same shooting situations. As I said, the differences between Sony/Nikon/Canon sensors DR is less than 1 stop, are we still arguing about this now the differences have been halved?

My image was taken with a 12 stop DR sensor, the image contains over 17 stops of DR, if you think a 60w bulb is reducing the contrast against midday Caribbean sun you are a fool!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> > My image was taken with a 12 stop DR sensor, the image contains over 17 stops of DR, if you think a 60w bulb is reducing the contrast against midday Caribbean sun you are a fool!
> 
> 
> 
> Please, you can explain how can a sensor with 12 stops dr represent a 17-stop scene dr? perhaps because they are less than 12 stops the scene you've got ?!



I knew a guy who bought a Porsche 911, and every time he drove it, he ground the gears of the manual transmission, lurched the car forward and back while trying to accelerate, and couldn't manage to stay in his lane because he was concentrating so hard on shifting. 

You and your 5DIV remind me of him.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> > Privatebydesign ha lunga storia di messaggi precisi e disponibile, e l'esperienza ha dimostrato come fotografo. Sono certo che può determinare il DR di una scena che sta sparando.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We understand, what I am asking you for is to show me any camera (with 14bit RAW files) that is noticeably better in the same situation. As far as I am concerned if a file isn't usable it isn't usable, be that banding, noise, lack of tonality etc etc, it doesn't matter what disqualifies an image. But show me a camera that you can buy today that is markedly better than the one you have.

As for my image. Here is an unworked version from the shoot, so how much light is that 60w bulb giving?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2016)

jakdaniel1975 said:


> blablablablabla



Interesting. When I plug that into Google Translate, it returns, "I'm clueless."


----------



## M_S (Nov 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jakdaniel1975 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I don't see that 19805 posts of bs are better in that case and make the writer any more reliable. Bitching on peoples post make the count high but is not a factor of useful interaction. The inability to abstract and concentrating on small errors instead is well known and can be treated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2016)

M_S said:


> Bitching on peoples post make the count high but is not a factor of useful interaction. The inability to abstract and concentrating on small errors instead is well known and can be treated.





M_S said:


> Strange that I saw way more SUVs on my trip to the US than small cars then.
> This says also otherwise:
> http://www.businessinsider.de/us-small-car-market-is-a-disaster-2016-8?r=US&IR=T
> 
> So. Again some of those neuro bullS___ comments.



Indeed. Even if the 'errors' aren't errors at all. I suggest you seek treatment immediately.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 1, 2016)

***UPDATE***Canon Service Requests My Camera For Further Testing***

After almost a week of dragging their feet, Canon reached out to me yesterday. I was told initially that everything was normal. "Banding" is what they called it. They were trying to get me to just concede and move on with my life. They claimed they didn't see anything that I was talking about in the RAW files and the JPEGS "were stripped of information so they threw them out." (Not true on my end, all shooting information is still intact within the EXIF)

The issue he "couldn't see" he said was from Lightroom... So I explained to him to push the histogram since DPP only allows 3 stops. Then he could see it...said it was because there wasn't any information there and all Canon cameras do this - they don't. I said banding is one thing, but this is "streaking highlights from the left side of the image to the right and it's only horizontally. Never vertically."

Finally, I had him look at the key areas I was speaking about and he actually admitted to me that it was strange, but there wasn't anything he could do about it there. He emailed me a Next Day Air UPS label and it's going to Canon service to be looked at.

****
To the critics of this post topic:

I would like to apologize for some of the wording in my original post. I admit some of it may be considered a little too harsh or critical, but it was in an effort to drive the point home.

Once again, this is something I'm personally experiencing with MY 5D4 and not with a rented 5D4 I had last month. Judging from other posts within this thread, some cameras seem to have it and others don't. This leads me to believe that there is a variance in the sensors for each camera to respond to pushing/pulling shadows this differently.

Again, I know what I'm doing. I'm a very seasoned professional who makes 100% of my living using my cameras and have been doing so for close to 12 years. If you're personally incapable to understanding how discovering a camera you just spent $3500 on a camera waited 4+ years for has a weird anomaly not all other 5D4 cameras have is upsetting, just move on with your life and stop posting in this thread. 'When will this be a problem?' If you also don't know how this could possibly have any impact on your photos 'if you're taking photos correctly,' you're clearly not someone who has ever run into a situation in your work that a moment you captured and absolutely need is a little off...you're either lucky or inexperienced.

If you have something to contribute where we can figure out what causes the issue to appear, please speak up. I'm learning it's any overexposed area on the left side of the frame.

Thank you,
Kevin


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 1, 2016)

Where's Dilbert on this subject? Seems strange without him!

Jack


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Nov 1, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.



SO SO TRUE.. LOL


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Where's Dilbert on this subject? Seems strange without him!
> 
> Jack


Jack pleaaaaase! It is not funny! To day UPS picked up my 5D4 to return it to dealer. Kudos to him for arranging everything! He even agreed to perform some tests. I included a usb stick with 5D4 cr2 files and sinilar 5D3 ones to make comparisons. I even included latest DPP and DNG converter software to make it easier.

Since it's UPS standard it will take a week for the return, then a few days for selection/test of a new 5D4 and then another week for delivery...


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.


I just returned my camera for a similar reason. The defect showed in black only with -3 EV Exposure Compensation during exposure and boost in post. A similar 5D3 photo was MUCH better (with the known shadow problems in some very small completely dark (even after exposure) parts. It is not as if I use this way of shooting daily. I don't so I didn't discover it when I shot a low light indoor event but I need a camera that is a superset of my 5D3 (in blacks/DR etc) a few days per year when shooting moonrise behind a temple. If 5D3 does not have this issue I cannot see why 5D4 must have it. I would like to know your opinion when/if you get 5D4, check to see if it behaves similarly and keep it at the same time. By the way I didn't boost shadows. The problem was visible anyway!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 2, 2016)

tron said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > We have met the enemy and he is us. Having to boost a photo 5 stops is not a sensor defect, something else is defective.
> ...



There is no problem with realistic situations that show a malfunction and it certainly is valuable to have any malfunction exposed. However, the comment that you can test anything in such a way that it is caused to not perform acceptably, still applies. 

Another comment about testing to destruction not being useful is probably not completely accurate either since I'm sure we could all come up with examples where destruction leads to deep soul searching and the discovery of things that would otherwise never be investigated.

Since nothing is perfect one might question whether one really wants to push their personal equipment to the _extreme_ limit to expose whatever shortcoming it has. If everyone does this and if there is actually no practical reason why the limit needs to be pushed, the net effect will be the company having to replace units at a higher rate, and costs ultimately being passed on to customers.

So, really what it comes down to is whether a person is being "picky" and where to draw the line. We all have different standards in this regard. It would be interesting to compare this scenario to the one of people picking up their new car and looking for paint defects or whatever. The pickiest person will always find defects in every car and yet sometimes those same folk have chips and scratches after a few weeks that would exceed any factory defects.

I'm not making any judgment on this particular camera issue relative to the OP but some comments in the thread have been over the top, which has resulted in responses that are not tolerant of the lack of clear judgment. 

One thing for sure, when a response comes from someone, with the preface of having great expertise accumulated over many years, and that is used to _put down_ someone who has _demonstrated_ expertise over many years down, I know who I'll tend to believe. 

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Nov 3, 2016)

Well, for what it's worth, I went back and took some test shots with the 5D4, deliberately underexposing and then pulling up.

I can confirm that I am able to reproduce the issue that the OP and others have brought up, but it only seems to occur in certain, extreme conditions. Strongly underexposing in low-light conditions (2 stops or more) at base/low ISO (particularly if there is a lamp in the frame or just outside) seems to reproduce the issue most strongly. Oddly enough, at higher ISOs it doesn't seem to be a problem (maybe the higher noise levels obscure it?). 

I never saw it in any of my real-world shots, but in my tests I'm able to see it in varying degrees - lines of green tint (occasionally red or blue) in _certain_ dark and/or shaded areas of the image. I guess the real question is whether this is simply a quirk of the 5D4 sensor or whether it's actually a legit issue where _some_ cameras exhibit this "phenomenon" (Canon's word for bug) while others do _not_. Either way, I'm not sure it's a huge deal for me - as long as it's not showing up in my everyday, real world images, I'm OK. 

If Canon later comes out and ends up issuing a service advisory for this, so be it - but as far as I can see so far, it only seems to happen in extreme circumstances and it doesn't seem to be anything for me to get really concerned about...at least for now.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 3, 2016)

I can also confirm there is something wrong in my 5Dmk4 camera and it can see in real world photos…

I take some shot at night time in the city and outside shopping mall and later look photos from my PC, all parts of dark night sky was full of dark stripes, so near to black level there are visible horizontal stripes (if boosting shadows even little it’s coming more visible), other Canon cameras I own earlier don’t have this "phenomenon".

This stripes can be visible without boosting anything in the photo, stripes changes little photo by photo and some situation there is little color tint.

Shots was taken RAW and base ISO 100 and can see in newest Lightroom and DPP.

I return this camera already to Canon (Finland) and now waiting the results…


----------



## unfocused (Nov 3, 2016)

Act444 said:


> ... If Canon later comes out and ends up issuing a service advisory for this, so be it - but as far as I can see so far, it only seems to happen in extreme circumstances and it doesn't seem to be anything for me to get really concerned about...at least for now.



I think this very effectively sums things up. No one on this forum can know whether or not this is an actual "defect" or simply a result of pushing a product beyond the limits of what it is designed for. Many of us suspect it is the latter, but I'm willing to hold that thought until we know more from Canon. I would, however, caution that simply because Canon may choose to replace or repair a camera that displays this phenomena, that doesn't necessarily confirm that it is a "defect." Many times, manufacturers will exchange a product simply because they want to keep a customer happy and it's cheaper and easier to ship out a replacement.


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > ... If Canon later comes out and ends up issuing a service advisory for this, so be it - but as far as I can see so far, it only seems to happen in extreme circumstances and it doesn't seem to be anything for me to get really concerned about...at least for now.
> ...


Two things:

1. There are no "mirracle" products of course but I assume that my 5D4 should be better than my 5D3 in similar conditions. It is not.

2. The dealer will indeed replace it but he also agreed to make some tests himself using the replacement camera. I told him of the specifics plus to make things easier I sent him a usb stick with the 5D4 test raw files, the 5D3 similar ones, Canon's latest DPP and Adobe's free DNG converter. I do not know what will happen but for now I ... have hope...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm thankful Canon has a good service record and of course there is hope. 

I just hope my new 1DX II doesn't exhibit any issues. After I got it I did get the funny rectangle down in the right bottom corner but knew immediately to check the firmware number and then upgraded. That gave me the jitters - only worked after I found out that in-camera formatting the card still left empty folders, which I had to delete.

Good luck.

Jack


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm thankful Canon has a good service record and of course there is hope.
> 
> I just hope my new 1DX II doesn't exhibit any issues. After I got it I did get the funny rectangle down in the right bottom corner but knew immediately to check the firmware number and then upgraded. That gave me the jitters - only worked after I found out that in-camera formatting the card still left empty folders, which I had to delete.
> 
> ...


Thanks! As far as 1DxII you are talking obviously of the Sandisk bug which has been handled with a firmware update. The only possible issue I have read about is auto focusing during servo AF but I guess by now - as a bird shooter - you will have verified that your camera is fine


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 3, 2016)

tron said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thankful Canon has a good service record and of course there is hope.
> ...



Hard to verify if the camera is fine since I'm not fine. 

Jack


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...


? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 3, 2016)

Fine as in a good photographer. 

Jack


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Fine as in a good photographer.
> 
> Jack


You are more than a good photographer as all your posted photos verify. So sharp photos, fine camera, fine photographer...


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Nov 4, 2016)

Thank you Kevin for your help, I never head back from you so I went ahead with my video and just posted it on Youtube. Hopefully we can get some better numbers to understand how many cameras are affected and get a solution or firmware update or something from Canon. I don't want this to become a thing where they deny it exists, and if we make enough noise maybe they will look at it. 

Thank you guys for helping with the tests!

Here is the video on youtube:

https://youtu.be/R4c78yuHgMY


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

not having any issue with mine... as far as I can tell. I was reading on dpreview that it may be some sort of radio interference? has anyone tested that theory out? I took a few test shots and they look clean as a whistle even at +5 stops.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

oops. here are the other two shots. the underexposed shot and the 100% crop of the middle portion thats pushed the most.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 4, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Thank you Kevin for your help, I never head back from you so I went ahead with my video and just posted it on Youtube. Hopefully we can get some better numbers to understand how many cameras are affected and get a solution or firmware update or something from Canon. I don't want this to become a thing where they deny it exists, and if we make enough noise maybe they will look at it.
> 
> Thank you guys for helping with the tests!
> 
> ...



Hey Micahel, sorry I never got those files over to you. I have been really busy and was also doing some testing on my own. I even went ahead and bought a SECOND 5D Mark IV to test against my original 5D Mark IV.

Head-to-head, the cameras both exhibit the exact same issue. The new one so a slightly lesser extent, but not anything I would say was an improvement, but it consistently has cleaner files. I have also discovered the problem is with boosting shadows and not so much the exposure. The problem persists at 100 ISO when you push 2.5-3 stops and is heavily exaggerated to the point of being comically unusable at 4 and 5 stops. ISO 50 is more resistant to the problem and only shows the streaking at around 4 stops - which is good news.

What I didn't expect to find was that the new camera produces different colors when the images are matched to the same white balance. The new 5D are slightly more orange at the same color temperature/tint. Just something I noticed.

Now that I've confirmed both cameras have the problem. I'll be sending the new one back to B&H and the old one to Canon, as they requested.

I don't think every 5D Mark IV has this problem, but I think there might be more than we thought...

- Kevin

I don't think Canon is going to do anything about this, unfortunately.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 4, 2016)

Also want to add:

1.) Dual-Pixel RAW had absolutely no impact on the file's performance in regards to the streaking.

2.) Seriously, guys, the camera is absolutely unusable when you push a file 3-5 stops. We waited 4 years for a camera with more dynamic range and then when you attempt to explore that dynamic range, you find out your camera can't handle it and others can. I'm going to keep my camera and keep using it, but this is not the news any of us want to hear/see. Most of the people I'm seeing that are making a big stink about this not being a problem don't even own the camera. LOL


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Also want to add:
> 
> 1.) Dual-Pixel RAW had absolutely no impact on the file's performance in regards to the streaking.
> 
> 2.) Seriously, guys, the camera is absolutely unusable when you push a file 3-5 stops. We waited 4 years for a camera with more dynamic range and then when you attempt to explore that dynamic range, you find out your camera can't handle it and others can. I'm going to keep my camera and keep using it, but this is not the news any of us want to hear/see. Most of the people I'm seeing that are making a big stink about this not being a problem don't even own the camera. LOL



you know what... I think I might have replicated that "banding" problem. hah.
Here's a black frame. 20 sec exposure at base iso. pushed 9 stops in post. 100% crop


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 4, 2016)

Ha, ha, ha, you should be a comedian.

Jack


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 4, 2016)

Haha, nice work. Send it in!


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Nov 4, 2016)

Thanks Kevin- I'm amazed that you would get two copies that have the same issue. I'm also fascinated at how few 5d4 users understand the test and how to execute it (unfortunately you wont see it under those image conditions ilumo)

getting interesting poll results, so far it's about 50%.

MM


----------



## TimoV (Nov 4, 2016)

For testing this stripes in real world, shot a night photo with clear sky and you may see “banding” kind of stripes in darker part of the sky… no need shadow boosting if you have proper monitor ;-)


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 4, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> (unfortunately you wont see it under those image conditions ilumo)
> 
> MM



Or _fortunately_, depending on your point of view


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> MichaelTheMaven said:
> 
> 
> > (unfortunately you wont see it under those image conditions ilumo)
> ...


Although my camera is affected and I sent it back I have to agree with you! The harder (to see it) the better!


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

I am trying to decide a possible course of action if there is still a problem in the new 5D4. I am thinking 1DxII but maybe this is an overkill... It will be very good for DR issues and action photography but for birds I would have to get closer (and weight would impact more since I would hold it more..). OK I will know in about 1.5 to 2 weeks...


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 4, 2016)

tron said:


> I am trying to decide a possible course of action if there is still a problem in the new 5D4. I am thinking 1DxII but maybe this is an overkill... It will be very good for DR issues and action photography but for birds I would have to get closer (and weight would impact more since I would hold it more..). OK I will know in about 1.5 to 2 weeks...



You said that the 5D3 is much better than the 5D4 with a 4-5 stop push. Is the 5D3 image usable when you do that? If not, then the comparison is effectively nullified because you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and the advantages of the 5D4 lie elsewhere.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Ha, ha, ha, you should be a comedian.
> 
> Jack



The funny thing is it was an actual test pushing a black frame I think I had to push about 6-7 stops to see noticeable banding. I'm really not sure what scenarios I have to use to replicate this issue. I'm just glad that I don't seem to be affected.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Thanks Kevin- I'm amazed that you would get two copies that have the same issue. I'm also fascinated at how few 5d4 users understand the test and how to execute it (unfortunately you wont see it under those image conditions ilumo)
> 
> getting interesting poll results, so far it's about 50%.
> 
> MM



Sorry. Haven't gone through all 15 pages. If you let me know what specific tests you need to run to replicate those results, I can try it for you guys. Maybe I can be the control.


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I am trying to decide a possible course of action if there is still a problem in the new 5D4. I am thinking 1DxII but maybe this is an overkill... It will be very good for DR issues and action photography but for birds I would have to get closer (and weight would impact more since I would hold it more..). OK I will know in about 1.5 to 2 weeks...
> ...


If you read a previous post you will read that it is better in the larger part of the example photo. Still having the known shadow lift problems but in the specific example they were shown in say 1% of the area not in the 10%.


----------



## tr573 (Nov 4, 2016)

ilumo said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Ha, ha, ha, you should be a comedian.
> ...



There has to be a very bright object in the left hand side of the frame, with dark areas to the right of it. Then when you bump up the shadows and exposure, there is the weird streak extended from the bright object.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

tron said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



i think that there is a too much generalization in this post. There certainly seem to be select situations where the banding flares up on SOME 5d4 bodies, but to say that the 5d3 is much better than the 5d4 when pushed 4-5 stops is complete BS and misinformation. The 5d4 in my experience and as tested by many people have blown away the 5d3 in LOW ISO DR. There seems to be valid issues on some bodies, but lets not exaggerate here guys.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

tr573 said:


> ilumo said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Look at my previous post of the swing set in the park. I was trying to expose for the sky and it was still blown out (very bright) in some areas, and then I pushed up the extremely underexposed areas (shadows) on the bottom of the frame by +5 stops, and there was hardly ANY of the horizontal banding (streaks) that some of you guys were experiencing.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 4, 2016)

An unfortunately long thread leading nowhere and back again.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> An unfortunately long thread leading nowhere and back again.



I think it's an informative post. a little too much embellishment, but I think there might be some actual issues with SOME sensors. or maybe it's due to certain shooting conditions...


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> An unfortunately long thread leading nowhere and back again.


This is the way I feel for some threads too but then if I do not like them I do not read them and certainly I do not make them longer by posting to them.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 4, 2016)

ilumo said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > ilumo said:
> ...



I think it _only_ happens in low-light settings - I had a similar underexposed shot in similar lighting - outdoor sun - also scenarios where I had extremes in DR and pulled the shadows quite a bit - no streaking at all, and noticeably cleaner than with the 5D3. However, wait for night-time, take it inside in dim lighting and underexpose at low ISO and _then_ you see it. It's rather odd, I'm not even sure I would have known about it had I not seen it reported on the internet/in this thread...

Also, your light source does not HAVE to be on the left side. I was able to reproduce the issue with the light on the right side, and even with the light source well out of the frame (although in that instance, it took a greater amount of pushing for the streaks to become visible)


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 4, 2016)

tron said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > An unfortunately long thread leading nowhere and back again.
> ...



But you add to threads by commenting on comments about the length of pointless threads, so I'm not feelin' so inferior. 8)

What else could be said? The misleading, sensational title is obnoxious, but it keeps going and going with nothing new added.


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


I have not started the thread but the title is relevant. Of course HOPEFULLY it does not apply to all but some 5DIV sensors. May be OP could add something to make it more specific. The thread it helped me to find about it soon to send my 5DIV back. 

Do you want to find threads that keep on and on? Find some discussions about how bad 5DIV is simply because it does not have tilting screen or because it has a 4K crop factor. ;D


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 4, 2016)

tron said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Word. 

Waiting on the tiniest discount...


----------



## ilumo (Nov 4, 2016)

Act444 said:


> ilumo said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



yea, i'll have to try it. but it's almost an oxymoron to shoot in LOW light and then also be at BASE ISO (unless you have iso invariant sensor, which 5d4 isnt). I mean, if you're shooting in "bad quality" light, shouldnt you also be shooting higher ISO? Not sure if i've ever shot in bad light and shot at that base iso. i dont think we run into this "banding" issue at higher isos, so then that test is moot.


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 4, 2016)

The thread is interesting. I DID actually see the banding in a couple of photos that had extreme backlighting (coincidentally; I wasn't going out looking for it.)

Since then, I decided to actually apply, you know, SCIENCE!

I've ran several tests where I severely underexposed on a 5D4, a 6D, and a Sony A7S with the same image.
Pushed all the images by 5 stops exposure in photoshop; and then +100 shadows.

No banding. 5D4 was by far the cleanest (most interesting was that even on a pixel level; the noise was lower than on the 6D, despite the 6D's larger pixels. Overall image much cleaner, with better colour and detail.)
The Sony A7S came next (I hear the A7RII is better than the A7S for dynamic range.).

Clearly in the last was the 6D.

In this case, I did NOT see any banding. The test image had a white wall with a very dark brown book shelf filled with books, each taking half the image.

What I'm beginning to suspect is (as several folks have said), is that the images that have this are, well, extreme. If you have an extremely bright image on the left; and dark on the right, then the dynamic range may actually just be too great to catch - 

For those who are testing this; and you have another camera available; I strongly encourage you to do the *exact* same test with the other camera; and compare them.

I'll continue to try replicate the banding in a scenario where I can then compare apples to apples with the 6D. The goal is to demonstrate that with the exact same image and exposure we have one of the following:
1. Demonstrate that there IS a sensor defect when the left side of the image is much brighter than the right by several stops, AND THE 6D/A7S PERFORM BETTER
2. The banding exists; but at this point, *other canon cameras such as the 6D have extremely poor performance as well* - i.e. the 5D4 does actually improve dynamic range in all circumstances, and this simply a situation of pushing to failure, and, well, finding it.

I'll update when I get time to try further tests.
Again; to those worried about their cameras, I'm finding the 5D4 pretty damned impressive - But I encourage you to test, and compare the exact same test, same exposure, same subject, with another camera, and post what you find.

Just looking at one subject does not an experiment make.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 4, 2016)

If you take the image in normal bring sunlight then there is a good chance the shadows are receiving some amount of light so underexposing them by 5 stops takes them down from [pick your unit] -2 to to [pick your unit] -7.

If you then have the same sort of image with a super-strong light on one side then the camera auto exposure sets an average metering lower than in the first example above. So you end up taking the shadows from [pick your unit] -4 to [pick your unit]-9. 
The signal-to-noise ratio in the shadows in the second example is far lower than in the first example. So lifting the shadows completely results in a noisier image and more banding. 

So setting an under exposure as 'under 5 stops' means you are setting an exposure 5 stops under what the camera thinks it should be. And what the camera thinks it should be will vary according to the conditions.

Later models of Canon meter lower than earlier models (I have seen this consistently with my 7D2 compared to 7D and comments regards the 1Dx2 are pretty much the same) so when comparing between generational models you are also comparing the way the metering software has been programmed.

This could well explain some of the observations.


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 4, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> The signal-to-noise ratio in the shadows in the second example is far lower than in the first example. So lifting the shadows completely results in a noisier image and more banding.



This is what I was thinking - which is why I think the only real validation is NOT whether you can demonstrate banding... but whether you can demonstrate banding in a situation where a previous model canon camera produces a clearly better image - *with exactly the same exposure and settings.*

My earlier tests were based off taking an initial exposure in auto to get the baseline, then setting all cameras to manual, and controlling exposure that way.


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 4, 2016)

Well folks - I think I'm going to say 'nothing to see here, move along'

I captured an extreme contrast scene with bright sun on one side, dark shadows on the other - Same exposure on the 6D and 5D4 - 

And? yeah, banding on the 5D4.
And also visible streaky left/right banding on the 6D, along with vastly worse noise characteristics.

What I did note with interest is that the 5D4 banding was more of a colour cast shift between green/purple; and that the bands were NOT positioned in the same place image to image. Most peculiar. (and might mean it's not hardware related.)

i'll try get a better and clearer example over the weekend to post for folks here who are interested to view. I'll also encourage others who are worried about their cameras to do the same thing. You'll probably feel a lot better when you see the difference.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Nov 4, 2016)

Sorry. Haven't gone through all 15 pages. If you let me know what specific tests you need to run to replicate those results, I can try it for you guys. Maybe I can be the control.
[/quote]

Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW. 

Ive posted the video and samples here: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=4280&canon-5d-mark-iv-sensor-problem

Poll is pretty consistent not at 50%

Thanks!

M


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 4, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW.
> 
> Ive posted the video and samples here: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=4280&canon-5d-mark-iv-sensor-problem
> 
> ...



Michael, I'd strongly encourage you to repeat the exact same test with same exposure settings on a 6D or 5D3 and compare. I found the 6D to be much worse.

[edit] I see you said on your website that you did try a 5D3. Very nice examples of the problem there. Would love to see your 5D3 example of the same test shown for comparison.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2016)

tr573 said:


> There has to be a very bright object in the left hand side of the frame, with dark areas to the right of it.





Act444 said:


> I think it _only_ happens in low-light settings



On which day(s) of the week does the problem occur? 




MichaelTheMaven said:


> Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW.



Now _that_ seems like a reasonable, reproducible test.


----------



## RBC5 (Nov 5, 2016)

That's an amazing coincidence! I turned on my Philco TV, under-connected the antenna, and it looked exactly the same!



Alejandro said:


> I just had to see this for myself, so i did this:
> 
> Underexposed a pic by 5 stops with iso 50.
> Then underexposed 5 stops in post.
> ...


----------



## ilumo (Nov 5, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Sorry. Haven't gone through all 15 pages. If you let me know what specific tests you need to run to replicate those results, I can try it for you guys. Maybe I can be the control.



Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW. 

Ive posted the video and samples here: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=4280&canon-5d-mark-iv-sensor-problem

Poll is pretty consistent not at 50%

Thanks!

M
[/quote]

Here you go.

Very white, overexposed flash from my phone on the left, and some unlit background on the right. and then pushed 5 stops.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 5, 2016)

I did a test comparing the 5D4 with the 1DX. 

Conditions: Took a photo with a monitor in the upper left quadrant of the frame, and pretty much complete darkness on the right hand side. This was underexposed exactly 5 stops. Same lens, same settings.

5D4 Results: after raising 5 stops in post and pushing shadows 100 percent, you can see the band of altered color to the right of the light side with the 5D4 shot. 

The 1DX shot has less obvious color and brightness alteration in that area to the right of the light side, but it has multiple bands of light, as well as an an even more problematic set of regular vertical lines. These appear to be worse to the right of the light. 

Upshot: I don't think anyone is going to prefer the 1DX shot over the 5D4 shot. I can say that the 5D4 sensor performs fantastically relative to my old Mark III and the 1DX, even in these crazy conditions. However, it seems that both cameras injected some oddly specific artifacts in extreme conditions. I speculate that it might not be a sensor issue, but a read-out mechanism issue, or possibly a software issue. It doesn't make sense to me that a sensor issue would cause this behavior. Because other posters have pointed out that this happens only when the bright area is on the left, that sounds like a readout issue to me. 

In the case of the 5D4, attention would naturally focus on the new on-chip ADC system they added into this new body. Perhaps this is teething pains for that new tech. If this is true, we would see the same problem on the 80D and the 1DX Mark II, which I believe share that chip. Anyone try those bodies?


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 5, 2016)

Here is the image mentioned above...

1DX on the left and 5D4 on the right


----------



## horshack (Nov 5, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW.
> 
> Ive posted the video and samples here: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=4280&canon-5d-mark-iv-sensor-problem
> 
> ...



This isn't an uncommon issue, although the degree to which it affects the image can vary. I just tried it on my Nikon D7200 (Toshiba APS-C sensor with one of the highest DR available today) and see similar blooming affects. Here's a full size image, shot raw and pushed +5EV in LR CC:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-rZxM8JJ/0/O/i-rZxM8JJ.jpg

Other cameras which exhibit this include the Sony A6000.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 5, 2016)

horshack said:


> MichaelTheMaven said:
> 
> 
> > Cover the middle and right side of the frame with your hand or a piece of cardboard. Take a picture of something very white or nearly overexposed on the left side of the frame. Inspect in RAW.
> ...



_*NO !*_ This cannot happen on a Nikon camera ! Thanks horshack, you've just ruined the best part of CR


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 5, 2016)

Here are some comparisons with 5D4, 6D and sony A7S - contrary to what I said yesterday; Sony does win under these *exteme* conditions (but what was to be expected). And when I say *extreme*, I mean it. I'll include the original exposure. You're just not going to do this normally. These are underexposed by about 6 or 7 stops, then pushed 5 stop in lightroom with a +100 shadows.

There is banding evident with both the 6D and the 5D4 - but the 5D4 is cleaner.
There is nothing to worry about with your nice new 5D4. It really is much better than the previous gen of canon sensors. When you don't push to breaking point, the 5D4 is even cleaner (and in my opinion and very informal testing, those slight 3 or 4 stop underexposures are where the 5D4 wins against the A7S due to nicer colour rendition.)

Other interesting notes: The camera's default white balance skews off by a fair bit when performing the test of overexposing on the left - This accentuates the purple/green banding even more - When you adjust to back to reasonable colour, it's not as obvious.

The last of the 5 images here is where I've flipped the 5D4 upside down, so that the bright sky is on the RIGHT of the sensor. Interesting result; entire colour shifts slightly; but the banding is much reduced. So keep that in mind if you are ever in this extraordinarily rare situation.

I've got more examples, but I figured these were pretty representative and covered most of what you'd want to see. the images have all been downsized to 2000x3000. I also adjusted the colour on each to be somewhat consistent - This benefited the Sony - the default in camera colour was way off compared to the canons.
Full version images available if anyone really cares.

Honestly; rather than being disappointed by 'Bandgate', I'm just blown away how impressive these modern sensors are. I can't believe I'm doing this kind of mad underexposure and actually getting an image out of it. I'm also kind of dumbfounded that it's causing so much panic.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 5, 2016)

TimoV said:


> For testing this stripes in real world, shot a night photo with clear sky and you may see “banding” kind of stripes in darker part of the sky… no need shadow boosting if you have proper monitor ;-)



Hi!

Timo I am from Finland capital area as well and got my 5D4 around 2 weeks ago. I can see some stripes as well when pushing the shadows to extreme with low ISO (100). Did just few minutes ago a test of the night sky with long exposure. It was a bit clowdy and cannot see any stripes in these frames. The stripes has been different colours from yellow to dark blue in lighter frames. Can you be so kind and post some pic as an example of the stripes in the night sky so I could compare. You/I can as well send private messages, since this would be good to get solved in Finland also - we are not the biggest market area for Canon ;-).


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 6, 2016)

Hi all!

This picture shows the problem pretty well. This was shot 5 steps under as RAW (ISO 100), then to LR and boosted exposure 5 steps back + shadows up. This is of course extreme, but the picture taken the bright side on the right did not show these "stripes" at all - actually amazing results without these stripes. There is no noice reduction used.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> Hi all!
> 
> This picture shows the problem pretty well. This was shot 5 steps under as RAW (ISO 100), then to LR and boosted exposure 5 steps back + shadows up. This is of course extreme, but the picture taken the bright side on the right did not show these "stripes" at all - actually amazing results without these stripes. There is no noice reduction used.



Of course it hasn't on the bright side, the sensor was actually able to record something !!

When the sensor has recored nothing, as in the dark side, I really don't think it matters what you see when you raise 5 stops + 100% shadows ( so about 7 to 8). It could be pink elephants for all I care.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all!
> ...



We are missing the point here. Like in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4c78yuHgMY&app=desktop the problem is that the sensor creates these stripes which is far from normal noice. Few messages up Timo referred to a picture where only 2 steps boost (no shadows) in exposure ruined the sky in his shot. I saw his picture and can verify that it is not okay.


----------



## tungchihyu (Nov 7, 2016)

new to the forum, so anyway.. I bought a 5D Mark IV today and can confirm this defect. I have returned the camera to the camera store and will wait for a feedback from Canon.. I am in Taiwan btw.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Nov 7, 2016)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear 

That is all :-X


----------



## ksgal (Nov 7, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> Hi all!
> 
> This picture shows the problem pretty well. This was shot 5 steps under as RAW (ISO 100), then to LR and boosted exposure 5 steps back + shadows up. This is of course extreme, but the picture taken the bright side on the right did not show these "stripes" at all - actually amazing results without these stripes. There is no noice reduction used.



Well, I'm amazed this has gone to 17-18 pages. 
Jukka, thank you for the image that explains what people are seeing so well. 

In all honesty, I'd take anyones 'defective' 5DIV for half price if an owner is so upset about the 'problem'.
PM me... please!

Back in the day, when we all shot film (I know some of you can't remember that, but it's true, we all did!) if someone underexposed 5 stops and then tried to get something out of that negative, and the result came out horrible.. well, we blamed the operator of the camera. With the latitude of film, usually you could still get _something_.. but no one expected the results of a 5 stop under exposure to be 'optimum' and usually were grateful we got anything at all. 

The film was not defective. The camera was not defective. The Camera Operator had a brain fart and screwed up. 

So. the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV is not defective. If you selected the camera and wish to return it because there is another camera out there that can do a 5 stop push and give results to your satisfaction, then you selected the wrong camera here... sell this one and go get the one that can give you the results you want in that situation. 

A camera is not defective if it only does 5 fps, or has 11 stops of dr, or can't do a panoramic picture. It means you got the wrong tool for the job. 

Saying this again - the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV is not defective. 

Go get the camera that fits your needs.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2016)

ksgal said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all!
> ...


The problem in my (returned) 5D4 could be seen at -3 EV which I believe is a valid selection since Canon supports it (by back dial, etc). Also If you shoot blacks camera meters for zone V and by setting exposure to -3EV you put them in zone II. This is not unreasonable. The post processing (+3 EV) that exhibits the issue maybe a little debatable but there are cases when this is necessary (I have mentioned in previous cycle of this thread so I do not want to repeat). For these cases (plus for some landscapes with no prefect lighting) I manage with my 5D3 using either ISO 50 or I use Magic Lantern's dual iso feature These are no ideal ways so I would like to use 5D4 instead. Again not unreasonable...


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 7, 2016)

ksgal said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all!
> ...




Please read the thread and check the original video from Youtube. The point in putting this to extreme is just to highlight the issue. As I say in my other post, a guy managed to get stripes in the sky with his 5D4 just by pushing the exposure 2 stops - nothing else was needed. Actually the problem shows without any boosting with a good monitor.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 7, 2016)

It has been mentioned before that the phenomenon _potentially_ could be seen in the corners of normally exposed and corrected for vignetting image taken with new Canon 16-35 2.8 L III lens that exibits strong corner vignetting at levels as much as -4EV. I have no concrete evidence to support this statement but if thats the case, then the argument that the phenomenon could be reproduced only in rear cases involving extreme image manipulation seems to falling apart.
Personally, I believe that Canon will be vocal about this issue once the cause was identified and solution was developed both at technical and business levels. But what do I know, anyway...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2016)

I underexposed a scene by five stops and then did a 100 percent shadow lift and I found this strange pattern in the picture. I think I should send the camera back to Canon, but now, wherever I go to take pictures, I find large crowds following me and praying. 

Should I return the camera to Canon or should I open up a small chapel in my living room. What do you guys think?


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2016)

Open a small chapel, accept donations and when enough go get a 1DxMkII ;D ;D ;D


----------



## lkunl (Nov 7, 2016)

I also found the problem when i take too much under picture and bring up exposure later in post.
(You can see purple strip when + exp just 1-2 stop but i + 5ev for easy to see it.)

pic 1 ISO 1600 
pic 2 ISO 1600 +5 ev purple strip at bottom
pic 3 ISO 3200
pic 4 ISO 3200 +5 ev no strip 

I hope this problem is just some raw compression problem or software problem not sensor problem. :'(


----------



## JimGemini (Nov 7, 2016)

lkunl said:


> I also found the problem when i take too much under picture and bring up exposure later in post.
> (You can see purple strip when + exp just 1-2 stop but i + 5ev for easy to see it.)
> 
> pic 1 ISO 1600
> ...



The C300 Mark II apparently had a similar 'luminous banding'/'CMOS smearing' issue that was resolved or reduced via firmware. Looks to be most likely a sensor issue. The interesting thing is that there are those that can reproduce this issue and those that cannot. If inherit to the sensor then I would think anybody would be able to reproduce this. Hopefully it's not a sensor 'defect' and can be resolved via firmware. I too can reproduce this issue. 
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2016/c300mkii-firmware-update.shtml


----------



## lkunl (Nov 7, 2016)

JimGemini said:


> The C300 Mark II apparently had a similar 'luminous banding'/'CMOS smearing' issue that was resolved or reduced via firmware. Looks to be most likely a sensor issue. The interesting thing is that there are those that can reproduce this issue and those that cannot. If inherit to the sensor then I would think anybody would be able to reproduce this. Hopefully it's not a sensor 'defect' and can be resolved via firmware. I too can reproduce this issue.
> http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2016/c300mkii-firmware-update.shtml



Hopefully it can resolve via firmware. Thank for your reply.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 7, 2016)

for those that have received a body back from repair, I would be interested in hearing what the "fix" was.


----------



## romanr74 (Nov 7, 2016)

ilumo said:


> for those that have received a body back from repair, I would be interested in hearing what the "fix" was.



would be interesting indeed...


----------



## Duckman (Nov 7, 2016)

I cant believe this has gone on so long! Is this the same guy under 5 names trolling?!? 
I personally am very pleased with what I see in the exposure latitude the 5Div provides. Now, I didn't read every single post so perhaps I missed something but, in my opinion, it seems the only real problem is not taking a proper exposure. 
-J


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2016)

Can't believe anyone exposes like in the examples and would expect anything else.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 7, 2016)

FWIW - took the 5D4 on a shoot of the fall colors, ended up doing some underexposing/pushing to preserve the blue in the sky - clean as a whistle! Amazing really. I've yet to see this issue occur in any of my real-world shoots.

This "phenomenon" may not actually be unique to the 5D4 - one YouTube review of the C300 II video camera from Canon also demonstrated similar streaking when filming high DR scenes (person in dark room in front of window).


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 7, 2016)

lkunl said:


> I also found the problem when i take too much under picture and bring up exposure later in post.
> (You can see purple strip when + exp just 1-2 stop but i + 5ev for easy to see it.)
> 
> pic 1 ISO 1600
> ...



With a scene like that why would you want to burn out the background so much? Or even lift the shadows that much?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 8, 2016)

I'm wondering if whoever did this test first has a job and/or a family?  The person must be bored to death to start doing this kind of stuff.


----------



## lkunl (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> lkunl said:
> 
> 
> > I also found the problem when i take too much under picture and bring up exposure later in post.
> ...



I just pick up some of my image that can show the problem. I actually don't use the image. 
It will be a problem when extream contrast sittuation like night scence with some bright lighting landmark.
When you have to under exposure to keep some hilight unclipping. I can see it with under exposure imeage even no exposure adjustment in post (especially night scene) .


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 8, 2016)

I bag to differ. This has nothing to do with person's maritual, job status, gender, age or sexual preferences. 
Some people like to push their boundaries quite a bit and we call them explorers. Thanks for your understanding




Jopa said:


> I'm wondering if whoever did this test first has a job and/or a family?  The person must be bored to death to start doing this kind of stuff.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 8, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I bag to differ. This has nothing to do with person's maritual, job status, gender, age or sexual preferences.
> Some people like to push their boundaries quite a bit and we call them explorers. Thanks for your understanding
> 
> 
> ...



I'd reserve the word "explore" for projects that have a legitimate potential for useful results. This is no more "exploration' than trying to dig deep a hole in one's back yard is archaeology.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 8, 2016)

lkunl, you got it!

I mentioned earlier that stripes are coming visible almost without shadow boosting... If you have night scene with bright lights and clear sky + no over exposure too much + you must have proper monitor (with normal cheap monitor you simple cannot see this stripes without boosting a lot).


----------



## lkunl (Nov 8, 2016)

TimoV said:


> I can also confirm there is something wrong in my 5Dmk4 camera and it can see in real world photos…
> 
> I take some shot at night time in the city and outside shopping mall and later look photos from my PC, all parts of dark night sky was full of dark stripes, so near to black level there are visible horizontal stripes (if boosting shadows even little it’s coming more visible), other Canon cameras I own earlier don’t have this "phenomenon".
> 
> ...





TimoV said:


> lkunl, you got it!
> 
> I mentioned earlier that stripes are coming visible almost without shadow boosting... If you have night scene with bright lights and clear sky + no over exposure too much + you must have proper monitor (with normal cheap monitor you simple cannot see this stripes without boosting a lot).



I just read your post. I can confirm that i have same problem. I try to shoot under exposure in daylight but did not find any problem. I will try astro shoot when i got clear sky. If i still see the strip when i expose correctly in complete dark sky It will be big problem for me. Congratulations to you that you can return it. I can send it to repair only (here).


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

TimoV said:


> lkunl, you got it!
> 
> I mentioned earlier that stripes are coming visible almost without shadow boosting... If you have night scene with bright lights and clear sky + no over exposure too much + you must have proper monitor (with normal cheap monitor you simple cannot see this stripes without boosting a lot).



I used to feel safe from natural disasters here in the UK. Then I bought a new-fangled ultra-sensitive super-dooper seismograph and now I realise that the whole town is about to be shaken to the ground. 
I am worried.


----------



## aa_angus (Nov 8, 2016)

So, what I gather is this: the author of this thread is a total jackass. Am I right?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> So, what I gather is this: the author of this thread is a total jackass. Am I right?



No, the author made an error (which he has admitted after nearly 20 pages) that his comments in his first post was poorly worded which set hackles rising on many respondents. If he had posted in the tone that he has done more recently this would have been more of a 'OK, but I don't know why you would do that'.

The question (still unresolved) is whether he has found a fault or whether he has found the technical limitations of the sensor which every keen photographer will do at some point.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit, very actively shooting down all findings in this thread and seems that you don’t even own this camera? Canon troll?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

TimoV said:


> Mikehit, very actively shooting down all findings in this thread and seems that you don’t even own this camera? Canon troll?



Have I shot down 'all findings'? Please show me where. 
This idea of 'you can only see it if you have the very best monitor' is verging on facile and reminds me of the hifi wars and the self-proclaimed 'golden-eared' audio gods - you can't hear the differences because your hifi isn't good enough, and it doesn't matter to you because you can't hear it. So pooh to you. 

This thread started with the OP demonstrating some pretty extreme circumstances to show an effect most people would not notice in a long time of shooting. In the good old days it used to be called 'finding the limitations of the gear'. Now everything is 'a fault' or 'a mistake' or 'the manufacturer don't know what they are doing'. It is becoming increasingly tedious to tell the difference between a genuine concern and someone who thinks they have found something worth discussing.

If, as later posts suggest, this also happens at a 2-stop push that is much more worthwhile of investigation and it will be interesting to hear what Canon say about it. 
I saw these same complaints about the 5D3 (some even claimed 'problems' because they saw banding with a 7-stop push!!!) when it first came out but that did not stop it becoming one of the best selling DSLRs for amateurs and professionals - the latter being the category who rely on this gear to put food on their table and a roof over their heads. 
So maybe a more interesting question is if Canon get it so wrong, why was the 5D3 so successful? 

This not about being a fanboy or a Canon shill, but being bored with over-hyping issues (real or perceived) and people seeming less willing to discuss gear but phrasing things in a way that suggests the only thing that interests them is finding 'problems' with new gear.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 8, 2016)

Let them dig. You never know what will come out out of this.



Orangutan said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I bag to differ. This has nothing to do with person's maritual, job status, gender, age or sexual preferences.
> ...


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 8, 2016)

This is my last comment to this thread. This is not banding, this is an error. Just took a photo in a training with bright window behind. Pushed 1,5 stops (no shadows) and what do I see - stripes on the wall. 6D never did this! I sadly gave it in exchange to get money for this new 4200 euros machine. I am starting to really regret my purchase. This is truly unacceptable. I am sure each new 5D4 is suffering from this - it just doesn´t show in all scenarios.

I am not happy to find these things on a new body. So all these smart asses who makes fun out of this really don´t get the point here.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> This is my last comment to this thread. This is not banding, this is an error. Just took a photo in a training with bright window behind. Pushed 1,5 stops (no shadows) and what do I see - stripes on the wall. 6D never did this! I sadly gave it in exchange to get money for this new 4200 euros machine. I am starting to really regret my purchase. This is truly unacceptable. I am sure each new 5D4 is suffering from this - it just doesn´t show in all scenarios.
> 
> I am not happy to find these things on a new body. So all these smart asses who makes fun out of this really don´t get the point here.



If you have a bright window behind, then the camera will push the shadows even deeper , the signal to noise ratio will be very low and make it even harder to get information from the shadows. Are you saying that the 6D would have produced a *usable *image from those conditions?
I guess as you have sold your 6D you cannot compare them side by side.

You say it doesn't produce it in all conditions - have you done enough testing to predict when it will happen? Because if not then it is hard to define what is a genuine problem and what is a limit of the camera. 

For me, these questions are not about being a smart-ass but trying to understand when it happens and whether it is an issue for me. Because in-depth every review by people whose reviews I have come to trust over time (woften working professionals), say it is at least as equal to the 6D in shadow recovery and no-one has mentioned this banding problem.


----------



## AnnWei (Nov 8, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> This is my last comment to this thread. This is not banding, this is an error. Just took a photo in a training with bright window behind. Pushed 1,5 stops (no shadows) and what do I see - stripes on the wall. 6D never did this! I sadly gave it in exchange to get money for this new 4200 euros machine. I am starting to really regret my purchase. This is truly unacceptable. I am sure each new 5D4 is suffering from this - it just doesn´t show in all scenarios.
> 
> I am not happy to find these things on a new body. So all these smart asses who makes fun out of this really don´t get the point here.



It's my first post here.
Same here in the similar scene.
Underexposure 3ev then push up 3ev in LR, +100 shadow, and then the banding showed up.

I returned the new 5DIV back.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2016)

The good news is that the seller emailed me that he got my 5D4 back and that he ordered a new one. The only issue is he told me that as soon as they get it they will ship it. I had asked him to make the specific tests that show if there is this issue but he didn't mention it in the mail. A test would help eliminate any issues with the second camera and avoid (my) disappointment We will see....


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 8, 2016)

This is pretty nasty banding to be honest. And it seems like a lot of people are experiencing this "problem". 

I won't be buying one now until after the new year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> I am sure each new 5D4 is suffering from this - it just doesn´t show in all scenarios.



You are *sure*? I guess they're handing out omniscience from Pez dispensers these days. :

Consider the 70D... Someone in Germany posted a blog about a problem achieving sharp focus with the center AF point. Someone else 'replicated' that finding (with a completely inadequate test). Here on CR and elsewhere, people were 'sure all 70D cameras suffered from the problem' and claimed 'the 70D is defective'. 

Meanwhile, the original guy in Germany had sent his 70D to Canon service, they found it to be defective and repaired it, and when the guy retested it, it was fine. 

This issue could be normal behavior, it could be a few defective units, or it could be a major issue. In that last case, there will be a recall for affected units. But that's not going to happen just because some dude on the Internet is 'sure' the model is defective.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 8, 2016)

^ Seems to be several reports of this on the internet. The camera is only 2 months old. 

With winter around the corner I'm better off waiting and seeing how to plays out of the next few months, rather than spending $5,200 Canadian on a camera that might be defective.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

AnnWei said:


> Underexposure 3ev then push up 3ev in LR, +100 shadow, and then the banding showed up.



So about a 6-stop push then?
How about you take a normal scene, not underexposed and then push the shadows 100%. Because that is what I would do in real life.
See how that works.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> ^ Seems to be several reports of this on the internet. The camera is only 2 months old.



Several reports. Tens of thousands of cameras sold. 'Several reports on the Internet' is meaningless, except to those experiencing the issue. Those people need to tell Canon.


----------



## tr573 (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AnnWei said:
> 
> 
> > Underexposure 3ev then push up 3ev in LR, +100 shadow, and then the banding showed up.
> ...



More than 6 with the +100 shadow actually.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > ^ Seems to be several reports of this on the internet. The camera is only 2 months old.
> ...



Let's be fair, though: if there are legitimate, replicable tests that demonstrate a legitimate problem within a sane exposure latitude then we can discuss it, and Canon should take action. However, you can't cite drownings as a reason to ban water as a dangerous substance; similarly, you can't push to extremes and infer problems at normal exposures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



Certainly. As I stated:



neuroanatomist said:


> *This issue could be normal behavior,* it could be a few defective units, or it could be a major issue. In that last case, there will be a recall for affected units.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *This issue could be normal behavior,* it could be a few defective units, or it could be a major issue. In that last case, there will be a recall for affected units.



All valid reasons to NOT buy the unit at this time.
If it is a minor issue it will play itself out and in a few months then buy one.

It reminds me of the 24-70mm II problems with copy variations and clicking noises. It is a great lens and people still buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> All valid reasons to NOT buy the unit at this time.
> If it is a minor issue it will play itself out and in a few months then buy one.
> 
> It reminds me of the 24-70mm II problems with copy variations and clicking noises. It is a great lens and people still buy it.



If a few reports of problems on the Internet constitute a reason for you not to buy something, you'll never buy anything. The 7D was 'soft'. The 7DII has 'focus issues'. The 5DIII had a light leak. Of those, only one was an actual widespread problem, which Canon addressed. 

I bought a 24-70/2.8 II during the 'problems', my lens is just fine.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> This is pretty nasty banding to be honest. And it seems like a lot of people are experiencing this "problem".
> 
> I won't be buying one now until after the new year.


That's a safe bet. I made the mistake to buy too soon. I didn't have any problems with my previous cameras (5D2, 5D3) simply because I waited. 

5D2: Needed firmware 1.07 to fix dark spots near bright ones.
5D3: Needed an insulation tape to stop metering being affected from light during night exposures.
7D2: Many units could not focus correctly

But the reason I waited was that I did not want them initially:

I upgraded to 5D2 when my 40D was stolen (plus I already had many FF lenses...)
I upgraded to 5D3 when I didn't think any more that 5D2 was equal to 5D3.
I got 7D2 when I started shooting birds and I was FL limited.

On the contrary I got 40D - my first DSLR -from the beginning but it was 100% OK.
I had an excuse that I wanted to start shooting digital and I was waiting for it (I even went on vacation two months before using my EOS1n - waiting for 40D)

I got 5D4 because I could not stop myself from wanting it!!!!!
In practice I could wait because summer was gone, so I did not needed it urgently for landscapes and landscape astrophotography. Also some DR demanding shoots would take place next May/June/July.

So I had no excuse for getting 5D4 that early.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > All valid reasons to NOT buy the unit at this time.
> ...


That is very true. I didn't buy the original 5D not only because it was too expensive but because it was reported to be a dust pump. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. But I could have shot many nice pictures in digital (like a total solar eclipse). On the positive side I used the money I saved to buy Coolscan 5000ED


----------



## unfocused (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ...This thread started with the OP demonstrating some pretty extreme circumstances to show an effect most people would not notice in a long time of shooting. In the good old days it used to be called 'finding the limitations of the gear'. Now everything is 'a fault' or 'a mistake' or 'the manufacturer don't know what they are doing'. It is becoming increasingly tedious to tell the difference between a genuine concern and someone who thinks they have found something worth discussing...
> 
> ...This not about being a fanboy or a Canon shill, but being bored with over-hyping issues (real or perceived) and people seeming less willing to discuss gear but phrasing things in a way that suggests the only thing that interests them is finding 'problems' with new gear.



Excellent post. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that this _might_ be a legitimate issue. But, so far, all the examples that have been posted look to me to be very typical examples of pushing beyond the limitations of the gear.

The much-maligned DPReview gave very high marks to the both the 1D x II and 5D IV, but also said Canon's sensor technology still lags slightly behind its competitors. To me, a lot of the examples posted here simply confirm that observation. People are pushing the camera to its limits and getting some noise and banding. No surprise. 

What intrigues me is the viral nature of how this supposed defect is being identified. Someone pushes the equipment beyond normal limitations and finds a "defect," which sets about a mass hysteria as others try to replicate the same conditions and conclude their equipment is defective. 

It seems like everyone would be better off if they just took a deep breath and waited to see if Canon identifies a real problem, or if this is just a hoax. If you bought it new, it has a year's warranty, so no reason to rush to judgement.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 8, 2016)

What I'm saying is, unless you need a 5D4 right now, why not wait and see how this plays out before shelling out a lot of money on a camera? 

Anyone remember the banding/exposure line issue with the D750 when shooting into strong backlit scenes? For weeks people on forums said it wasn't a big deal and would only show up under extreme circumstances, and then Nikon issued a recall.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 8, 2016)

tron said:


> I didn't buy the original 5D not only because it was too expensive but because it was reported to be a dust pump. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't.



It wasn't  Unless you used an external extending zoom like the 24-105 or 70-300 etc, then it was (is).


----------



## AnnWei (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AnnWei said:
> 
> 
> > Underexposure 3ev then push up 3ev in LR, +100 shadow, and then the banding showed up.
> ...



Actually only +3ev in LR, which means make the photo return to +0ev as the auto-metering of the camera.
I don't know how to get +6ev in LR.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 8, 2016)

Hello, I can get this banding by going +2 on the exposure and 100% shadows.

But only is the histogram is clipped on the left indicating there is no data there anyway.

Seems like a non issue on that basis tbh. If there's no data there all you do is get amp readout glow.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > All valid reasons to NOT buy the unit at this time.
> ...



Reports that number in the thousands always start with a few. I think you had previously mentioned you wouldn't be buying a 5D IV, neither will I. However if I were in the market for it I would probably wait a month or two to see how reports play out. 

The 24-70 II clicking noise thread still seems to pop up occasionally. It is a great lens regardless. 

I own one of the 7D II's with "focus issues", it has been to the CPS twice and still has an issue. Since I have purchased two and one has the problem , the problem seems to be centered around 50% of the 7D II's that I have purchased from my point of view that problem is widespread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Reports that number in the thousands always start with a few.



But most of the time, reports that number in the few do not go any further than that.




takesome1 said:


> I own one of the 7D II's with "focus issues", it has been to the CPS twice and still has an issue. Since I have purchased two and one has the problem , the problem seems to be centered around 50% of the 7D II's that I have purchased from my point of view that problem is widespread.



I think maybe you're just a little bit biased there...


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

AnnWei said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AnnWei said:
> ...



The bits that have banding are the shadows. You are pushing those by three stops then you are lifting the shadows again by 100% which is another 3 stops (or more). So you are pushing the non-shadows by 3 stops and the shadows by 6+ stops.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> I own one of the 7D II's with "focus issues", it has been to the CPS twice and still has an issue. Since I have purchased two and one has the problem , the problem seems to be centered around 50% of the 7D II's that I have purchased from my point of view that problem is widespread.



Done a statistics degree, have you?


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I own one of the 7D II's with "focus issues", it has been to the CPS twice and still has an issue. Since I have purchased two and one has the problem , the problem seems to be centered around 50% of the 7D II's that I have purchased from my point of view that problem is widespread.
> ...



I once kept had a cat that had been abused by its previous owner. It never trusted anyone, and never trusted me. From the cat's point of view all humans must be bad since its first owner had abused it so much. It is easy for the multitude of owners of happy lap cats to look at the abused cat and say the cat is wrong, but if you are the cat with cigarette burn scars your view may be different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I had assumed you were being facetious. If that's not the case, you clearly lack perspective and objectivity. Does the earth look flat from your point of view, too?


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Well of course not, it has hills, mountains and valleys to.


----------



## tr573 (Nov 8, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I have 2 kids, one of them was born with heart problems. The AHA and March of Dimes say it happens to 1 in 100 babies. From my perspective, it still happens to 1 in 100 babies, not 1 in 2. Anything else is ridiculous ignoring of reality. 

Edit: Perhaps this is because my brain operates on a higher level than a cat


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Perhaps this is because my brain operates on a higher level than a cat



That's not true for everyone... :-X


----------



## ilumo (Nov 8, 2016)

actually, I take it back. I could reproduce it. but man, in real world, i would NEVER do this. would be interested to see other cameras with this same test. I dont think in my 40000+ 5d3 shots ive ever done this, even in a purely test environment. oh well.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this is because my brain operates on a higher level than a cat
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

I think if you find banding after +5ev in post. It's normal but i can find banding without increase ev in post for 5D4 in some sittuation. (especially some of under exposure image in night scence.)

Here is some exsample.


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

+ 2 ev for easy to see it. ( I can see it without increase exposure.)


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

Crop 100% Top right corner.


----------



## ilumo (Nov 9, 2016)

lkunl said:


> + 2 ev for easy to see it. ( I can see it without increase exposure.)



sorry, I dont really see the banding issues that the OP had. can you specify where it is? or circle it?


----------



## tungchihyu (Nov 9, 2016)

So I got my replacement camera, still got the same problem. So the store staff told me that Canon (in Taiwan) didn't find it to be defect and claimed it to be a normal behavior. Which I personally don't (yet) believe it's a normal behavior. 

Anyway, I am keeping mine for a few reasons..

1) If it is really a defect, Canon would normally issue a recall. I don't mind that my camera gets recalled later.
2) If it is fixable by firmware, then it's all good.
3) It's not often that I will be in a situation where I have to underexpose by many stops and then push it later. I will be in Kyoto later this week and will see my real life usage.
4) Even with this 'defect', it is still a much better camera than my 6D, the new AF system and all the featured Canon added to semi-pro body after 6D are really benefiting me right now.


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

For comparision i have compare 5D2 vs 5D4. 

If you see banding after +5ev in post i think it's normal because you can see some banding with 5D2 just+2ev.
But my 5D4 you can see banding in some underexposure image without increase exposure in post.
I agree that if you want to buy 5D4 you should wait if you can. 

Crop 100% Noise reduction tab in Lightroom turn off. 

Left side 5D2. Right side 5D4
Under 2 ev and +2 ev in post.
Under 3 ev and +3 ev in post.
Under 4 ev and +4 ev in post.
Under 5 ev and +5 ev in post.


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

ilumo said:


> lkunl said:
> 
> 
> > + 2 ev for easy to see it. ( I can see it without increase exposure.)
> ...



It purple vertical line.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 9, 2016)

Hard to tell as the photo was obviously taken behind the glass. What seems interesting is that banding is always positioned along the longer side of the sensor no matter what.





lkunl said:


> ilumo said:
> 
> 
> > lkunl said:
> ...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 9, 2016)

Anyone who has ever worked with studio audio recording knows that there is no such thing as "zero noise." What exists is a high signal-to-noise ratio. If you seek the highest possible noise rejection, measured in -dB, you will be able to "hide" the noise.

Therefore, any equipment that records audio or image, when amplified beyond a certain amount, will start to show noise.

The question is: Would this noise level be noticeable in normal use?
I'm sure someone could make the noise be noticeable by using the best equipment in the world if they use it the wrong way.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 9, 2016)

There's random noise, which I can accept. But this is a straight discoloured line right through a portion of the image. It's clear as day.


----------



## romanr74 (Nov 9, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> There's random noise, which I can accept. But this is a straight discoloured line right through a portion of the image. It's clear as day.



Share the same feeling...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2016)

lkunl said:


> It purple vertical line.



It's not terribly obvious, but it's also visible in the full (not cropped) image. To me, that certainly looks like a defective sensor. If/when you communicate with Canon (assuming you haven't, apologies if you stated you did and I missed it), I'd suggest processing the image with DPP to avoid them blaming Adobe.


----------



## tron (Nov 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> lkunl said:
> 
> 
> > It purple vertical line.
> ...


+1 That is sound advice. When I returned my 5D4 I included a usb stick with a copy of CR2 file and newest DPP software for them to test by themselves (OK that and free DNG converter too!). But I have a feeling that they just believed me (I had already emailed them screenshots) and the day they got it back proceeded to order a new one. That would be OK but they also said as soon as they get it they will send it to me which seems fine except from the fact I asked them to test it themselves in an attempt to avoid disappointment. Judging from this thread and Michaels's the Maven poll I am not sure the replacement 5D4 will be OK. I emailed them to remind them this but I didn't get any answer.


----------



## ksgal (Nov 9, 2016)

lkunl said:


> + 2 ev for easy to see it. ( I can see it without increase exposure.)



Ok, so in another night scene, is this band in the same spot? or does the band move around on the sensor?

It is interesting, and it is definitely there... could be a flaw(?) or where the edges of the camera's abilities are.

I'll have to go play with my two tonight and see what I get with my non 5D4 cameras... just cause I've never really shot like this.. I've pulled shadows quite a bit, and got noise grain, and horrible banding in some cases, and seems like I have had the purple band show up on my 50D and 7D2, but only under extreme lifting.. but I wasn't doing night shots where there is bright spots. 

I suppose at a minimum, we shouldn't advise those who do night photography, and like to pull up exposures to go buy a 5DIV - there may be other cameras better suited.


----------



## lkunl (Nov 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> lkunl said:
> 
> 
> > It purple vertical line.
> ...



The banding appear on both DPP and Lightroom. It happen both vertical and horizontal composition at around same pixel. I test with night sky astro shot (at home after last trip) both normal and under exposure but still can not reproduce it. Maybe be it's because CMOS smearing same issue as C300 Mark II as JimGemini reply. 

https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/

I already call Canon but they said i have to drop camera at them for checking. 
I will travel soon. So, i dont have a time to send it to Canon yet.


----------



## JimGemini (Nov 9, 2016)

Here is a video comparing the C300 Mark II vs the Sony FS7 where the CMOS smearing issue is highlighted. This is exactly what is happening with my 5D4. The size of the banding and where it is located on the sensor varies depending on where in the image we have a strong highlight to shadow transition. Also able to replicate in DPP or Lightroom. 

https://youtu.be/ffnGDxONrCg?t=584


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 9, 2016)

We are far into Cloud Cuckoo Land!


----------



## JohnUSA1 (Nov 10, 2016)

Yuck, I never buy or like colored camera bodies as they start looking old in a very short time when the colored paint start fading or wearing off and the camera starts looking horrible and old.
Smart camera makers should just stick to the original black color.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 10, 2016)

tron said:


> and the day they got it back proceeded to order a new one.
> 
> That would be OK but they also said as soon as they get it they will send it to me which seems fine *except from the fact I asked them to test it themselve*s in an attempt to avoid disappointment. Judging from this thread and Michaels's the Maven poll I am not sure the replacement 5D4 will be OK. I emailed them to remind them this but I didn't get any answer.



I doubt you will get an answer because it was a silly request.

If they are sending you a new copy they are going to assume it is a good copy since the majority they send out do not get returned for service.

You received a bad copy and they send you a new copy. This is called good customer service. If they send you another copy that is bad and you return it for another that is great customer service, and poor quality control.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 10, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > and the day they got it back proceeded to order a new one.
> ...



No, it is not a silly request. I would ask the same because I would be interested as to whether it was a faulty sensor in a particular camera or a limitation of the sensor design. I would also take it as a mark of them being interested in what is happening. You can argue that a retailer will not be interested in defining the issue but you lose nothing by asking.

If they send you a replacement and that shows the same characteristic it is pretty facile of you to conclude it was poor quality control just because it did not match your pre-conceptions. The only way you will know it was poor quality control is if you get a third camera and that performs as you expected.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2016)

I had to try since this would save both of us the frustration of a second failure.

The reason there are not many returns - and I am not in a position to know seller's internal details - is that specific tests have to be done to discover the issues. Also it's a new camera and we do not know if they had many orders (this is also seller internal details).


----------



## aa_angus (Nov 10, 2016)

You people have crossed the line into insanity. I own a 5DIV and I'm willing to bet I use it a lot more than the majority of you do. There is no problem at all with my unit. It makes stunning images, and it is a pleasure to shoot with. This talk of pushing images 5+ stops? Cmon guys, the time has come to salvage what's left of your unfulfilling lives.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> You people have crossed the line into insanity. I own a 5DIV and I'm willing to bet I use it a lot more than the majority of you do. There is no problem at all with my unit. It makes stunning images, and it is a pleasure to shoot with. This talk of pushing images 5+ stops? Cmon guys, the time has come to salvage what's left of your unfulfilling lives.


As you rightly said: YOUR UNIT. Also read some entries where 2 or 3 stops are reported. Not 5....


----------



## Fatalv (Nov 10, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> You people have crossed the line into insanity. I own a 5DIV and I'm willing to bet I use it a lot more than the majority of you do. There is no problem at all with my unit. It makes stunning images, and it is a pleasure to shoot with. This talk of pushing images 5+ stops? Cmon guys, the time has come to salvage what's left of your unfulfilling lives.



The only thing that's apparently crossed the line into insanity is your logic and arrogance. Just because YOUR copy doesn't experience any issues doesn't negate the possibility that a portion (however small or large) are exhibiting problems. On the previous page of this thread there is clearly a banding issue with an image that's pushed two stops.

Regardless, since you 'use it a lot more than the marjority' of us, why are you here instead of out shooting? :


----------



## Memdroid (Nov 10, 2016)

Can somebody please explain to me why you would under expose for 5 stops (blackness!!!) and push the damn thing 6 stops? How is this related to photography and have artistic merit? 
It is like trying to get to your top speed on the first gear. Crazy!
Basically looking for a problem where there is none.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 10, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> Can somebody please explain to me why you would under expose for 5 stops (blackness!!!) and push the damn thing 6 stops? How is this related to photography and have artistic merit?
> It is like trying to get to your top speed on the first gear. Crazy!
> Basically looking for a problem where there is none.



It’s not that crazy when you think about it. 

You have a 24-70 2.8 II, shooting it wide open at 2.8 and 24mm. It vignettes pretty good. 

Now, let’s say you’re shooting with that lens to take a landscape/portrait/whatever with lot of sky (ex. on a beach around sunset).

You’re also in AV mode and have zeroed out exposure compensation (say you forgot to make an adjustment).

All that sounds totally reasonable, right?

Well guess what, in my experience, the camera will underexpose the person by ~2 stops to protect the highlights in the sky. To remove the vignetteing, you’ll need another 1+ stop recovery. So now you’re at a ~3 stop push which is right around where that banding (on some) 5D4s becomes present.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Can somebody please explain to me why you would under expose for 5 stops (blackness!!!) and push the damn thing 6 stops? How is this related to photography and have artistic merit?
> ...



NO.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2016)

Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2016)

tron said:


> Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?



Yep, and some people might have defective cameras, I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But many of the 'tests' being done or scenarios suggested as problematic are fanciful nonsense that go far beyond the capabilities of any camera currently available.


----------



## Fatalv (Nov 10, 2016)

tron said:


> Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?



You give people too much credit. They see the title, grab the pitch forks, and forget to read the thread


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2016)

Fatalv said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?
> ...


+1 Plus they don't have the specific camera ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 11, 2016)

tron said:


> Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?



Not as unreasonable as thinking Canon service would start opening boxes of new camera bodies and test for a fault that only a few people have reported.


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't anyone read about the -3EV and even -2EV stops mentioned earlier in this thread? Are these unreasonable?
> ...


Who said about Canon service? Do you even read the posts? I was talking about the seller!


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 11, 2016)

tron said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Even more unreasonable


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


It's better than having to get back a second camera or return the money...


----------



## hthieu17 (Nov 14, 2016)

Hello guys, I’m new here. I actually signed up for an account because I also wanted to share with everyone about the problem of Canon 5D Mark IV. I have known and read about the defect for a while, but I didn’t have time to check it. So I finally gave it a try.
The lens I used for the test was Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L II. At the beginning, I switched to MF at 24mm and adjusted other specifications to f22, ISO Low 50, 2 minutes. Then, I covered the camera with my jacket to make sure it was around 95% in the dark. 
After transferring the file to the laptop, I converted it with DNG converter. I pulled Exposure to +1, and +100 for Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks. The final result is this. What the heck are those streaks?


----------



## TudorD (Nov 14, 2016)

The "defect" can be reproduced in extreme conditions with any camera but on 5DMiv the noise pattern is colored and linear. The experiment was done with extreme negative exposure compensation, aperture closed:
- 5DMiv f22, ISO100, 30sec, exposure -5
- 7D f22, ISO200, 10sec, exposure -5
- Sony RX100 f11, ISO 100, 3,2sec, exposure -3

and "amplified" with +5 exposure and 100%shadows recovery. Sony underexposure was limited by camera capabilities and the obtained noise pattern is mostly white.

After a month of 5DMiv and one week of tests it is for the first time I can obtain this colored noise pattern.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2016)

hthieu17 said:


> What the heck are those streaks?




Well seeing as you found this thread have you reading all of it?


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 14, 2016)

it almost sounds as if: the longer the exposure ( 2 min. long exposure in this case) the less shadow push is required for the phenomenon to present itself?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> it almost sounds as if: the longer the exposure ( 2 min. long exposure in this case) the less shadow push is required for the phenomenon to present itself?



Yep, that is because the longer exposure is needed because of lower light levels which means lower signal to noise ratios which means more noise in the images. If you have to have the shutter open for 2 minutes the light is really, really low. Add to that the longer the shutter is open the more thermal noise there is in the sensor which adds to the problems. 

Which is why shooting a sunset scene at 1/20 sec and lifting 5 stops can be quite different to putting your camera under a coat and exposing for 2 minutes and lifting 5 stops. 

And all this is why some recommend that rather than shooting at ISO1600 for X seconds it is sometimes better to shoot at ISO 3200 for X/2 seconds. Or, if feasible, shoot at ISO 3200 for X seconds to overexpose (to increase signal to noise ratio) and bring it down in post processing. 
It is one thing to identify a problem (anyone can do that), another to know how the camera works so you can work within the camera's limitations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> And all this is why some recommend that rather than shooting at ISO1600 for X seconds it is sometimes better to shoot at ISO 3200 for X/2 seconds. Or, if feasible, shoot at ISO 3200 for X seconds to overexpose (to increase signal to noise ratio) and bring it down in post processing.
> It is one thing to identify a problem (anyone can do that), another to know how the camera works so you can work within the camera's limitations.



*^^This*

I'm not sure why people have such difficulty understanding and/or accepting this concept. Shoot RAW and expose to the right (ETTR). Be aware that the histogram and highlight warning ('blinkies') are jpg-based, so the 'R' may further right than it appears – with experience, you learn how much headroom you have (or you can try the UniWB trick to get a better RAW-approximating jpg). If your shadow detail is more than 13-14 stops darker than your highlights, no amount of post-processing will successfully recover them. In that case, you need to decide whether to sacrifice highlight detail, shadow detail, or some of each; or if the scene permits, take multiple exposures and blend them. 

If you are expecting your camera to capture the full range of detail in a scene with >14 stops, or expecting to recover detail that's well below the noise threshold, the problem is not the camera, it's your unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 14, 2016)

Gentlemen, I hope that this introductory photography course was not written just for me exclusively  LOL I am aware of most of what was brought forward  As a curious researcher, I noticed that amount of parasitic noise seems to relates to exposure duration. that' all  
And.. unfortunatelly my 6D's clipping (shadows clipping to highlights clipping) range is only 5.3EV at base ISO. Substantially less than 13-14 stops unfortunately but that does not prevent me from taking properly exposed photographs most of the time 

.


neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > And all this is why some recommend that rather than shooting at ISO1600 for X seconds it is sometimes better to shoot at ISO 3200 for X/2 seconds. Or, if feasible, shoot at ISO 3200 for X seconds to overexpose (to increase signal to noise ratio) and bring it down in post processing.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> And.. unfortunatelly my 6D's clipping (shadows clipping to highlights clipping) range is only 5.3EV at base ISO. Substantially less than 13-14 stops...



May I ask how you're making that determination?

DxO's quantitative measure ('engineering DR) puts the 6D at 12.1 stops of DR at base ISO. Bill Claff's more conservative and probably more useful calculation of 'photographic DR' is 9.2 stops at base ISO, and that is essentially matches what DPR gets with their empirical measurement based on shooting a Stouffer transmission step wedge.

So if you're seeing only 5.3 stops, four stops less DR than a 'real world' calculation and a matching empirical test done by different reviewers, something isn't adding up correctly.


----------



## tr573 (Nov 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > And.. unfortunatelly my 6D's clipping (shadows clipping to highlights clipping) range is only 5.3EV at base ISO. Substantially less than 13-14 stops...
> ...



sounds like shooting JPEG's in "canon standard" picture mode


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Gentlemen, I hope that this introductory photography course was not written just for me exclusively



No, don't worry 
I have seen a lot of discussions get derailed by misunderstanding and bystanders chipping in, so I tend to make sure it is clear where my logic comes from, albeit at the risk of insulting the intelligence of the immediate recipient.


----------



## Muh (Nov 14, 2016)

I bee digging now through all thse post so my question: 

how does Canon react - they just exchange the bodies? 

through all that i read now its certain that its a hardware problem and not fixable through an update since Canon is replacing them

but there has been no official statement till now


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2016)

Muh said:


> through all that i read now its certain that its a hardware problem



Not yet it isn't. 
The shop will often change the body because that is the easiest thing to do. That is not the same as saying Canon agree there is a fault.


----------



## tron (Nov 14, 2016)

Even if they replace the body it isn't as if they replace them with a 100% correct body. The replacement may be faulty as well...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 15, 2016)

Great question. 

I used Sekonic DTS software and X-Rite Colorchecker Passport to determine the DR of my camera and the clipping range. Software is available for download on Sekonic website and is used for light meter to camera calibration. 
In the process of creation of custom camera profile, I took 3 shots of the X-Rite colorchecker Passport 
At -3Ev , 0EV, and +3EV. Then, all 3 images were loaded in Sekonic DTS for analysis. DR of my camera was identified being 6.5 EV. That's in 10-250 range. Please see the photo attached.
In reality, clipping occurres a bit earlier than that. Therefore I have adjusted clipping margins to 20-245 -as it was recommended to me. The end result was : 5.3EV clipping range ( -2.3ev middle grey to shadows clipping and 3.0EV middle grey to highlights clipping). 
The takeaway from this test is: I can spot meter for extreme highlights and then dial in up to +3 stops of exposure compensation before my highlights will clip at ISO 100 or open up aperture or shutter by the same amount of stops. I usually do 2.5 EV just to be on the safe side. Oh, and my clipped highlights in camera warning ( the blinkies) comes up much earlier than that. roughly about 1 stop earlier than they really should 
I wish that I had 9.2 stops of useful photographic dynamic range to play with. That would give me an ability to open up shutter or aperture by 4.5 stops for the ETTR. unfortunately, it is given that I cannot push my extreme highlights exposure by more than 3EV so it seems that DTS software gets it right: 3 stops up and 2.3 stops down for me. 

Subsequently, I transferred my camera custom profile to my Sekonic 478 light meter. That gives me an ability to see where my middle greys, shadows and highlights are and if I need to consider multiple exposures for the scene. I take incident light metering and then spot meter extreme highlights and shadows. Takes half a minute at longest. 
It saves me time and pain in post. I like to be in control rather than guessing 

P.S. I compared my results with others and they are within the range for my camera. I shoot RAW only. One can download Sekonic DTS software and conduct the test with its own camera.
P.S 2. Sony Exmore sensor apparently comes up at about 6.5 EV usable DR - clipping range. Not a big deal. just about 1.2 EV better than Canon 6D. Nothing to call home about.

P.S 3. *if you look at the graph, there is definitely about 9.2 of DR available if measured from 0 all the way to 255* but they recon that DR should be measured for 10-250 range and clipping point range - or usable DR is within 20 -245 range. ( likely monitor / print process gamut limitation? not sure.. will investigate when I have time).



neuroanatomist said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > And.. unfortunatelly my 6D's clipping (shadows clipping to highlights clipping) range is only 5.3EV at base ISO. Substantially less than 13-14 stops...
> ...


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 16, 2016)

I will post some images later but I can see the issues clearly in mine. And it impacts the exact type of images I do.
I tend to do a lot of 2-5 min landscape exposures. I hoped with the upgrade from the mark 3 to 4 that I could lift the foreground detail more. 

Even a lift of a digital gradient filter of 3 stops and no shadow push shows the horizontal purpleish streaks.

I dont see it if I do similar with a fast exposure, underexposed to the same degree and apply similar.

It gets worse the longer the exposure which seems to indicate its hardware/read noise. 

Its really horrible banding thats impossible to get rid of. 

Update - I need to do more testing - I had the shadow slider up when I saw the streaks at their worst - the rest of the above is true, it seems to get worse with exposure length. The streaks are strongest on the left and there is a bright / dark pattern to them

So far... with the Mark 3
-- A fast exposure has no issue.
-- A long exposure with underexposed foreground - pushed to 3 stops and 20% shadow - no issue
-- A long exposure with underexposed foreground - pushed to 3 stops and 50% shadow - horrible streaks appear on the lower left side is strongest and they fade across the frame (but this a pretty extreme boost but it was something I was hoping to be able to do with the Mark IV as a 10ND filter tends to really darken foreground rocks and beach etc)

However, similar photos on my Mark 3
-- A long exposure with underexposed foreground - pushed to 3 stops and 0% shadow - the whole frame is covered in vertical streaks
-- A long exposure with underexposed foreground - pushed to 3 stops and 20% shadow - the whole frame is covered in vertical streaks and its a total mess
-- A long exposure with underexposed foreground - pushed to 3 stops and 50% shadow - the whole frame is covered in vertical streaks and it looks like someone drew the image in pencil its basically just vertical streaks!

So the Mark IV is definitely better than the 3 but maybe thats just the limits. I still have the mark 3 and I will attempt to get a side by side shot comparison to really see...


----------



## tron (Nov 17, 2016)

I got a replacement 5D4. It exhibits the issue. The limit is shooting blacks at -3EV and then setting +3 in post (just exposure, shadows were left at 0) using Canon's latest DPP.
The color banding slightly manifests itself at the bottom of the image. The black jacket is shown as brown but this is the idea: uplifting shadows. 

Anyway I will try to test it in a real environent (landscapes) on Sunday so as to be practical. I know that the issue will be non-existent when shooting birds but I am not so sure about landscapes. I never use -3EV and try to apply the ETTR rule keeping at the same time highlight alerts enabled. There is a specific case (I have mentioned it like a hundred times so not again) that will put the camera to its limits - that up to now I handle with my 5D3 with ML) but this can be tested in about 7 months or so not now...

To sum up I will try to test it on landscapes and if possible find some that include shadows. We will see.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 17, 2016)

Interesting you can see it in DPP. I finally got to compare the same images in DPP and Lightroom. I can get the streaks to show easily in Lightroom, but no sign at all in DPP.

The user Tally over on the potn forum has a good test to show the pattern.
Take an image with the body cap on and cover the viewfinder. 

Vary the iso (try 100, 200, 400) but take the images at 20s. Then in lightroom set the white slider to 80%.

This will show the pattern banding unique to your sensor (obviously not a real world photo its just to show what your sensor is doing). Hes collecting samples and they all have it but each are different. 

Not sure if this will impact real world shots yet... but it may be useful to know the limits...


----------



## tron (Nov 17, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Interesting you can see it in DPP. I finally got to compare the same images in DPP and Lightroom. I can get the streaks to show easily in Lightroom, but no sign at all in DPP.
> 
> The user Tally over on the potn forum has a good test to show the pattern.
> Take an image with the body cap on and cover the viewfinder.
> ...


If we repeat the test with a 5D3 (with its known limitations) with the same settings and the 5D3 behaves better then we have a problem. But if not maybe we have hit upon the 5D4 limitation...


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 17, 2016)

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


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 17, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> 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.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 17, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Interesting you can see it in DPP. I finally got to compare the same images in DPP and Lightroom. I can get the streaks to show easily in Lightroom, but no sign at all in DPP.



Interesting......

This raises the possibility that it is not a sensor issue, but the decoding of the RAW file by Adobe....
Anyone care to give this a try with another RAW decoder?


----------



## zim (Nov 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting you can see it in DPP. I finally got to compare the same images in DPP and Lightroom. I can get the streaks to show easily in Lightroom, but no sign at all in DPP.
> ...




Asked a similar question way back on page 10 unless I missed it only DPP and Adobe are being used in these tests I'd love to know what C1 and DxO do. I didn't upgrade my DxO so can't help.


----------



## tron (Nov 17, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Ive done the 5d3 comparison. For my two units, the 3 is worse...
> ...


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...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 17, 2016)

zim said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > PixelTrawler said:
> ...


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


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 17, 2016)

Can someone with a 5D4 post a RAW file that's underexposed between 3-5 stops?

Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Ive done the 5d3 comparison. For my two units, the 3 is worse...
> ...



That's my conclusion as well.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Nov 17, 2016)

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 (Nov 17, 2016)

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 (Nov 17, 2016)

tron said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > PixelTrawler said:
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2016)

dak723 said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2016)

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. 



Mikehit said:


> ... 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 (Nov 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> MichaelTheMaven said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


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 (Nov 18, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Best answer in thread...


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 18, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 18, 2016)

tron said:


> MichaelTheMaven said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2016)

dak723 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelTheMaven said:
> ...


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 (Nov 19, 2016)

tron said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...




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 (Nov 19, 2016)

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 (Nov 19, 2016)

wilier said:


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



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 (Nov 19, 2016)

meywd said:


> wilier said:
> 
> 
> > Photo taken from:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2016)

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 (Nov 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 19, 2016)

wilier said:


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



I see some slightly discolored stripes, but they seem very minor compared to the darkness of those areas in the original image. I'll add my voice to others: I'd like to see direct comparison with 6D and 5D3 of the same image, with the same exposure and treatment.

It might be a legitimate problem, but it's hard to tell if it's a true defect, or if the rest of the image is so clean that the few stripes jump out by comparison. When so few photos are captured, minor differences are greatly magnified by shadow lift.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 19, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> wilier said:
> 
> 
> > Photo taken from:
> ...



In this discussion in Facebook user group there is a thread started Nov 4th there is a user ""Pe Nu" who has done test you are thinking of. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1044470378923162/?fref=ts

Edit: for some reason seems that in the test the user originally overexposed so could be more detailed with underexposing. Might be that someone in here has done direct comparison, but hard to find from almost 30 pages .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2016)

risc32 said:


> 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.



If only that were true....



PixelTrawler said:


> The user Tally over on the potn forum has a good test to show the pattern.
> Take an image with the body cap on and cover the viewfinder.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 20, 2016)

I have very good news:

*Stop the press*​ 

_Melbourne, Australia, 20.11.2016, 3:15pm. Canon Inc NYSE: CAJ value shoot through the roof following this announcement from Melbourne, Australia. buy!_

*Same image processed in DXO Optics Pro 11.3.0 at +3EV and +50 shadows, -100 highlights, standard (non-prime) rendering - comes out almost clear of banding!
*
i can see some barely visible faint meager streak to the right of the person's fist but that's nothing!!! 

I start noticing banding more clearly if the image is pushed crazy +4EV, +100 shadows but it was unnecessary as even with such a serious level of underexposure and +3EV exposure compensation I had to pull back highlights by -100 to avoid clipping.

same image pushed +2EV and +50 shadows in LR resulted in some nasty banding as per original image posted.
so there we go. 

You can push the same image 2EV further with DXO Optics Pro than with LR.  what a crock 





wilier said:


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


----------



## tron (Nov 20, 2016)

Thanks Alex_M for letting us know. This is indeed good news 

EDIT: DxO can output a DNG file so I guess it must be safe to process that DNG file with other software without the banding problem


----------



## Freddell (Nov 20, 2016)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> 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.
> 
> Ill post a follow up video soon.
> 
> MM



Mike the Mentor,
Canon should be aware of your presence online and hopefully communicate in the best possible way once they have more information.
Having seen and enjoyed your testinge methodology for some time due to the consistency over time, it would be a shame if the MkIV misses the bus in terms of
percieved performance. Although I must say many mKIV pictures posted online look very good compared to older cameras in general. 
If life does not lead me astray I am one prospective buyer after the new year. Im also considering 5DS it has the autofocus but lacks robust wifi which I come to enjoy on the 6D.

your shootouts for some


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 20, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I have very good news:
> 
> *Stop the press*​
> 
> ...



That is good. Seems that part of the "banding" is hidden behind the warmer tones of the DXO picture. Is that the case?


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 20, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I have very good news:
> 
> *Stop the press*​
> 
> ...



And this is why if someone claims a fault they need to post the raw files. Otherwise it's like someone claiming they've cured cancer but they aren't allowing people to check their data.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 20, 2016)

It appears that DXO deals better with image artefacts and gets rid of them pretty nicely. At +4EV push banding is slightly noticeable but non intrusive to my eye. 

I guess, one can download DXO Optics Pro 30-day trial copy and see what can be done. The RAW file in question is available for download on dpreview website. 




> That's good. Seems that part of the "banding" is hidden behind the warmer tones of the DXO picture. Is that the case?


----------



## tr573 (Nov 20, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I have very good news:
> 
> *Stop the press*​
> 
> ...



I'm a little confused - is there two almost identical shots in that gallery of the girl sitting there that I am missing? Because it looks to me like areas that are in focus when I open this in ACR are -obliterated- in the DXO screenshot you posted. So did I miss another copy of this image taken at a wider aperture, or is DXO just doing heavy heavy noise reduction to render without the banding?


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 20, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I have very good news:
> ...



Just heard that DXO softens and adjusts the picture as default. When you disable those, the result is the same as from LR. Thanks Timo for testing this out.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I clearly said it was a test to show the pattern, nothing more... hardly "photography"


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 20, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Alex_M said:
> ...



Can you clarify what you mean there. The output was the same in terms of sharpness or the streaks appeared?


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 20, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



A person from this forum tested it and first he said it looked like it was better, but it was because of some default settings of DXO which softens the picture. When he disabled those the picture is exactly the same with the striking. At least in his picture with a night sky.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



You clearly missed the point, but that's ok.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You quoted me to make a point but I never stated what you suggested I did... but thats ok.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 20, 2016)

Ive done two mornings this weekend doing real world shots. All long exposures down by the sea of between 10 seconds and 2.5 mins and Im relieved at the files. Pre and just after sunrise

Ive seen streaks in two of the images but theyd be a dark shoreline that Im then pushing very high (higher than a mark 3 file). So while this weird streaking is a real thing on my unit (that wasnt in the mark 3) I think its a a point beyond where I should be pushing.... (it was better in those images to simply crop out that part which with a 30 meg sensor was possible) 

If you did balls up a shot but still wanted to use it, where on the mark 3 it would turn into a scratched pattern as the images washes out (you might get away with using it for some uses as its pretty even) once they appear on the mark iv file its unusable as they are clear strong wavy streaks).

The files from it are beautiful and its a great camera. 

So initial real world use has been good here so far...


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 20, 2016)

But the killer question is whether the 5D3 files would be usable.
It is one thing to be 'better' but another to still be 'useable'


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 20, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> I will post some images later but I can see the issues clearly in mine. And it impacts the exact type of images I do.
> I tend to do a lot of 2-5 min landscape exposures. I hoped with the upgrade from the mark 3 to 4 that I could lift the foreground detail more.
> 
> Even a lift of a digital gradient filter of 3 stops and no shadow push shows the horizontal purpleish streaks.
> ...





Mikehit said:


> But the killer question is whether the 5D3 files would be usable.
> It is one thing to be 'better' but another to still be 'useable'



According to this PixelTrawlers experience 5D4 would be quite a lot better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > PixelTrawler said:
> ...



Since "photography" is, by definition, creating a durable image by recording light, there's no such thing as 'photography with the lens cap on'. Manifestly (except to you, apparently), both statements refer to 'tests'. So either you are being intentionally obtuse, or you actually believe there's a genre of 'lens cap photography'.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 20, 2016)

Sorry, I could not respond earlier due to time difference between our countries.

*the image softening in the bottom section of the photo is the result of new DXO "miniature" filter enabled by default* - likely bug in the software. the feature is very new. anyhoo, I have switched it off and re-run export. see the image attached. looks reasonably good to me. )



> ... A person from this forum tested it and first he said it looked like it was better, but it was because of some default settings of DXO which softens the picture. When he disabled those the picture is exactly the same with the striking. At least in his picture with a night sky.
> ...



not sure what is that person from the forum is talking about but you can see the resulting image - the only thing that has been changed - "Miniature filter" switched off ( Tilt and Shift simulation).



tr573 said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I have very good news:
> ...


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 20, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > I will post some images later but I can see the issues clearly in mine. And it impacts the exact type of images I do.
> ...



Its really hard to quantify. Unfortunately I dont have the exact same images to compare. But I have similar.
And I can only go on the two units I have. And my experience. 

But... a similar ish image (ive a load of shoreline long exposures taken over the years) on the 4 can take a 3ev push and 50% shadows and the mark 3 degrades at 3ev and 0% shadow.

Its not in anyway scientific, its not the same images... but im getting a sense it is a decent bit better. 

When you go over the limits of the 4, its banding you can do nothing with. You just cant exceed that level. Its impossible to deal with bar dial back. 

But I got some really nice images this morning. Im really happy with the files im getting.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2016)

I just used DXO prime 2016 and HQ(fast) noise reduction on my two 5D4 test shots and there was no difference from DPP and Adobe DNG. They had the same banding


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 22, 2016)

at how many stops of exposure compensation and how much extra you had to push the shadows?



tron said:


> I just used DXO prime 2016 and HQ(fast) noise reduction on my two 5D4 test shots and there was no difference from DPP and Adobe DNG. They had the same banding


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> at how many stops of exposure compensation and how much extra shadows you had to push?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first was shot metered manual at about -4 EV. The second was shot at -3 2/3 EV. At -3EV it barely shows so this is the 5D4 limit for me. The only thing is that the target was dominating the frame so metering from a dark object at -3EV puts it in zone II (metering normally would put it in zone V so 3EV would put it in II)
That is fine (no banding) unless someone wants to uplift shadows a lot. Even so it should be OK.It will have to do for the next 4 or 5 years. There is always the possibility of a future ML support and HDR methods...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 22, 2016)

yup, +3EV and +50 shadows push produces reasonably clean push with DXO Optics Pro. My argument is that the same push with LR will be not as clean. That certainly depends on DXO settings used. I suggest having DXO Smart Lighting disabled for starters.



tron said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > at how many stops of exposure compensation and how much extra shadows you had to push?
> ...


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Sorry, I could not respond earlier due to time difference between our countries.
> 
> *the image softening in the bottom section of the photo is the result of new DXO "miniature" filter enabled by default* - likely bug in the software. the feature is very new. anyhoo, I have switched it off and re-run export. see the image attached. looks reasonably good to me. )
> 
> ...



There is still obvious posterization and false colors in there. It seems like some of the banding was traded for another problem. Half dozen of one, six of the other.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 22, 2016)

I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post. 
To my eyes the photo proceeded in LR looked worse at the same level of processing. Personally, I see no value in heavy exposure compensation in post. Anything that requires over +1.5EV in post has low to no value to me. I am sorry for the confusion.

P.S. I had to also pull highlights back by crazy -100 to eliminate overexposure on parts of the person's face. It's a miracle that the image was not turned to pixel dust following all this post processing madness 



jrista said:


> There is still obvious posterization and false colors in there. It seems like some of the banding was traded for another problem. Half dozen of one, six of the other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post.
> To my eyes the photo proceeded in LR looked worse at the same level of processing. Personally, I see no value in heavy exposure compensation in post. Anything that requires over +1.5EV in post has low to no value to me. I am sorry for the confusion.



Please cease and desist with all this pragmatism and practicality. Can't you see that the inability to intentionally underexpose by 6 stops and push the exposure back up in post is just one more example of Canon's poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ? How can you – or anyone – possibly be satisfied, much less happy, with this sensor tripe that Canon continues to serve up? How dare you even suggest that the 5DIV can produce usable images?!?!?!?!?!?!?

;D


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post.
> To my eyes the photo proceeded in LR looked worse at the same level of processing. Personally, I see no value in heavy exposure compensation in post. Anything that requires over +1.5EV in post has low to no value to me. I am sorry for the confusion.
> 
> 
> ...



And being able to recover shadows deeper than 2-3 stops is very important to others. Canon has certainly made strides, the 5D IV is without question better than the 5D III, but they still have a ways to go as well.

I just love how this forum constantly reduces everything to "If you have to push the shadows more than a stop, you don't know how to expose." What baloney. Exposure latitude expands the capabilities of the camera. It's a very simple equation. This forum is a *singularly unique* place in the universe where exposure latitude, and being able to make full use of every last scrap of it _if you need to_ (and there absolutely ARE reasons to need more exposure latitude in the real world, by experienced and professional photographers), is shunned as something only idiots could possibly need. 

: I'm so glad I don't spend more than a few minutes a month on this forum...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 22, 2016)

I am sorry for making you angry. I said "personally" that hopefully describes as in my own case and needs?
I take some care and _usually_ get my photos exposed more or less correctly. Therefor extreme shadow push is not on my agenda. I am not saying that wider DR would not be beneficial. It would of course. But at the same time for type of photography i am into, I can happily get away with what I have now available to me in my humble Canon 6D. 




jrista said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post.
> ...


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 22, 2016)

jrista said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post.
> ...



Seems to also be forgotten that originally this striking has been happening in clear night sky shots without any pushing. It just is not so colourful, but clearly seen in my own and other images (not all but many). As said then you need a good monitor with black levels. So the evolution to only talking about insanely pushing is out of context.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2016)

jrista said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I am not saying it is perfect. I am sane enough (hopefully) not to expect perfect IQ after insane exposure push in post.
> ...


 
This is a summary of what has happened in this and other threads. The criticism comes mainly from non 5D4 owners. Using Canon since 1988 (EOS620) and owing lots of lenses I can be considered as a Canon fan. But this is different than assuming Canon cameras (hmmm make that mostly sensors) are near perfect as they are and they do not need improvement. 

The main culprit of disappointment BELIEVE IT or not is ................. dpreview!

Yes you read correctly. In spite of accusing Canon 24 hours a day they wrote about 5D4 that it is a significant improvement which may be BUT in addition they included examples of underexposing and then pushing up to 6EV. It goes without saying that we should expect the same level of performance (at least at 5EV levels) *- with the reported noise of course -* and not some random color bands. It is only natural to assume then that our cameras are problematic and should be replaced!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2016)

jrista said:


> I just love how this forum constantly reduces everything to "If you have to push the shadows more than a stop, you don't know how to expose." What baloney.



As opposed to reducing everything to, "If you can't push the shadows at least four stops, the camera has poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ." Which is baloney left out in the sun until the stench of it rotting induces nausea.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 22, 2016)

This thread is a great example of why Canon ignore a lot of what people say and do their own thing. Perhaps if we could come together and have a unified view on what really matters we'd all be better off.

Watching the 5D4 release and subsequent comments unfold has been hilarious with no real bearing on the art of photography.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> This thread is a great example of why Canon ignore a lot of what people say and do their own thing. Perhaps if we could come together and have a unified view on what really matters we'd all be better off.
> 
> Watching the 5D4 release and subsequent comments unfold has been hilarious with no real bearing on the art of photography.


Last time I checked this is not a forum about the " art of photography"...

Let me guess: You do not have a 5DMkIV...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 23, 2016)

I don't recall Canon claiming DR improvements for 5D IV over predecessor. Have I missed that announcement? where do I look for information regarding 5D IV capable of +5EV push?

I can see about +1EV improvement in DR over my old trusty Canon 6D.

I am happy to assist further to quantify DR improvements in more scientific way. 

I need one of the forum members that owns 5D IV and X-Rite colorchecker Passport take a few photos for me. I will advise on the procedure over personal messages. I will run DR analysis on the resulting files and will provide forum with more or less accurate information on what we are looking at.


----------



## Refurb7 (Nov 23, 2016)

I shot a few dozen weddings with the worse-than-5D4 old and crusty 5D3 and 6D this year under all sorts of lighting conditions and never saw any banding. My biggest push was around +2EV. I must be doing something wrong.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 23, 2016)

tron said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is a great example of why Canon ignore a lot of what people say and do their own thing. Perhaps if we could come together and have a unified view on what really matters we'd all be better off.
> ...



I've 3 x 5DSr's and 2 x 5D4's

This thread is essentially full of people arguing if when driving a car at 200mph, if it's normal behaviour for the pistons to fly out when you drop it into 2nd.

Not all sensors are made equal, like with cpu's. Testing something until it breaks, then claiming foul when it breaks is at best a stupid thing to be doing.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 23, 2016)

[sarc] +2EV is so last century. +5EV is all the rage for the year 2017. Do not risk your business over this issue - get yourself up to speed... now! [/sarc]




Refurb7 said:


> I shot a few dozen weddings with the worse-than-5D4 old and crusty 5D3 and 6D this year under all sorts of lighting conditions and never saw any banding. My biggest push was around +2EV. I must be doing something wrong.


----------



## romanr74 (Nov 23, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> Testing something until it breaks, then claiming foul when it breaks is at best a stupid thing to be doing.



I cannot quite agree with that statement. Isn't the question "when" it brakes and how hard you have to test?


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 23, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > Testing something until it breaks, then claiming foul when it breaks is at best a stupid thing to be doing.
> ...



True. "When" is outside legitimate exposure settings, and "how hard" is before you push the LSBs of the pixel data into the mid-tones.

I'll add my agreement to what's been said before:it's OK to test-to-failure, but don't claim a defect exists if failure is well outside legitimate exposure and camera settings. It's OK to label such things as "limitations;" e.g., the low-ISO DR of Canon's best sensor is not as wide as that for Sony. That's a limitation, not a defect. The same holds for banding: if it occurs significantly beyond real-world, legitimate exposure, then it's not a defect.


----------



## tron (Nov 23, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...


What you say is reasonable. However, I would like to point you to DPReview report on 5D4 who pushed it more and did not report any issues. Only random noise a little higher than sonikon which to tell the truth could be expected. So in practice they set a standard and a deviation from that could imply that a body is probably defective.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 23, 2016)

tron said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



In that case, a person could claim their own copy of the 5D4 is defective, rather than that the 5D4 sensor, in general, is defective.


----------



## tron (Nov 23, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


On that I totally agree...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2016)

tron said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Perhaps. But several of these reported 'issues' indicate the problem occurs when there's something bright on one side of the frame, and the remainder of the frame is dark. If the DPR scenes don't meet those criteria, then your conclusion may not apply.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...




The picture if the girl on last pages is from DPReview test. So their test body also shows the same phenomenon when push over the limits. Is it then a problem that should not occur, I guess that is the whole topic here.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 23, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> The picture if the girl on last pages is from DPReview test. So their test body also shows the same phenomenon when push over the limits. Is it then a problem that should not occur, I guess that is the whole topic here.



It depends on how you see 'the limits'.
I may be mistaken here but from what I have seen, people see banding when having a high-contrast scene and try to make the deep shadows have as much detail as a moderately-well lit scene. I am not sure many people would try to do that, because you would be aiming for shadows to be shadows albeit with a bit of detail to keep the viewer's interest.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

In my case, there are visible stripes in the night sky by adjusting exposure +1 in Lightroom (same happen with other programs).

Today I get information from Canon (Finland and Sweden RCC)...

_That the camera meets all the criteria and there is no any fault of the camera.
It is therefore a feature of the product and the restriction._

...they (Canon service in Finland) see the stripes in RAW file of my photo, but it seem to be ok for Canon.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kKzKzpj3PieXZzTWVVSDUtWGc
(link to jpg where exposure is adjusted +1)

For now, I choose to continue with my old good 6D, it's have a little more noise in the night photos but at least it don't have disturbing stripes.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> In my case, there are visible stripes in the night sky by adjusting exposure +1 in Lightroom (same happen with other programs).



Please post a raw sample.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> In my case, there are visible stripes in the night sky by adjusting exposure +1 in Lightroom (same happen with other programs).
> 
> Today I get information from Canon (Finland and Sweden RCC)...
> 
> ...



Sorry to hear that -this was a bit what we expected Timo. Not nice. Mostly the stripes are showing only in frames where the shadows are clipping, but these night shots (with clear sky) are an exception in my case as well as we have discussed plenty with Timo.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

RAW file https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kKzKzpj3PianlHLTczYTl1c2M

Date information may be wrong in that file becoz I succesfully messy date settings in the dark, cold and windy place near to Baltic Sea


----------



## romanr74 (Nov 24, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



This is what OP did, isn't it? Maybe the "subject title" is too catchy...


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> RAW file https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kKzKzpj3PianlHLTczYTl1c2M
> 
> Date information may be wrong in that file becoz I succesfully messy date settings in the dark, cold and windy place near to Baltic Sea



On first look in LR it doesn't look bad to me, considering the dark areas have <2% exposure in 2 or more channels. To me this looks like a DR limitation: you've exposed for brighter elements, and the dark areas suffered. I'll have a closer look later.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> RAW file https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kKzKzpj3PianlHLTczYTl1c2M
> 
> Date information may be wrong in that file becoz I succesfully messy date settings in the dark, cold and windy place near to Baltic Sea



I can see streaking/banding at as low as +1.5 exposure in Photoshop. Just look near the top left. 

I can also see streaking at +1 exposure and +50 shadows. 

Anyone who says this is acceptable is out to lunch. Sorry. 

It's a defect, at least on this camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> I can see streaking/banding at as low as +1.5 exposure in Photoshop. Just look near the top left.
> 
> I can also see streaking at +1 exposure and +50 shadows.
> 
> ...



Wait, you mean the sensor can't capture information where none exists and the software can't fabricate clean signal from noise? Crap, I guess my 1D X is defective too. Bummer.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > I can see streaking/banding at as low as +1.5 exposure in Photoshop. Just look near the top left.
> ...



Did you even open the file? There's almost nothing clipping. 

And when pushed _slightly_ (+1 exposure, +50 shadows), I'm seeing lots of horizontal lines right through the sky.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

I'm more than happy to accept if there are just noise appearing from non information (near black level) , but that extra streaks... My EOS 6D show up only more noise in same case and that noise is smooth and no streaks


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



Looking in the top-most band I'm able to see, it's 1.1% in two of the channels. How is this enough data to push exposure as you've done, without some kind of banding? I'd love to see an identical shot for comparison that does allow this.

Again, your test shot must show 1.1% in two channels in the dark sky, then push it.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 24, 2016)

I can crank the exposure on my 5D3 when shoot astro stuff. I get random color noise in the pitch black sky. Which is totally acceptable! 

What I'm seeing on the 5D4 are several thick horizontal discoloured streaks.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> I can crank the exposure on my 5D3 when shoot astro stuff. I get random color noise in the pitch black sky. Which is totally acceptable!
> 
> What I'm seeing on the 5D4 are several thick horizontal discoloured streaks.



I would appreciate seeing a demo, about 1% in two channels.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> TimoV said:
> 
> 
> > RAW file https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kKzKzpj3PianlHLTczYTl1c2M
> ...



I'm not sure I'd be happy with that either. I do think the 5D4 has an issue with blooming. Everytime I shoot couple shots with sun cutting through trees I get linear sensor blooming.

I'd say this isn't so much a fault, but a design choice. An unwelcome one yes, but my 5DSr doesn't behave this way.

In the defense of the cam though, the image is right at the edge of the histogram.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



Sorry, I guess don't see what you're talking about with a _slight_ push. So I tried a _slightly more than slight_ push (*+4* EV, *+100* shadows). Can you please point out these 'lots of horizontal lines right through the sky' that I'm supposed to be seeing?

Edit: If I look at the downsampled image on a small, uncalibrated display like my iPhone, and scroll it up and down rapidly, and really squint, I _think_ that I _might_ be able _imagine_ I see at least one _very subtle_ line... +4 EV, +100 shadows, +squinting, +imagination...and maybe a subtle artifact. Quite the defect, apparently. :


----------



## zim (Nov 24, 2016)

tut tut neuro using DxO is very underhand :-X


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist, seriously... looking quality of photos by iPhone? ;D


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> neuroanatomist, seriously... looking quality of photos by iPhone? ;D



Yep, this starts to be freaking hilarious.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 24, 2016)

This is +2 exposure, +50 shadows

Editing was done in PS CC 2017 using the RAW file. Exported to jpg.


----------



## zim (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> This is +2 exposure, +50 shadows
> 
> Editing was done in PS CC 2017 using the RAW file. Exported to jpg.



Doesn't look like Adobe are coming out of this very well?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> I can see streaking/banding at as low as +1.5 exposure in Photoshop. Just look near the top left.
> 
> I can also see streaking at +1 exposure and +50 shadows.
> 
> ...



Given the same starting RAW file, my results with DxO Optics Pro, and yours with PS CC, do you stand by your original assertion that the _camera_ is defective?


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

I have tested DxO Pro newest version and after disabling all fancy things there, result is the same than Lightroom or DPP... now I also learned that with iPhone this problem is solved ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

TimoV said:


> I have tested DxO Pro newest version and after disabling all fancy things there, result is the same than Lightroom or DPP... now I also learned that with iPhone this problem is solved ;-)



Sounds like you missed the point that I only (maybe sort of) saw a line when viewing the image on my iPhone. Banding isn't evident on my computer. 

I do wonder what we're doing differently with your file in DxO. Do you see banding in the processed images I posted?


----------



## TimoV (Nov 24, 2016)

Small files that edited by DxO and posted here, cannot see properly these streaks.

By default, DxO have many settings on that manipulate photos, it looks like it's softening dark sky portion and streaks are not so visible...


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 24, 2016)

zim said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > This is +2 exposure, +50 shadows
> ...



Agreed, looks like it's an adobe issue.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 24, 2016)

Who edits with DxO?

I'll give it a shot in CaptureOne if they support the 5D4


----------



## tron (Nov 24, 2016)

The thing with the specific DXO settings however is that the result is not useful.

I try to make something more view-able and the result is not nice. I didn't try prime yet though...

Edit: I tried prime but banding still shows...

Edit2: I have uploaded to drop box the preset settings I used in case someone is interested

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yi4hjs5x4th39kw/2016_12_01_00022.preset?dl=0


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 25, 2016)

^I don't even need to expand the image and I can see banding standing 3ft away from my monitor


----------



## zim (Nov 25, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> Who edits with DxO?
> 
> I'll give it a shot in CaptureOne if they support the 5D4



People who understand that not all raw converters are created equally, they all have there strengths and weaknesses depending on subject matter.

This 'testing' should be getting done with multiple raw converters to be valid so I'm delighted you have the latest version of c1 and can test, something I asked way back on p10.


Not as a direct reply but general question - if the default settings in any raw converter happens to remove unwanted artifacts, what's wrong with that? Doesn't invalidate it or somehow make it cheating, just means it's better at doing the job.


----------



## zim (Nov 25, 2016)

Tron - what's clear is that you are using a completely different bunch of settings to neuro. Your setting everything you can to get artifacts with that exposure push he is doing everything he can to not get them at that exposure push. In the context of this test I'm not sure which is valid!


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

zim said:


> Tron - what's clear is that you are using a completely different bunch of settings to neuro. Your setting everything you can to get artifacts with that exposure push he is doing everything he can to not get them at that exposure push. In the context of this test I'm not sure which is valid!


Do you want an almost completely white picture or something that is viewable. You can download DxO Optics Pro trial edition to test yourself. I posted the prefix file so I am open to suggestions. But first and foremost the final picture should be viewable not something almost totally white. And since I do have a 5D4 too I really want this to work!


----------



## zim (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Tron - what's clear is that you are using a completely different bunch of settings to neuro. Your setting everything you can to get artifacts with that exposure push he is doing everything he can to not get them at that exposure push. In the context of this test I'm not sure which is valid!
> ...



Sorry tron not sure what you mean by completely white picture, neuro isn't doing that. Perhaps he would be good enough to post his preset. My interest in all this just that I'm thinking of getting one so I'm trying to get a resolution in my mind about what's going on here. I'm not criticising anyone's concerns.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

zim said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...


I am talking about the results in the previous page where the sky is light blue and the building almost white (heavily overexposed). I was able to do so and the banding disappears. But I do not think the outcome is usable aesthetically. I used less exp compensation (-2.27 instead of -4) and pulled back highlights to -100 instead of 0 to prevent overexposure of the building. I also tested both types of noise reduction. And Neuro's comments are more than welcome of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

zim said:


> Sorry tron not sure what you mean by completely white picture, neuro isn't doing that. Perhaps he would be good enough to post his preset.



My settings were the DxO Standard (aka default), with only the exposure and shadows settings modified as highlighted previously with the green arrows. 

It appears that tron is trying to process the RAW file into a usable shot, preserving highlights and maintaining clean shadows showing the deep blue-hour sky. That was not my intent. It would never be my intent for the scene under discussion, since I would have known when looking at the scene, before even extending my tripod and putting the camera on it, that it would be a fool's errand to do so from a single image. Given the scene, I'd have taken at least two, most likely three shots to blend the exposures.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry tron not sure what you mean by completely white picture, neuro isn't doing that. Perhaps he would be good enough to post his preset.
> ...


Yes I was trying to salvage it (with an acceptable increase in noise of course). TimoV mentioned that his 6D can do better in the sense that it may have more noise but it's smooth with no banding. Of course HDR should produce a better result and this seems doable even for me who I am not experienced in that. But if there wasn't for the banding the camera would manage admirably with a single shot!

I believe this dark sky is the equivalent of the limits I encountered when shooting at -3EV.

Right now I am getting more and more curious about how 1DxII would handle the shot...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> I believe this dark sky is the equivalent of the *limits* I encountered when shooting at -3EV.



I think your word choice – conscious or not – is significant.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this dark sky is the equivalent of the *limits* I encountered when shooting at -3EV.
> ...


Yes it was conscious. Still, I would like to see a comparison (same scene, hour, exposure, etc) with the 6D (I guess there is no reason to ask for a comparison with 5D3...) because I have no reason to doubt TimoV's sayings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



The 6D could certainly be better than the 5DIV in some areas. Why not? Photography is about tradeoffs. Why does Nikon's latest flagship pro body, the D5, have around a stop less base ISO DR than other Nikon FF bodies including its predecessor? 

Maybe (purr specualtion, likely wrong) the banding is a tradeoff for dual pixel architecture.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist, I test before this as explosure blending/HDR in Lightroom… result is bad, there is a reflections that change size and intensity in every exposure as well moving objects… so in every case you cannot just say “Given the scene, I'd have taken at least two, most likely three shots to blend the exposures”

Try to get a HDR for example, night shot near to water with lights that reflect from slow waves… and you find out bad result.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 25, 2016)

TimoV,

can I suggest something here:

in order to start comparing apples to apples, may I ask you to compare some aspects of DXO Optics Pro noise rendering vs. Adobe LR?

with the image in question, it is imperative to _remove_ all default DXO image enchancements initially,. that is best done by pushing big fat RESET button at the top right corner of the DEVELOP module of DXO Optics Pro. that will remove all the default dxo image adjustments for starters.
now, we can go ahead and move exposure compensation slider by , say, +1 stop, observe resulting image for any banding . if there is no banding noticed, then lets go ahead and move exposure slider by +1 stop more.
continue until you will noticed banding. take note of the exposure compensation level at which banding became visible. do not worry about any other image adjustments for the moment.

now lets do the same in LR. push exposure until banding became _equally_ noticeable. at that stage, please take note of the exposure compensation level you are at.

I am arguing that all other things equal, DXO is capable of pushing the image in question by _at least_ +1EV more than LR before you see _equal_ levels of banding in the image. I am not saying there is no banding, I am saying it is less aparent due to the way DXO renders the noisy areas of the image.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 25, 2016)

I have done that kind of compare before (DxO-LR) and feel it's pretty same level visible... but I have to do it one more time for making sure, later in the evening I can try it. Now im in another PC and monitor that cannot show streaks so easily.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 25, 2016)

thank you, TimoV ! 

here is the image:

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9485291827/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-sample-gallery/9400200081

RAW file is available for download on the page. lets work on the same image for simplicity.

What I am sure of is that banding in LR at +2EV level will be very noticable on any monitor, not so apparent with DXO. i checked on 3 monitors so far. 
P.S. DXO Prime rendering makes banding more apparent to my eyes. so let's use normal rendering instead.




TimoV said:


> I have done that kind of compare before (DxO-LR) and feel it's pretty same level visible... but I have to do it one more time for making sure, later in the evening I can try it. Now im in another PC and monitor that cannot show streaks so easily.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 25, 2016)

My own feeling so far is that my 5d4 has a higher limit than my 5d3. 
But the 5d3 gradually degrades and the 4 holds til it falls over a cliff. The 3 is random noise, the 4 is streaks.

So far im finding that limit to be high enough not to be a problem. I havent done night city shots yet. 

I may have a replacement 5d4 today due to another issue (dust inside the focusing screen out of the box, if the store cant clean it, theyll replace it. Its an annoying dark spot in the viewfinder near the right hand focus points). If so it will be interesting to see if its any different.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 25, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> My own feeling so far is that my 5d4 has a higher limit than my 5d3.
> But the 5d3 gradually degrades and the 4 holds til it falls over a cliff. The 3 is random noise, the 4 is streaks.



Sums up my thoughts on the 5D3 I own and the 5D4 files I've tested.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> My own feeling so far is that my 5d4 has a higher limit than my 5d3.
> But the 5d3 gradually degrades and the 4 holds til it falls over a cliff. The 3 is random noise, the 4 is streaks.
> 
> So far im finding that limit to be high enough not to be a problem. I havent done night city shots yet.
> ...


Some questions and/or thoughts:

If I were to guess I would say it will be the same. But please can you make the tests and tell us?
The reason is that I am on a second 5D4 which had exactly the same behaviour. First one started with 03 and second with 04. 
Now depending on the outcome it may help in decision making:

1. Different (higher) first 2 numbers and no problem (or "problem" if you will): That's it I would return mine! 
I would love to but I am not oprimistic...

2. Different (higher) first numbers and same with the first camera: No reason to return it. That's 5D4 period! Happy shooting!

3. Same (or less) first numbers and same problem: No information to use for decision making.

4. Same (or less) first numbers and no problem: Ooops! Huston we have a (random?) problem! 
I highly doubt this will be the case though...


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 25, 2016)

Just back from the shop and they couldnt get at the dust so they swapped the body.

It was only when I got home just now I realised its one of the first batches off the line - the serial begins with 02, and the manufacturing date is Late August and the firmware is 1.01

So this should make for an interesting test. 

My original began with 03 but i didnt take note of the manufacturing date. Its firmware was 1.02.

I'll do a test before updating the firmware to 1.02

(Also something I noticed now by chance - it can read the firmware of the lens - is it now possible to update the firmware on canon lens via the camera? My 16-35 f/4 has firmware 1.06 and it looks like its possible)


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 25, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Just back from the shop and they couldnt get at the dust so they swapped the body.
> 
> It was only when I got home just now I realised its one of the first batches off the line - the serial begins with 02, and the manufacturing date is Late August and the firmware is 1.01
> 
> ...



Edit - pre test guess - it'll be the same - its a feature!


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Just back from the shop and they couldnt get at the dust so they swapped the body.
> 
> It was only when I got home just now I realised its one of the first batches off the line - the serial begins with 02, and the manufacturing date is Late August and the firmware is 1.01
> 
> ...


Lens firmware is reported in previous cameras too but at least some super telephotos had to be taken to service anyway.

It is good idea to make tests before upgrading as well as the fact that it starts with 02. Please make sure you also use an sd card too


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 25, 2016)

Anyone have a 1DX2 raw file that's underexposed?


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> Anyone have a 1DX2 raw file that's underexposed?


My thoughts exactly


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 25, 2016)

1.02 loading on to it right now.
This replacement body is a little worse - its has quite a bright streak right through the middle that starts to show at about 5% less shadow push - wait a second - typing as testing!

Using Tallys tried and tested trick to just reveal the pattern... (yes the lens cap is on, get over it, its just a pattern revealing test). Its simply ISO 100, body cap on, viewfinder covered, 20 seconds. And its a good test because I've seen identical patterns when I push actual photographs. Then in LR just set whites to 81%. Its useful to know the limits of your own sensor. 

*On 1.01*
There is a great big streak up the middle with lots of other streaking. The general colour is reddish. It shows at about 51% push

*On 1.02*
The brightest streak is gone, and its pretty much like I saw on my first 5D4. The general colour cast is purple and the streaks are more even and less strong. 
I actually think now its better than the first body. It doesnt really show anything til about 61% push, and the streaks are more even. 

This is at the least interesting and shows that a) Canon know more then they are letting on and b) Maybe theres more to come. Its a huge difference with the firmware change. They be must be specifically targeting, the change is too big. 

Top image is the original camera, and the bottom two are pre and post firmware updating. 
Also I had Long exposure noise reduction set to Auto in all tests.

So now I'll basically have similar if even slighty better results from this body is my gut feel.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have a 1DX2 raw file that's underexposed?
> ...



Downloaded yesterday few from DPReviews test. Those are not enough dark, or then the test body does not show this kind of phonomenon. One person sent one file earlier to Michaels Youtube videos comments. That was the kind of extreme test with a screen in a dark room with shadows compeletely clipping and then +5 boost and shadows. That file showed even more stripes than 5D4 in a similar conditions. 5DSR did not, just normal ugly noice. Cannot generalize, but just to mention one example.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...


Of course we can't but still useful info. Thank you very much for letting us know...


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 25, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



Chapter and verse....


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 25, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> 1.02 loading on to it right now.
> This replacement body is a little worse - its has quite a bright streak right through the middle that starts to show at about 5% less shadow push - wait a second - typing as testing!
> 
> Using Tallys tried and tested trick to just reveal the pattern... (yes the lens cap is on, get over it, its just a pattern revealing test). Its simply ISO 100, body cap on, viewfinder covered, 20 seconds. And its a good test because I've seen identical patterns when I push actual photographs. Then in LR just set whites to 81%. Its useful to know the limits of your own sensor.
> ...



Serial number of the body compared to older - how much bigger?


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 25, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > 1.02 loading on to it right now.
> ...



Serial number of the first one started with 0330 and this one starts with 0230 - the rest of the numbers are pretty similar


----------



## TimoV (Nov 25, 2016)

My camera serial number is 033022000xxx, I don't receive it yet from repair...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have a 1DX2 raw file that's underexposed?
> ...



I have a 1DX2 and lots of files that are underexposed (mistakes happen). But, I won't be "testing" these files, shooting pictures with the lens cap on, or pushing shadows five stops. I'm just not that interested in esoteric experiments to test the limitations of a sensor. Maybe, someday, when I'm very bored and have nothing better to do, but that may be after the 1DX IV comes out,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > (Also something I noticed now by chance - it can read the firmware of the lens - is it now possible to update the firmware on canon lens via the camera? My 16-35 f/4 has firmware 1.06 and it looks like its possible)
> ...



Camera models released in 2012 and later can report and update lens firmware. Since 2012, only 5 lenses have had firmware updates released, four were >$7,000 MkII supertele lenses that needed to be sent in (not unusual for high-end gear, the 1D C had to go in for firmware, and in those cases Canon covers all shipping). The 5th lens was the EF 40mm f/2.8 'pancake' and that was downloadable (could be applied tethered or via loading on a memory card).


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

unfocused said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...


What was the point to answer only to say you will not do anything? That's your right of course but you could lose the irony.

Actually I would be interested in 1DxII high and low iso night photos since it crossed my mind to return my 5D4 not for exchange but to pay the difference and get a 1DxII (weighing other pros and cons). I live in a light polluted area and only during summer (mostly during vacation) can I take various types (one off high iso, low iso landscape plus a high iso sky, etc ) of landscape astro photos. These shots are not of course of the -5 type but the result cannot be predicted since the terrain can contain totally black big or small areas. On second thought - typing and talking sometimes gives answers - I have a way to manage these black patches even with my "lowly" 5D3 so no worries  

In addition maybe someone else will kindly reply...


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2016)

tron said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > My own feeling so far is that my 5d4 has a higher limit than my 5d3.
> ...



I have a first batch body, beginning 01. Absolutely none of the banding problems when pushed 3ev + 5shadows using DPP or +4ev + 100 shadows using DxO.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > PixelTrawler said:
> ...


Thanks for letting us know. So now I truly feel confused. I remember LSXPhotog (in page 8 ) saying that his rental 5D4 didn't exhibit the issue. So it seems that banding issues were introduced later. I have no way to deal with this so as a further return of the camera (if accepted by the seller) will be most probably meaningless


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 25, 2016)

Not trying to be a jerk, but after 34 pages of this, if someone claims their 5D4 doesn't have streaks I kind of want a .CR2 file to prove it.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> Not trying to be a jerk, but after 34 pages of this, if someone claims their 5D4 doesn't have streaks I kind of want a .CR2 file to prove it.


I believe Alan (and I thank him too). He could ignore us but he contributed his findings. Don't forget LSXPhotog had mentioned his rental 5D4 didn't exhibit this behavior. Of course now I do not know what to do with my 5D4...

@AlanF: How many stops have you underexposed?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> Not trying to be a jerk, but after 34 pages of this, if someone claims their 5D4 doesn't have streaks I kind of want a .CR2 file to prove it.



After 34 pages of this, unless I missed other files, there's only been one RAW file posted...and although the person who posted it intended otherwise, that one file didn't prove there _are_ streaks. So, I hardly think the burden of proof is on those claiming not to see streaks. 

But what does make sense is that when you push an image beyond the sensor's limitations, you get poor results. Whether that manifests as blotchy noise, banding, or something else is essentially immaterial. I've tried pushing a nearly black sky hard to simulate blue hour, and it gave unusable results. Is my camera defective? No, I took the shot too late.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I think if you replace the camera you will simply see a slighty different pattern (it seems from potn users every body has a unique pattern). Better to use it and enjoy it and maybe either software or firmware yields further improvements. The idea of trying to explain this in a store, then trying to find a better body seems like a challenge.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > Not trying to be a jerk, but after 34 pages of this, if someone claims their 5D4 doesn't have streaks I kind of want a .CR2 file to prove it.
> ...



Are we talking about that shot of the shopping mall? Because I saw streaking after a +1.5 exposure boost.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 26, 2016)

If anyone cares, this is my 5D3.

Lens cap on
35LII, 2.8, 20s, 2sec delay, tripod
Pitch black room
Shot RAW with no in-camera noise reduction

The edit:
PS CC 2017
Camera Raw
+5 stops, +50 whites 
WB as shot @ 5200 temp, +5 tint
Exported at 2048px

The image is nearly pitch black until a +3 stop, +50 whites adjustment. At which point you do see some streaking when viewed at 100% and even then you really need to be looking for it. 

This took me all of 5min to do the test and make this post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> The image is nearly pitch black until a +3 stop, +50 whites adjustment. At which point you do see some streaking when viewed at 100% and even then you really need to be looking for it.
> 
> This took me all of 5min to do the test and make this post.



OMG, stop the presses. When you amplify the heck out of zero signal, you get funky stuff going on with the noise. 

That's five minutes of your life you'll never get back…


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



And I saw effectively none with +1.5 EV, and still none with +4 EV and +100 shadows. What does that prove?


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


No it is much more difficult. A courier (UPS) comes and gets my camera. It takes 7 to 8 days to reach the store. Then they order another. Last time it took 2 days. Then they send it via UPS Standard. After 7 or 8 more days I get it back!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I was thinking to tell them to get it back and tell me how much more for a 1DxII. This is why I asked for help (and got rudeness by a specific member). Never mind.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

Here is a second raw file (sorry for the stupid photo I made it in the rush at home) in case someone is interested.

It is shot at -3 2/3

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uz1rj8it9i21xj2/274A7655.CR2?dl=0


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> Here is a second raw file (sorry for the stupid photo I made it in the rush at home) in case someone is interested.
> 
> It is shot at -3 2/3
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uz1rj8it9i21xj2/274A7655.CR2?dl=0



PS CC 2017

I see the start of banding at +2 exposure, +50 shadows.

Most prominent near the middle of the right arm sleeve


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a second raw file (sorry for the stupid photo I made it in the rush at home) in case someone is interested.
> ...


Exactly! The -3 version is much better.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Here is a similar picture. Although it says -3 2/3 I must have metered differently since anything else being equal shutter speed is 1/13 instead of 1/25. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nql0fjfws42fmeo/274A7656.CR2?dl=0


----------



## jd7 (Nov 26, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a second raw file (sorry for the stupid photo I made it in the rush at home) in case someone is interested.
> ...



I just downloaded that file and opened it in Photoshop CC 2017. ACR settings used were: exposure +4, shadows +50, highlights -10, contrast +27.

I can only say that on my monitor I couldn't see banding and the image quality seemed fantastic too me considering the processing settings. Admittedly my monitor isn't anything great (27" Samsung FHD monitor from a few years ago now), and I'm not familiar with how other cameras like a Nikon D810 or one of the new Sonys would go - and perhaps I'm just not looking closely enough - but I'm just not seeing any issue to complain about.

I will be very interested to know what others think after they try out the file.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

jd7 said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


This is latest DPP. Interesting about CC since ZachOly sees it with less extreme settings.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



OK, what I'm seeing in PS CC is very similar to what is in your screenshot from DPP.

Looking at the two areas where your arrows point, I'm not seeing what I would call banding. I put it down to simply being the way the light was reflecting off the jacket at those points. I suppose that might not be the case, especially where you're lower arrow is pointing, but I assumed there must have been some fold/crease/bend in the jacket and it was enough to reflect the light like that.

Am I not looking at the right thing/effect? Am I missing something?


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

jd7 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...


I thought so the previous time where I shot black trousers. When I shot the jacket in a different room under different lighting this was it. Not a reflection. But it was noise alright. I see it when at 100%. It simply becomes banding and stays there even if I try to remove chroma noise.


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2016)

jd7 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



It's like wide 'greenish' horizontal bands right across the width of the image. The arrows point to the edges of the banding. (Viewing on tablet so colour probably not to accurate)


----------



## jd7 (Nov 26, 2016)

zim said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I do see it now. And I agree it doesn't look like just the way light is reflecting off the jacket.

I tried opening the file in the Affinity Windows Beta. Viewing at 100%, with exposure set to +2 (which seems to be the max) and shadows set to +100 (again, maximum), I can see it clearly enough. Noise reduction didn't seem to do much to it at all. Reducing saturation to -30 made it pretty much disappear. Boosting saturation made it more and more obvious (it appeared fairly yellow, at least on my monitor).

Went back to Photoshop CC and processed it as I did earlier, and I can see it now - although it was definitely more obvious in Affinity, at least with the settings I'd used. As with Affinity, noise reduction didn't seem to do much to it. Reducing saturation helped a bit, although not as much as in Affinity. I found as I reduced the saturation the streaks/striping/banding (whatever you'd like to call it!) went black but stayed visible. After looking around the image, I think the worst area (at least in PS - I didn't go back and check Affinity) is an area about half-way vertically between where the two arrows point in Tron's earlier pic, and worst a little left of centre.

Would be interesting to see the same shot (well, as close as possible!) with another camera - ideally a few other cameras. Would like to see how a Sonikon camera, a 5DIII or 6D, and the 1DxII or 80D (since, like the 5dIV, they also have DPAF sensors) would perform. As has already been suggested, perhaps the answer is simply that all cameras (and the software) have a breaking point although how they behave past that point differs, and that amount of PP has taken this image past the breaking point for the camera/software ... but certainly interesting to compare against other cameras and see how they perform.

Perhaps someone has already done that sort of comparison and I've missed it?

I'm afraid I can't spend any more time investigating for now, but I will be interested to see what others come up with.


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry tron not sure what you mean by completely white picture, neuro isn't doing that. Perhaps he would be good enough to post his preset.
> ...




Thanks, that's the bit that wasn't clear to me as some of the settings looked strange to me (contrast and micro contrast are off the scale to anything I've ever used). I thought the point of this was to test the limits of the sensor (break point) not get useable shots from such under exposure. Ignoring any streaking, none of these images are useable doing a simple lift, processing technique would have to change or as you say change capture method if you know what you're getting in to.


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2016)

Hey jd7 how you getting on with AP betas ? I just finished a bunch of christening photos and I'm pretty happy so far, only one crash ;D
I haven't used the raw module yet, not sure I ever will as I really like c1 so it's more of a finishing tool for me.
Didn't realise it could process 5d4 raw though so when I get a chance think I'll have a dabble with some of the images here and kill two birds with one stone.

Cheers


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Admittedly, I'm being a bit rude, but frankly, as this thread closes in on 40 pages, I'm more and more convinced that this so-called "defect" is simply an example of how a particular sensor reacts when there is no data for it to read. It may be an interesting experiment for some people, but there doesn't seem to be any real knowledge or actionable information to be obtained. 



zim said:


> I thought the point of this was to test the limits of the sensor (break point) not get useable shots from such under exposure.



I have no problem with this approach. If others want to test the limits of any sensor, and report what they are finding, that's mildly interesting and might even be educational, but it's not what I choose to spend my time doing.

What I object to is that this thread overall seems to be feeding some hysteria that is a disservice to buyers. People are becoming convinced there is something "wrong" with their cameras and exchanging them for different bodies that then exhibit this same non-existent "defect."


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 26, 2016)

tron said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



There are a few other forums to try where someone might be willing to do that for you...


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 26, 2016)

unfocused said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I think on balance, its important information for potential buyers and owners that there are known limits being established, that streaks may appear is some real world scenarios. These are very expensive items to buy so the more info the better. I dont think anyone is suggesting the sensor is screwed, its more just dont expect it to work miracles. Its not a night vision system, if theres not enough data, this is what can happen. Its not what happened the 5d3 but its alternate wasnt good either, and its amazing compared to the 5d2 which was horrible when pushed. 

Despite it being in mine and potentially being seen in some of my shots a) Im glad to know about it as I can change my post process flow or software and b) I love this camera. Any potential buyer.... buy it... but just be aware of some of its undocumented features.... 

Dont forget most potential buyers of this camera are 5d owners, thats what its aimed at, this unlikely to put many off. The worst flaw of this camera is canon pricing (Im in europe), it wont draw in other brand owners for the feature set.


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> I think on balance, its important information for potential buyers and owners that there are known limits being established, that streaks may appear is some real world scenarios. These are very expensive items to buy so the more info the better. I dont think anyone is suggesting the sensor is screwed, its more just dont expect it to work miracles. Its not a night vision system, if theres not enough data, this is what can happen. Its not what happened the 5d3 but its alternate wasnt good either, and its amazing compared to the 5d2 which was horrible when pushed.
> 
> Despite it being in mine and potentially being seen in some of my shots a) Im glad to know about it as I can change my post process flow or software and b) I love this camera. Any potential buyer.... buy it... but just be aware of some of its undocumented features....
> 
> Dont forget most potential buyers of this camera are 5d owners, thats what its aimed at, this unlikely to put many off. The worst flaw of this camera is canon pricing (Im in europe), it wont draw in other brand owners for the feature set.



Agreed, that's my take away on this


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 26, 2016)

zim said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > I think on balance, its important information for potential buyers and owners that there are known limits being established, that streaks may appear is some real world scenarios. These are very expensive items to buy so the more info the better. I dont think anyone is suggesting the sensor is screwed, its more just dont expect it to work miracles. Its not a night vision system, if theres not enough data, this is what can happen. Its not what happened the 5d3 but its alternate wasnt good either, and its amazing compared to the 5d2 which was horrible when pushed.
> ...




Yep, I like my 5D4 as well, but hate this "limitation", since it has already affected real life accidentally underexposed (then lifted) pics. I am not talking about anything maniac, just 2+ stops, which was more easy with 6D. 

It would really help to see a testframe, where this really doesn´t show - so far I havent´t seen any. Many report "made the test, cannot see any problem" and it is not very realiable, since most of the people done it newly have found it. One person just reported in Michaels blog a RAW-frame that was supposed to be free of this phenomenon - it was just with too much details, nothing clipping so no benefit and proves nothing.

I am ok to accept my destiny, but if there really is bunch of cameras ( series starting 01...?) which do not have this (like mentioned from the started of this thread), I would like to have an earlier copy then.

Anybody with a sample RAW, which really shows this to be the case?


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

unfocused said:


> ...
> Admittedly, I'm being a bit rude
> ...


I was thinking that communications is not your strong point... oh wait....


----------



## jd7 (Nov 26, 2016)

zim said:


> Hey jd7 how you getting on with AP betas ? I just finished a bunch of christening photos and I'm pretty happy so far, only one crash ;D
> I haven't used the raw module yet, not sure I ever will as I really like c1 so it's more of a finishing tool for me.
> Didn't realise it could process 5d4 raw though so when I get a chance think I'll have a dabble with some of the images here and kill two birds with one stone.
> 
> Cheers



Hi Zim

Haven't had time to test AP much, to be honest. The default raw conversions seem fine - quite good really - bit punchier than default LR, although I think not quite as much fine detail. I suspect most differences will come down to settings though, ie my guess is you will be able to make an image processed in one look pretty much like it does in the other if you do some tweaking. Anyway, I haven't yet spent much time tweaking images in AP yet, and I really should spend a lot more time with it before saying anything about it! 

I think I'll probably end up staying with LR and PS, but am curious to know if C1P + AP might provide a viable alternative for photographers. I will be interested to hear what you think once you've played with AP more.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 26, 2016)

Since we're still on this topic I'll submit this test image I worked with yesterday. Here's how to recreate it.


Go into Photoshop (I have CS6) and create a new image 4096 x 4096, 72ppi, 16-bit RGB, white background.
Add a blank layer. (being a non-expert I can't figure out how to do this on the background layer)
Add a color gradient using the foreground-to-background option. My background is (0,5,250) and foreground is (0,0,0). Move the right "location" slider to 65%.
Draw the gradient vertically.
Go to the image Menu / Adjustments / Exposure, and increase that to 3.
Zoom in a bit.
(edit/note: the attached image is 8-bit JPEG, but the bands also show in the original PSD on Photoshop. Try it yourself if you're skeptical.)

Notice the banding? Notice how it's more pronounced in the darker areas? Since we started with a "perfect" and "noise-free" gradient image, this can only be a result of increasing the exposure; i.e., it's an artifact of increasing exposure in areas that have limited data. Is this the cause of banding in the 5D4? Partially, I believe.


Here's my guess as to the ultimate cause, and I'll welcome input from people who know more about this than I do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the 5D4 really does have subjectively worse banding in shadow areas. Now remember that the 5D3 (and other Canon sensors) have been criticized for shadow noise that overwhelms shadow detail, but the 5D4 is thought to be much better. If there are tiny differences in signal processing on bands on the sensor (due to the high-speed readout, for example), they could be stronger than the noise in the shadow areas of the 5D4 when they would not have been visible through the noise on earlier sensors. Finally, to put it all together, add those tiny differences to the gradient example to show how digital processing can exaggerate minor brightness differences to create the appearance of bands in lifted deep shadow.


Anyone have thoughts on this?


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 26, 2016)

Orangutan,

you are looking at 8bit image that contains 256 gradations of colours only. see what happens if you export the the same PSD file as 16-bit TIFF file instead.

P.S. actually... do you see the banding on your Photoshop prior the export to jpg?


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 26, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Orangutan,
> 
> you are looking at 8bit image that contains 256 gradations of colours only. see what happens if you export the the same PSD file as 16-bit TIFF file instead.



It shows nearly the same on PS in the 16-bit original. I had intended to mention it in the post, but forgot. If you're skeptical I suggest you try to reproduce it yourself.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Anyone have thoughts on this?



My thought is that this is an improvement on lens cap analysis


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have thoughts on this?
> ...



_*Slightly*_ less of a waste of time?   

Edit: The point is not to support those claiming defect, but to illustrate that even a "perfect sensor" would show banding after exposure/shadow lift.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 26, 2016)

nope, hence my P.S. re on screen image. yes, it sounds like it could be _part_ of the issue. in addition to in camera image banding. if true, than it explains why when processed in DXO Optics Pro images can be pushed a bit harder until banding become apparent comparing to LR. Good thinking.. well done, Sir!



Orangutan said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan,
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 26, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> nope, hence my P.S. re on screen image. yes, it sounds like it could be _part_ of the issue. in addition to in camera image banding. if true, than it explains why when processed in DXO Optics Pro images can be pushed a bit harder until banding become apparent than LR. Good thinking.. well done, Sir!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just repeated it on mine: it's more pronounced in JPEG (to be expected), but it's definitely there in the original PS image before export, even when I zoom in a lot. Remember that the point of this is not to replicate the 5D4 purported phenomena, but to illustrate how digital exposure/shadow lift can affect even a "perfect" original image.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 26, 2016)

it demonstrates that _potentially_ Adobe gradient rendering can cause an _additional_ image degradation. not confirmed at this stage.



Orangutan said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > nope, hence my P.S. re on screen image. yes, it sounds like it could be _part_ of the issue. in addition to in camera image banding. if true, than it explains why when processed in DXO Optics Pro images can be pushed a bit harder until banding become apparent than LR. Good thinking.. well done, Sir!
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 26, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> it demonstrates that _potentially_ Adobe gradient rendering can cause an _additional_ image degradation. not confirmed at this stage.



I think that strains logic: gradient rendering is simple process. Also you can try it on other graphic software products to confirm. Banding in shadow areas is a reality of digital exposure/shadow lift.

To my mind, the digital artifact hypothesis is the best supported by good evidence, though it's still possible there is some inherent, subtle banding from the original image. To determine that, it would be necessary to do a very carefully controlled studio test.


----------



## Memdroid (Nov 26, 2016)

So I finally crumbled and did a quick test on my 1DX II, 5D mark IV and 5DSR. They all show streaking pushed 6 stops... I conclude this is normal behavior and I will never ever shoot like this and never ever did. 
I guess people want to see a problem by creating a problem.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 26, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> So I finally crumbled and did a quick test on my 1DX II, 5D mark IV and 5DSR. They all show streaking pushed 6 stops... I conclude this is normal behavior and I will never ever shoot like this and never ever did.
> I guess people want to see a problem by creating a problem.




To me 5DSR and 1DX2 looks more natural. From 5D4 tou can see the problem starting from the left part pf the frame. This is very valuable comparison, I wish you would have left more space for shadows on the right hand side and bright screen 1/3 of the left part. The biggest worry (at least on my part) has been this "smearing/blooming" or whatever we should call it, which makes the brightness to reflect to the shadows from the bright area.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> So I finally crumbled and did a quick test on my 1DX II, 5D mark IV and 5DSR. They all show streaking pushed 6 stops... I conclude this is normal behavior and I will never ever shoot like this and never ever did.
> I guess people want to see a problem by creating a problem.



My hat is off to you. You are obviously more patient than I am. It would be nice if your post would finally put this issue and thread to rest. Yet, somehow I doubt that will happen.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

First, many thanks Memdroid for doing the test. 

6 stops were never the question. 

Everone mentioned 3 stops and one 1.5 stop and suddenly all say 5 stops as a clisse (this comment is not meant for Memdroid).

There are cases where anything slightly over 3 stops underexposure (not 6 or almost absolute darkness) would show the problem. Even the push of 1.5 to 2 stops in the case of sky.

Also think about Alan's 5D4.


----------



## colorblinded (Nov 26, 2016)

Even with this issue, are we still seeing better recovery capabilities than the 5D3? If so, by how much? Or is the answer "it depends" and is it sometimes worse?


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 26, 2016)

colorblinded said:


> Even with this issue, are we still seeing better recovery capabilities than the 5D3? If so, by how much? Or is the answer "it depends" and is it sometimes worse?



It depends  like mentioned many times. The problem is that when 5D4 reaches the limits you get the stripes instead of only normal noice (like 6D used to do in my case). Noice can be handled to certain extent, but the stripes always makes the frame unusable. In most cases that limit is not reached, but for instance the case of Timo V:s night sky & shopping mall shows it can occur with very slight pushes. In those cases 5D4 is not actually better than 5D3 or 6D IMHO.


----------



## colorblinded (Nov 26, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> colorblinded said:
> 
> 
> > Even with this issue, are we still seeing better recovery capabilities than the 5D3? If so, by how much? Or is the answer "it depends" and is it sometimes worse?
> ...



Hmm, that's what I was afraid of. I appreciate the effort everyone is going through to characterize the performance of the camera. This directly impacts some of the type of work I was hoping the 5D4 would be of benefit for so I am a tad concerned 

I'd still love to try the camera out, but I'm becoming doubtful if it's the replacement for my 5D3 I was hoping for.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 26, 2016)

colorblinded said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > colorblinded said:
> ...



It is a great camera, no question and many improvements. But if you are specialized in for instance shopping malls in dark conditions - maby then your doubt easily justified.


----------



## colorblinded (Nov 26, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> colorblinded said:
> 
> 
> > JukkaS said:
> ...


I'm not in the habit of photographing deliberately difficult scenes, but that's the hard thing about trying to figure it out without trying one. I will probably just rent one sooner or later.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 26, 2016)

Hello.

What does a 100 increase in shadows equate to in Exposure push terms.

Just that 2 + 100 could equal +6 EV


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> Hello.
> 
> What does a 100 increase in shadows equate to in Exposure push terms.
> 
> Just that 2 + 100 could equal +6 EV



I don't think it is always a linear response, depends on the image, but generally I'd say that after pushing mid tones 2 stops pushing shadows "100%" on top of this would be about 4 stops.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 26, 2016)

I just tested the "lens cap" shots from @PixelTrawler 

The difference between FW 1.01 and 1.02 shows a _massive_ improvement in streaking. FW 1.02 is producing random noise like you'd expect to see after a push.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> Hello.
> 
> What does a 100 increase in shadows equate to in Exposure push terms.
> 
> Just that 2 + 100 could equal +6 EV


Except that many times the problem shows with shadows at 0.


----------



## colorblinded (Nov 27, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> I just tested the "lens cap" shots from @PixelTrawler
> 
> The difference between FW 1.01 and 1.02 shows a _massive_ improvement in streaking. FW 1.02 is producing random noise like you'd expect to see after a push.


That's encouraging to hear.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2016)

Allow me to deviate from the thread topic a little. Attached is a screeshot from the latest DPP of a photo a 100% magnification. ISO was 8000. Not bad


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 27, 2016)

Hallelujah! eventually we can put this *Lens Cap Shooter's Diary* saga away and return to our business of taking meaningful photos ) 
Thanks Canon for listening and standing by your products. I will be looking to acquire 5D Mark IV later in 2017 as soon as prices were settled a bit.

For now, I purchased second 6D body and that will do me in the interim.



ZachOly said:


> I just tested the "lens cap" shots from @PixelTrawler
> 
> The difference between FW 1.01 and 1.02 shows a _massive_ improvement in streaking. FW 1.02 is producing random noise like you'd expect to see after a push.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2016)

tron said:


> ZachOly said:
> 
> 
> > Not trying to be a jerk, but after 34 pages of this, if someone claims their 5D4 doesn't have streaks I kind of want a .CR2 file to prove it.
> ...



Thanks tron
What I did was to use flash in the dark at night focussed on a nearby plant in the garden. The rest of the photo appeared completely black. After the push, the background was a nice uniform green, as it should have been. I used iso640. 

To do a test more akin to yours, I just now set to iso 100, photographed through a bright window, which occupied 1/3 rd of the frame and the other 2/3rd was a darkened wall. The "through the window shot" was in correct exposure at 1/13s and I so used 1/200s, which is a 4-stop underexposure. I then pulled +3ev and +5 shadows in DPP, and found no banding or artefacts. The same is true for pulling the 4ev under exposure up 4ev in DxO, PRIME or regular noise reduction. I added a further +100 shadows (probably 2ev, equivalent to a 6 ev push). There were no artefacts with the regular noise reduction but bands appeared with PRIME, presumably from the noise reduction algorithm. So, I think my sensor is perfectly satisfactory.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 27, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Hallelujah! eventually we can put this *Lens Cap Shooter's Diary* saga away and return to our business of taking meaningful photos )
> Thanks Canon for listening and standing by your products. I will be looking to acquire 5D Mark IV later in 2017 as soon as prices were settled a bit.
> 
> For now, I purchased second 6D body and that will do me in the interim.
> ...



Good news, Diary over. 
My replacement 5d4 is better (did anyone else have dust on the viewfinder and sensor out of the box? Mine did and the replacement. I posted on a fb 5d4 group and one man said he is on his 4th replacement for same. The viewfinder dust is tiny this time - its under the focusing screen, and the sensor I can clean so its staying, but Canon need to clean their lines). 

The streaks are more random and dont appear until a higher push whereas the first body had slightly wavy lines that were brighter and appeared more easily. 

Ill post a before and after of a badly underexposed long exposure where I hit the trigger at 60s by accident instead of 180s. It was very impressive how much I can lift. I could use this image whereas I would have binned it on my 5d3

One other thing Ive discovered is the colour of the dark area has an impact. If its green, trees or grass, you can push like crazy and wont see it. If its brown/dark like sand/rocks you can push less. It seems the wavelength of the light has an impact on the data captured.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ZachOly said:
> ...



Thanks for this analysis. I did the same kind if test at first (now 200 tests more) and wondered what all the fuzz was about. Most likely your shadows include anyhow too much detail to show the problem. Your body would be the first one which would clearly be free of this "feature". For some reason this is hard to believe. How badly are the shadows clipping in your latter test?


----------



## happysnapper99 (Nov 27, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Hallelujah! eventually we can put this *Lens Cap Shooter's Diary* saga away and return to our business of taking meaningful photos )
> ...



I did! Mine was terrible in terms of dust. Had two big bits bottom left and right. Got my replacement on Thursday and it's a lot cleaner.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2016)

Both my bodies (earlier and current) didn't have any dust...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > To do a test more akin to yours, I just now set to iso 100, photographed through a bright window, which occupied 1/3 rd of the frame and the other 2/3rd was a darkened wall.
> ...



The first out of how many? The tens of thousands of 5DIVs already sold? Lol, right.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Well, here we have quite many users, I have checked now 4 bodies, there are many other forums as well. So far not a single body without this striking which reflects to the brightest parts. The problem is that people test with photos with lots of detail and it doesn´t show, others are not using proper equipment and playing wise by flicking from iPhones ;-).


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 27, 2016)

Here is a 3.3ev lift. At this point there are faint lines visible in the lower left hand side.
But its a very big lift on a very dark underexposed image. I'm very happy with this example. Thats very impressive detail recovery on a scene of what I found so far to be the worst for showing any signs of banding.

This is with a 10ND B&W filter that murders detail in the foreground if the exposure is wrong. 

Thats a total write off image thats almost usable. If I spent time on that image I could get something out of it. 
I would bin a similar image on my 5D3.

I'm also pretty sure its better than my first 5D4, I was less impressed with that one. I'm convinced they are not all exactly equal. 

If anyone wants that raw to screw around with PM me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JukkaS said:
> ...



Four bodies, wow, that must be a huge fraction of the number of 5DIVs sold to date. Convenient that anyone who doesn't see the 'defect' is just doing it wrong. 

Of course, it's quite possible that this 'defect' affects all 5DIVs because it's not a defect at all, but rather a simple case of pushing beyond limitations. Start your car, put it in neutral, then put a brick on the gas pedal and leave it for an hour or so. If it overheats and/or the engine seizes, is your car defective? Or is the real problem the person who put the brick on the gas pedal? Hint: it's the latter.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



These point gets us nowhere. The core questions is all the time, is this really something we have to live with even though it affects some quite normal pictures. If there really is working bunch of cameras, I want one or will this and swich camp. If you push Nikon 810 like this, you get only smooth noice in most of the cases, where this camera struggles. Go Nikon then? I might well do it.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 27, 2016)

member when everyone was saying "it's a hardware limitation, you're using it wrong" and then a firmware update improved the streaking? 

Good times. 

It'll be interesting to see if any improvements are made in future FW releases.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

ZachOly said:


> member when everyone was saying "it's a hardware limitation, you're using it wrong" and then a firmware update improved the streaking?
> 
> Good times.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if any improvements are made in future FW releases.



Word!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> These point gets us nowhere. The core questions is all the time, is this really something we have to live with even though it affects some quite normal pictures. If there really is working bunch of cameras, I want one or will this and swich camp. If you push Nikon 810 like this, you get only smooth noice in most of the cases, where this camera struggles. Go Nikon then? I might well do it.



No, those points are directly relevant. If this was such a pervasive problem as you suggest, affecting every 5DIV and affecting normal shooting, there would be a far bigger outcry than a handful of people posting on Internet forums (and often the same people on multiple forums, so it's not even as many complainers as it appears). 

DPReview is pretty thorough, including 6-stop underexposures pushed back up, and they have no love of Canon, so if they found this 'defect' they'd be shouting it from the virtual rooftops. (I know, you've got the answer for that, DPR is not doing their tests right.)

As for Nikon, if that system will meet your needs better, don't posture and threaten uselessly on the Internet, just switch. Given that the Sony sensors (in Nikon or Sony bodies) have had a big advantage over Canon sensors in terms of low ISO DR and hard shadow pushing for several years now, if smooth noise with hard shadow pushing is critical for you, then honestly you're a fool to be still using Canon bodies.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > These point gets us nowhere. The core questions is all the time, is this really something we have to live with even though it affects some quite normal pictures. If there really is working bunch of cameras, I want one or will this and swich camp. If you push Nikon 810 like this, you get only smooth noice in most of the cases, where this camera struggles. Go Nikon then? I might well do it.
> ...



We are many fools here. I used to be a happy fool with my 6D. If the picture of the girl in the former pages exposed by the highlights (from DPReview) + Timos Shopping mall frame is everything but normal, I get your point. And if you are not able to see a problem in those frames, I recommend a visit to doctor. It is obvious that Canon does not admit this to be a problem, they just cannot. Let´s see how the upcoming firmwares will be, not to talk about the later bodies. I suppose, this problem will "magically" disappear, at least minimized.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 27, 2016)

I have a new idea. Everyone who finds this "defect" should immediately return their cameras and ask for a new one. When that one has the same "defect" do it again and again and again. This will build up stock at the Canon refurbished store and enable more photographers who aren't as worried about lens cap photography to buy the 5D IV at a bargain price. 

That should make many people happy.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 27, 2016)

sound like a plan! right.. where do we start? 8)



unfocused said:


> I have a new idea. Everyone who finds this "defect" should immediately return their cameras and ask for a new one. When that one has the same "defect" do it again and again and again. This will build up stock at the Canon refurbished store and enable more photographers who aren't as worried about lens cap photography to buy the 5D IV at a bargain price.
> 
> That should make many people happy.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 27, 2016)

I start on Monday 8)


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> sound like a plan! right.. where do we start? 8)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 27, 2016)

TimoV said:


> I start on Monday 8)



Just that you are not planning to get one back Timo . I would join if there would be possibility to have a 5D4 without stripes. Even though I like stripes in some clothing, I would prefer to make the decision of wearing those myself - not the camera.

I thank all of you have contributed to this topic - some even without owning the 5D4. I will now use my limited time differently.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> I used to be a happy fool with my 6D. If the picture of the girl in the former pages exposed by the highlights (from DPReview) + *Timos Shopping mall frame* is everything but normal, I get your point. And if you are not able to see a problem in those frames, I recommend a visit to doctor. It is obvious that Canon does not admit this to be a problem, they just cannot.



You mean the shopping mall frame which I pushed +4 EV and +100 shadows, and posted my results showing essentially no banding? If you can see a serious problem in the images I posted, you may have been inadvertently exposed to hallucinogenic substances. 

What would you like Canon to admit? That when you apply a high gain to a negligible signal, you get artifacts? I suppose after that, they should admit that the sun rises in the east, and then hire Captain Obvious to help them 'admit' all the other stuff everyone knows. 




JukkaS said:


> I thank all of you have contributed to this topic - some even without owning the 5D4. I will now use my limited time differently.



Thanks, that's your most sensible contribution to this topic so far.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist, you still continue looking that photo by iPhone?

Canon service in Finland admit to see the streaks by +1 boosting and many other also.

I suggest you to go and buy proper monitor and stop arguing with your iPhone results, that makes many people laugh to you only


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 28, 2016)

TimoV said:


> Canon service in Finland admit to see the streaks by +1 boosting and many other also.



Please post a link to that statement.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 28, 2016)

I have proof in my email but I don’t place it here to public, not so pissed off about this things… I show this later at evening to one person here in forum that I know and he may comment it to proof.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 28, 2016)

TimoV said:


> I have proof in my email but I don’t place it here to public, not so pissed off about this things… I show this later at evening to one person here in forum that I know and he may comment it to proof.




I will stretch myself to comment this . Thanks Timo for your email, in which Authoritized Canon service clearly says that they can see the stripes. Then Canon officially do not admit this to be nothing but a limitation (which proves that they see the stripes as well). I a way feels funny to convince somebody about this. I can see it very easily with less than 1 stop increase (no shadows), with even better monitor no lift needed at all to see it. Just do not use the softening in the software!

I have similar shots of a clear night sky, where there is streetlights far away, and same thing shows. This camera is not that capable to perform in those conditions - sadly - 6D at least is/was better. Timo here is a very talented shooter and selling his pics as well. If he to his main purposes gets only stripes in the sky for paying 3 times more for a camera - cannot blaim him for choosing to rather continue with 6D. To somebody else it can be possible to survive with this "feature" - I am still considering if or not. Anyhow not happy.

The spirit and commenting in this thread is something I do not like. The original starter got tired (a pro shooter) of this and me as well. There are wonderful members who really do their best to help. The main idea has all the time been a) to understand if there really is 5D4´s without this phenomena and b) to have more proof towards Canon that we as users do not think this is ok. Too many here are just shooting down opinions instead of photos and the whole thing goes OT compared to the original idea. Especially when too many do not own the camera. With more than 200 frames showing this it feels different. Referring to all these comments about lens cap shooting etc. I have plenty of real life photos which are ruined - before with 6D I still did recover those to some extent at least. In many aspects the camera performs incredibly well, too expensive though to have this problem.

Again thanks for all you who take this as a mutual thing to deal with - that should be the power of social media - not the sick behaviour we see here too much. 

I have spoken.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 28, 2016)

Was not the issue resolved in firmware version 1.02? there are multiple reports and sample photos posted here by forum members that demonstrate that issue was resolved. Setting emotional canvas aside, are you still seeing streaks following firmware 1.02 upgrade? Thanks!



JukkaS said:


> Again thanks for all you who take this as a mutual thing to deal with - that should be the power of social media - not the sick behaviour we see here too much.
> 
> I have spoken.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 28, 2016)

Based on my two units I wouldnt say 1.02 has solved it. The second body is better. But its still there. 
Only one of those bodies had 1.01 to see the change. The change was drastic on that unit. Massive.

Im impressed with the second unit, the limit is there but it seems be a lot of flexibility in it. 
It still odd that stripes occur at all. 

I think what we are seeing is that 1.02 is better but there is unit to unit variation. So some owner suffer more than others. But Id be hopeful Canon are on top of it. I think Canon are learing to randomise the read noise somehow but each sensor is slighty different.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 28, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> TimoV said:
> 
> 
> > I have proof in my email but I don’t place it here to public, not so pissed off about this things… I show this later at evening to one person here in forum that I know and he may comment it to proof.
> ...



Well spoken. Thanks to everyone who is helping to understand how our new sensors perform.

To the stripe denier posters, enjoy your good units, you have a wonderful camera. ive no doubt some sensors have very little trace of stripes (monitor calibration could also be a factor in seeing it). But the feeling that we should go away and stop moaning where we do is not a nice aspect to this forum. 

People didnt spend 4 grand to buy a camera and then make up problems. They are not imagining. Expectations were very high for this camera driven by Canon themselves. People are allowed to be disappointed if their real world usage is impacted.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

What steps are being taken to make sure that the shadows being pushed by different people are the same EV? This alone would explain why some see artefacts with 1-stop push and others only see it with a 5 stop push.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> What steps are being taken to make sure that the shadows being pushed by different people are the same EV? This alone would explain why some see artefacts with 1-stop push and others only see it with a 5 stop push.



…another who don’t have monitor to see streaks properly and don’t even own 5Dmk4.

Take a look back to page 30 where I send link to RAW and comments after that ;-)


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

TimoV said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > What steps are being taken to make sure that the shadows being pushed by different people are the same EV? This alone would explain why some see artefacts with 1-stop push and others only see it with a 5 stop push.
> ...



Hear that sound? it is the point flying over your head.

What has my owning the 5D4 got to do with my question?


----------



## TimoV (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> TimoV said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I don't know your point here but your comments are very useless in this thread, value zero or below that.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

I don't know how I can make it any clearer so I will repeat and then offer an interpretation



> What steps are being taken to make sure that the shadows being pushed by different people are the same EV? This alone would explain why some see artefacts with 1-stop push and others only see it with a 5 stop push



You take a picture at -5 exposure compensation.
Another person take a photo at -5 exposure compensation.

If you take a picture of the same outdoor scene, one on sunny day and one on a bright day, the shadows may well have different EV. 
Your shadow of the supermarket has RGB values of 1.5%, 1.8% and 4.5%.
If someone else's shadow has 3%, 3.5% and 7% that is almost twice as 'bright' and given information in a digital image is logarithmic, significantly more information and a greater capacity for pushing.

So my questions is what is being done to standardise between the different claims.

Your posting a single image does nothing to answer this - zip, zilch, nada - to answer my question. So before you get all sarcastic and downright insulting I suggest you take time to make sure you understand the question first. Your posting the raw file is commended. Your attitude to someone who dares to challenge you is not. 

Oh, and please point to my other 'useless' comments in this thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2016)

TimoV said:


> neuroanatomist, you still continue looking that photo by iPhone?
> 
> Canon service in Finland admit to see the streaks by +1 boosting and many other also.
> 
> I suggest you to go and buy proper monitor and stop arguing with your iPhone results, that makes many people laugh to you only



I suggest you go back and read more carefully my statement that the _only_ place I saw even a hint of this horrible defect you are complaining about _was on my iPhone_. I didn't see any banding in my hard push of your shopping mall shot on any of my properly calibrated displays. 

Since Canon Finland admit to seeing this banding (maybe they're using iPhones, wouldn't that be a laugh), please do let us know their response: will they be replacing the sensor in your defective 5DIV, or will they simply replace your defective 5DIV with a new unit? Or did they just tell you it's not defective? 

Captain Obvious says, "You can't create something from nothing: if you amplify a negligible signal, it's not going to turn out well."


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I don't know how I can make it any clearer so I will repeat and then offer an interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I admit you have a point and I was thinking something similar myself. We could possible make a step towards standarization by: metering strictly from the dark object and then underexposing. Recordiing shutter, aperture (I guess we leave iso at 100) we can translate to EV. But I saw color bands with not extreme settings. The first time it was a 100-400 on 100mm on a tripod which means aperture set to 4.5 or 5.6 (My new camera didn't have an arca swiss compatible plate yet so I used a telephoto with plate). The second time I thought to handhold my 5D4 and I used the 35mm 1.4L. The fact that I could handhold it implies not very low ev values although underexposing increases shutter. I can update this when I have the actual values.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I don't know how I can make it any clearer so I will repeat and then offer an interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don´t want anymore to comment other aspects than related to photography and gear. This is an very important end educational point you make here - thanks for that. Too easily we talk only about shadows without actual values. With most of the monitors the darks seem quite the same even though the variation. What is according to your extensive knowledge a good "rule of thumb" that is needed for RGB-channels for the shadows to be lifted without expecting big problems? In my case 5D4 sometimes do the stripes even with all the channels around 2,5% or even a bit higher (high contrast needed then). Strongly below that, not to mention about near 0% it is what we heard Captain Obvious already telling - the artifacts show more the closer we get to zero .


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> So my questions is what is being done to standardise between the different claims.



I'll add two thoughts to the question. First, a camera is not just a sensor. The point is to capture two identical scenes so that they look the same in raw/neutral. It doesn't matter if the pixel values are identical unless you're interested in an engineering test of the sensor. To test overall camera performance it's enough to determine whether you can capture a particular scene with a particular camera to create an acceptable image. Second, there is a way to do a rough calibration, I think. I'd think about introducing a small reference light into the frame, e.g. a weak LED bulb at a distance. I'd mask the scene so only the LED shows through, then use the histogram spike to calibrate exposure on both cameras. That will get you close.


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2016)

FYI, the -3 2/3 ev the shot settings of the dark jacket image were 1/25 1.4 at iso 100 so +5.67 EV.


----------



## TimoV (Nov 28, 2016)

tron said:


> FYI, the -3 2/3 ev the shot settings of the dark jacket image were 1/25 1.4 at iso 100 so +5.67 EV.



I take a look of this jacket photo RAW and the streaks are there, just add exposure 0,50 in LR. If knowing location of these streaks, it can see also without any boosting.


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Was not the issue resolved in firmware version 1.02? there are multiple reports and sample photos posted here by forum members that demonstrate that issue was resolved. Setting emotional canvas aside, are you still seeing streaks following firmware 1.02 upgrade? Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you don't like what you see in my photos then the issue is not resolved! Maybe not streaks but color banding...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> I thank all of you have contributed to this topic - some even without owning the 5D4. I will now use my limited time differently.



Your conviction to your prior statements is sadly lacking. 




JukkaS said:


> Again thanks for all you who take this as a mutual thing to deal with - that should be the power of social media - not the sick behaviour we see here too much.



So, those who do not see the problem you see either in their own 5DIV cameras or in RAW files posted by others, or those who disagree with you, are exhibiting 'sick behavior'?




JukkaS said:


> I have spoken.



If what you have to say is rude and insulting, not speaking would be preferable. 




JukkaS said:


> I don´t want anymore to comment other aspects than related to photography and gear.



Hopefully you'll be able to hold to your commitment _this_ time.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Some facts after additional shooting . Same lighting, same composition, same settings. My 5D4 is better than my 5D3 except where there is horizontal color banding in deep shadows. In the same case 5D3 is not showing them but is is way worse in noise. My 5D3 with Magic Lantern (Dual ISO setting 100/1600) is way better than 5D3 and shows no color bands so it is more usable than 5D4. Tests have been made at ISO 100 for both cameras. The settings have been chosen according to histogram so as to shoot ETTR as possible without clipping.

I have done some additional tests at ISO 50 and shadows improve but it seems that highlights are clipped faster (less DR?) Since I set ISO 50 I should be able to double the exposure. It proved that I couldn't without clipping so some exposure shots have been made by decreasing exposure by -1/3 and -2/3 (relative to the theoretical new double exposure). 

There is a CR3 that 5DV will solve these issues. 
There is a CR2 that possibly ML will run in 5D4 in about 2 years from now. 
There is a CR1 that Canon will improve the situation via firmware.

Take your pick.

In the meanwhile I again have to decide to keep or to return it. It seems that 5D4 is suitable for most of the shooting I do except of a specific one for which 5D3 with ML has produced some excellent keepers. I may chose in between and keep one of my 5D3 cameras. The 5D4 could be excellent for birds and general use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2016)

tron said:


> I have done some additional tests at ISO 50 and shadows improve but it seems that highlights are clipped faster (less DR?) Since I set ISO 50 I should be able to double the exposure. It proved that I couldn't without clipping so some exposure shots have been made by decreasing exposure by -1/3 and -2/3 (relative to the theoretical new double exposure).



ISO 50 is an expanded ISO setting. That means digital gain is being applied (negative gain, in this case). In other words, when you set ISO 50, your camera is really exposing at ISO 100, then pulling the exposure down a stop. A highlight that's blown at ISO 100 will still be blown at ISO 50, and if you keep all else the same you actually lose a stop of highlights (as you found out). Although the ISO 50 setting may have some utility for jpg shooters (enabling a slower exposure or wider aperture), for RAW shooters there's really no point in using it.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I have done some additional tests at ISO 50 and shadows improve but it seems that highlights are clipped faster (less DR?) Since I set ISO 50 I should be able to double the exposure. It proved that I couldn't without clipping so some exposure shots have been made by decreasing exposure by -1/3 and -2/3 (relative to the theoretical new double exposure).
> ...


I remember you saying something similar in the past. Now I verified it in practice since this was a controlled test. But still shadows seem improved. This improvement shows on 5D3 as well. I realize it may be in expense of a little DR or maybe because it pushed the histogram further to the right. Since I took care to push it as much as possible without clipping at iso 100 I have a feeling that somehow iso 50 with a -1/3 correction results in a compression that may cause a slight loss of DR but improves shadows at the same time. What is your opinion on this?

EDIT: You mentioned a loss in highlights of course but I was wondering if maybe this loss is spread somehow in the full range.


----------



## retroreflection (Nov 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> What steps are being taken to make sure that the shadows being pushed by different people are the same EV? This alone would explain why some see artefacts with 1-stop push and others only see it with a 5 stop push.



What would be needed? A light or lights with controlled and stable luminance. A scene with controlled and stable color and reflectance, along with controlled and stable geometry (for example, shadow lines must not change). These controls over the scene must extend to the whole volume of the room, so it is probably best to construct a standard box to contain it all. To standardize this system (because anyone and everyone needs to be able to replicate the results), allow for another couple hundred pages on this thread. Better yet, assemble a few concerned citizens in an airport hotel somewhere and do a pretend ISO committee. You will blow many times the cost of a 5DIV. I am not making fun.
The facts presented in this thread clearly point to the effect existing within the near zero portion of the signal. Getting precise in that zone costs money. What would you really gain? A precise understanding of how suboptimal the 5DIV is at astrophotography? For a general purpose camera, with capabilities probably centered on wedding photography, I cannot advise expending much effort to quantify that. 
For those who think that Neuro is being rude, remember where he comes from. Within a laboratory where one is expected to draw firm conclusions based on data, mucking around in the near zero range of a signal is just plain wrong. Major ethical violation kind of wrong. People die kind of wrong. When faced with such a scene, one must add light. Sunshine is a powerful disinfectant, after all. His failure to adequately contextualize that viewpoint has lead to some unnecessary battles with jrista, but such is the risk of text based societies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2016)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



My opinion is that you're exactly correct. Because ISO 50 is pulling the exposure down, noise is reduced. With RAW, you can just pull down an ISO 100 exposure in post, and I suspect you'll get slightly more reduction in noise vs an in-camera jpg, because of better processing algorithms. My description of it as 'useless for RAW' is based on that – ISO 50 does nothing you can't do at least as well, and probably better, compared to shooting ISO 100 with appropriate exposure settings and post-processing. 

RE spreading it over the range, sort of. There is a tone curve applied when the exposure is pulled down (either by the camera or by the RAW converter). In a way, ISO 50 is the opposite of HTP. With the latter, the camera underexposes by a stop (so setting ISO 200 with HTP is really an ISO 100 exposure, and that's why you can't set ISO 100 with HTP enabled); the reduced exposure preserves a stop of highlights, and the camera boosts the lower luminance range with a tone curve. In both cases, IMO, you _can_ get better results with more control by making the adjustments yourself, rather than using the default tone curves. But it's more work that way.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 29, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> Within a laboratory where one is expected to draw firm conclusions based on data, mucking around in the near zero range of a signal is just plain wrong. Major ethical violation kind of wrong. People die kind of wrong.



+1E3

There may, in fact, be a problem in some 5D4 sensors; however, as the saying goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Seeing bands when pushing near-zero data is to be expected, and its absence would be a surprise.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 29, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > Within a laboratory where one is expected to draw firm conclusions based on data, mucking around in the near zero range of a signal is just plain wrong. Major ethical violation kind of wrong. People die kind of wrong.
> ...



Just a question, why would bands be expected? Theres no bands on the 5d3. I think the 5d3 is worse overall but the degradation noise is random with heavy pushes. If the streaks were random it would be much better. 

I see FW 1.03 is now out also. It will be interesting to see if there are further improvements.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 29, 2016)

> Just a question, why would bands be expected? Theres no bands on the 5d3. I think the 5d3 is worse overall but the degradation noise is random with heavy pushes. If the streaks were random it would be much better.



That seems to be the message - it is not whether there are more artifacts, but whether you prefer those artifacts to be exhibited as more obvious noise or a bit of banding.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 29, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> What would be needed? A light or lights with controlled and stable luminance. A scene with controlled and stable color and reflectance, along with controlled and stable geometry (for example, shadow lines must not change). These controls over the scene must extend to the whole volume of the room, so it is probably best to construct a standard box to contain it all. To standardize this system (because anyone and everyone needs to be able to replicate the results), allow for another couple hundred pages on this thread. Better yet, assemble a few concerned citizens in an airport hotel somewhere and do a pretend ISO committee. You will blow many times the cost of a 5DIV. I am not making fun.


Your comments are well taken and illustrate the problems inherent in internet discussions on technical matters where you have no idea of the competence of the person making the claims. 




retroreflection said:


> The facts presented in this thread clearly point to the effect existing within the near zero portion of the signal. Getting precise in that zone costs money. What would you really gain? A precise understanding of how suboptimal the 5DIV is at astrophotography? For a general purpose camera, with capabilities probably centered on wedding photography, I cannot advise expending much effort to quantify that.



I pretty much agree with you.


----------



## JukkaS (Nov 29, 2016)

Appreciate a lot if someone who tested the FW 1.03 could shortly say if there seems to be any changes in terms of the "phenomena".

Travelling, so my testing takes few days.


----------



## ZachOly (Nov 29, 2016)

RAW "lens cap" file from FW 1.03, please  

Use the following settings: 

f/8, 20s, tripod, liveview, 2sec delay, ISO 100, dark room, covered eye piece.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 29, 2016)

JukkaS said:


> Appreciate a lot if someone who tested the FW 1.03 could shortly say if there seems to be any changes in terms of the "phenomena".
> 
> Travelling, so my testing takes few days.



mnah mnah?


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 29, 2016)

And what white balance settings should be used: deep shade or day light?  sorry I cannot resist... oh, dear


ZachOly said:


> RAW "lens cap" file from FW 1.03, please
> 
> Use the following settings:
> 
> f/8, 20s, tripod, liveview, 2sec delay, ISO 100, dark room, covered eye piece.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 29, 2016)

PixelTrawler said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > retroreflection said:
> ...



A few pages ago I posted a demo of a 16-bit blue gradient that I generated in Photoshop and then pushed the "exposure." It showed bands in the shadow area. I gave instructions to replicate it. For an explanation, see the Wikipedia article on posterization. In the bottom few bits of an image (dark areas) there is so little gradation that pushing the "exposure" will cause posterization, which shows as bands in some images.

Why not on 5D3: I can only speculate, but my guess would be the greater shadow noise on 5D3 turns the bottom few bits into a mush that does not display posterization as much when pushed.

Try this experiment: set up your 5D4 and 5D3 to capture a test image that should display the problem. Be sure to use a zoom lens rather than a prime. Find the right exposure to create the problem, then dial it in manually on both cameras. Now take 2 photos with each camera. Each set of 2 will have the same exposure, but the FL changed by just a few millimeters. The FL change should be enough to recognize, but not enough to make a dramatic difference to the overall image. Now push the exposures on all 4 images identically. Look at the two 5D4 images: are the bands in the same spot of the scene or the same spot of sensor? If it's the scene (i.e., they've moved relative to the sensor) then you have posterization. If they're in the same position in the frame then you *might* have a sensor-related phenomenon, though it may be a limitation rather than a defect. Now compare to your 5D3. Do you have the same image details at both ends of the DR? Same bands?

I'm not saying (and can't say) that there are no 5D4's with sensor problems; what I am saying is that pushing 5 stops will give you posterization in deep shadow areas.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> JukkaS said:
> 
> 
> > Appreciate a lot if someone who tested the FW 1.03 could shortly say if there seems to be any changes in terms of the "phenomena".
> ...


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > JukkaS said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Nov 29, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I will try this tonight.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 29, 2016)

If you work with 16-bit file, pushing shadows should not cause posterisation. There is still enough gradations in 16-bit file even in the "bottom Bits". Plenty! As long as you not playing with the 8-bit jpg, it should not be an issue. You can, to some extent notice posterisation in shadow areas of the output file (jpg). 
I have asked before and you have confirmed that you are seeing on-screen banding while you are working on 16-bit file in Adobe PS. Unless your screen resolution is set to 16-bit colours ( thousand of colours) it should not be the case. 
Something is not right here with Adobe gradient rendering in my opinion. 



Orangutan said:


> PixelTrawler said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 29, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> If you work with 16-bit file, pushing shadows should not cause posterisation. There is still enough gradations in 16-but file even in the "bottom Bits". Plenty! As long as you not playing with the 8-bit jpg, it should not be an issue.



If you have deep shadow you're effectively working with 8-bit depth. 8 bits gives you up to 255; max value of 16,383 per pixel for 14-bit capture. That's about 1.5%. Anything under 1.5% shadow is 8-bit depth. Ripe for posterization.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > If you work with 16-bit file, pushing shadows should not cause posterisation. There is still enough gradations in 16-but file even in the "bottom Bits". Plenty! As long as you not playing with the 8-bit jpg, it should not be an issue.
> ...


This is interesting. Can you please elaborate? Also I believe/hope that the steps are not linear and that they would dedicate more bits for the lower end of the range but this is just speculation.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 29, 2016)

i am confused now:

I am talking about your Adobe PS 16-bit gradient that you have demonstrated.. It was created utilising full tonal range - from level 0 to level 255, white to black? if so, see attached image for what your gradient should look like on computer screen set to 24-bit colours.





Orangutan said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > If you work with 16-bit file, pushing shadows should not cause posterisation. There is still enough gradations in 16-but file even in the "bottom Bits". Plenty! As long as you not playing with the 8-bit jpg, it should not be an issue.
> ...


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Hello,

I have upgraded my 5D4 to 1.03. There was no visible improvement in the test I did yesterday (same exposure settings, same setup). I now believe that our best hope resides in ... 5DMkV ( ;D or  take your pick). 

On a more serious note though we might have some hope in the form of 6DMkII (the way 6D was better than 5D3). Anyway Canon managers say that they use the best sensor available (they do not hold back sensor improvements). 

EDIT:Initially I thought I saw an improvement. Then I realized that the composition was slightly different. When I fixed it the result was similar to previous day. Maybe I saw a slight improvement in the black jacket shots but they were not controlled in the sense I did not even use the same lens, setup composition etc. I just covered about 95% of the shot with the jacket and shot with -3 -3 2/3 and -4. The -3 photo had no banding. The -3 2/3 had very slight and the -4 had some. No a controlled test but a similar with the original. Anyway 5D3 with Magic Lantern destroys 5D4 in the -4 test (same composition, same shutter, speed, iso). No banding period!

I wonder what a Magic Lanterned 5D4 could achieve....


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 30, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I am talking about your Adobe PS 16-bit gradient that you have demonstrated.. *It was created utilising full tonal range - from level 0 to level 255, white to black?*


No, it was a partial range, from dark blue to black. The point is to simulate the dark skies being lifted.



> if so, see attached image for what your gradient should look like on computer screen set to 24-bit colours.


No, this doesn't apply. You've included too much range -- the point here is to focus on gradations of very dark blue.

Let's consider the bottom 8 bits in each of two 14-bit pixels. These pixels are <=1.5% of brightness. Assume that one of them is 255 (all ones in the bottom 8 bits) and the other is 127 (all ones in the bottom 7 bits). A 5-stop push is a factor of 2^5 = 32. So after the push, the brighter pixel is 8,160 and the dimmer is 4,064. The brightness gap has now changed from 128 (less than 1% of total DR, which is barely discernible) to 4096 (about 25% of DR). There's your posterization.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2016)

I just read through the whole thread (I must be a masochist! Nah, it's fun). I conclude: a few 5D4's *may* have an issue. It's weird - reminds me a little of blooming from bright light sources on CCD sensors, but much more subtle. Tron seems to have been unlucky, if his 5D4's have an issue that makes them worse for his purposes than older bodies. That's a shame, but there's always gonna be some duds in a batch.

Tron aside, a very few others seems to have replicated this, but I agree with the overall impression that a lot of this is clutching at straws - the requirements for replicating this effect are so extreme (very dark exposure at low ISO, maybe a bright element in or near (one side?) of the frame, massive exposure lifting *and* shadow lifting, and according to some, a 'correctly calibrated' monitor) that it cannot be expected to show up in more than a few normal photos by a few photographers who specialise in nighttime landscapes (?). Given most of the complaints have come from a few vocal newbies, it's hard to judge. Intriguing that Neuro could process that shot of the building and get cleaner results with the same raw image and software. That suggests it's either not a sensor issue, or at least not wholly the camera, or at least that correct processing can address this.

Ultimately, there are too many variables to know what to think. Those 'true believers' have to accept that their asserions are not empirical and that even if they are unfortunate enough to have received defective cameras, this is such a marginal issue that it is at best of academic interest to most people, even those in the market for a 5D4 (which I possibly am).

The biggest impression I've got, however, is how amazing the 5D4 is for lifting shadows, compared to the 5D3 especially.

PS I doubt much will change with the next generation; if you're talking about conjuring data from almost zero signal, no technology can work miracles.

PPS One thing nobody seems to have provided data on is, whether the bands move, especially if light sources in or around the frame have moved. If it's completely fixed, you could maybe apply a dark frame technique akin to astrophotography. Either way, it would be interesting to know.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Where's Dilbert on this subject? Seems strange without him!
> 
> Jack



I believe he was elected president.


----------



## sherif (Dec 26, 2016)

am planing to buy this cam soon


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Jan 16, 2017)

I quickly perused through this thread. Unless I missed some of the posted photos, I haven't seen any with overexposure on the left and black on the right that shows obvious streaking other than the ones posted by the OP and mikethemaven.

I've seen a couple where the entire left was overexposed and the right was black, and the right side had banding all over the place, but that is to be expected from extreme pushes. Haven't seen photos like the ones from mikethemaven's examples where only part of the left frame was overexposed and where you can clearly see the streaking reflected on the right side, and the other test where the overexposed element is on the right and no streaking is shown on the left.

From what I understand, noise and general banding wasn't the issue; it was that streaking from an overexposed element on the left was reflected on the right side of the frame and not vice-versa. Maybe all 5D4s are like this. Whether or not Canon will address the problem is another matter.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jan 29, 2017)

I see some green/auqamarine Colors in the Shadows, sometimes minimal as Stripes to the right.
BUT ! It seems to depend on DPP - when i exposure the RAW File in Camera the Effekt isn´t really noticable.

When i expose the RAWFile in DPP - the green/aquamarine Colors appear near really dark Area´s .
This False Colors are "movable" my changing the Shadows or Exposure.

The false Color ist visible in some normal - not pushed Pictures.

5D4 is really new, Firmware 1.0.3 -DPP 4.5.20.0

It would be possible to upload this RAWFile to my Server - if you would like to play with it - and see this Effekt.

Greetings Bernd


----------

