# Sony A9 has random banding issues at ISO 100?!



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2017)

Winces for folks who ponied up $4,500 for a $10,000 expectation of performance:

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/27/uh-oh-sony-a9-banding-issue-report-surfaces/

Haven't played the video yet, but I going to start coughing _*[electronic shutter!]*_ shortly. (Good guess?)

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2017)

FPN and poor low ISO DR? Gonna be some butthurt DRones out there...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2017)

Something is very wrong. This is not something you have to hunt for, big broad and weird bands where their should be none. It could be a sensor issue, but only appearing on 2% of the images means its likely a firmware thing that can be fixed.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2017)

most likely electronic shutter it is.

the following comment by TomDibble makes sense ( to me) :

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/27/uh-oh-sony-a9-banding-issue-report-surfaces/#comment-3388866923

it starts with:
"... My hypothesis: The issue is purely a result of the electronic shutter..." and so on and so forth.



ahsanford said:


> Winces for folks who ponied up $4,000 for a $10,000 expectation of performance:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2017/06/27/uh-oh-sony-a9-banding-issue-report-surfaces/
> 
> ...


----------



## hgraf (Jun 28, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Something is very wrong. This is not something you have to hunt for, big broad and weird bands where their should be none. It could be a sensor issue, but only appearing on 2% of the images means its likely a firmware thing that can be fixed.



Could artificial lighting be a possible reason? High frequency rates on modern artificial lighting?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 28, 2017)

I just watched Tony referring to the Sony issues as negligible and describing 1DX2 and D5 as dinosaurs. He absolutely feels the Sony criticism is completely unfair. So, what's up; is this sour grapes by Canon users.

Jack


----------



## hgraf (Jun 28, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I just watched Tony referring to the Sony issues as negligible and describing 1DX2 and D5 as dinosaurs. He absolutely feels the Sony criticism is completely unfair. So, what's up; is this sour grapes by Canon users.
> 
> Jack



The reason Tony felt that way was the examples he saw of the problem were negligible, i.e. very very hard to notice without pixel peeping.

The images that Fro posted OTOH are GLARINGLY obviously flawed, it is FAR worse then the images Tony was looking at.

That said, Tony most certainly seems to be a little friendlier to Sony then most, IMHO. Whether that's fair or not is for you to decide.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 28, 2017)

To quote from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance - 

"Oh horrible ! Catastrophe appalling ! And so farewell"


----------



## hne (Jun 28, 2017)

Can't find the article but I remember seeing an image taken with an A9, of a motorbike front wheel that had jagged edges on the spokes. I think it was related to the A9 having some weird readout pattern using multiple 12-bit ADCs in groups on slower speeds to gain precision but using them in parallel in faster speeds to avoid rolling shutter. Seems like it is reading in groups of 12 rows:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a9-electronic-shutter-operation-single-shot/

That's 333 bands horizontally across the sensor, not too far off from the banding size shown in that video. If that sports venue is lit by HF fluorecent at 30kHz and the side line ads are LED displays driven at a similar PWM frequency, I'm not surprised the least of this banding.

Some people are going to get a lot of hurt feelings. Some people are going to troll internet forums telling everyone that isn't listening that CaNikon is way behind Sony anyway since none of them have a camera that has 1/32000s shutter, irrespective of the fact that it can't be used with flash, can't be used with flashing light, it is creating banding and FPN and it limits DR to 12 bits.


----------



## Besisika (Jun 28, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I just watched Tony referring to the Sony issues as negligible and describing 1DX2 and D5 as dinosaurs. He absolutely feels the Sony criticism is completely unfair. So, what's up; is this sour grapes by Canon users.
> 
> Jack


My opinion yes and no.
Tony is a gadget guy. He loves little features from the future that makes life easier. He is not a pixel peeper (per se). As far as he is concerned he would put a feature in 1DX II so that pictures can be uploaded to Instagram instantaneously as you take it. If you are a gadget guy then yes it is a sour grapes by Canon users.

The Fro, on the other hand, is more of a conservative guy and you will find what you are looking for if you look hard enough. So the answer is no, it is not a sour grapes by Canon users. The weaknesses are there for real.

It depends in which camp you are.
I am with Canon because I value reliability and that 1DX II is.
I need those little gadgets too, but on a smaller camera and that's why I was disappointed with the 6D II.
I see no reason for any camera to be better than the 1DX II and it is a workhorse I can rely on any time, yet Canon should be a little more flexible and deliver a camera to complement the weakness of the 1DX II and I expected the 6D II to be that camera = a gadget-full full frame little camera. It is like you married a faithful woman and yet you still watch adult pictures when she is not looking.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Something is very wrong. This is not something you have to hunt for, big broad and weird bands where their should be none. It could be a sensor issue, but only appearing on 2% of the images means its likely a firmware thing that can be fixed.



I believe JP in the video did call out the 20 fps electronic shutter being used... :

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I just watched Tony referring to the Sony issues as negligible and describing 1DX2 and D5 as dinosaurs. He absolutely feels the Sony criticism is completely unfair. So, what's up; is this sour grapes by Canon users.
> 
> Jack



Sour grapes? Entirely possible, but it depends on _which way Sony is letting its customers down with the A9_ that you are referring to:

1) Overheating? Agree with you -- it looks like a rare issue from what I've read. 

2) Not working well with adapted Canon big whites? More a painful reality than a let-down, but it's a limiting pain point for some photographers. Some are heavily invested in EF financially, and the feedback on the adapted AF performance is not very reassuring.

3) The sensor not being as world class as the A7 sensors, less base ISO DR, etc? Not a show stopper -- you're probably not shooting landscapes with it, and this thing does fine at higher ISOs from what I've read.

4) *An electronic shutter problem having a legitimate problem that forces you to drop your $4500 20 fps action rig down to the mechanical shutter limited to 5 fps? * _That_ is potentially a DOA send it back sort of issue -- there's nothing sour grapes about it.

What we don't know with #4 definitively is whether this is a truly random bug or issue (that is either firmware correctible or lot-specifically recallable) or a reality of using an electronic shutter in certain conditions, under certain lighting, etc. This issue -- like any issue with any product -- needs to be followed up, reproduced, and the quality folks at Sony need to crack out their Ishikawas and weed out the culprit.

I am not saying the sky is falling for the A9. Not at all. But if there is an electronic shutter issue with a camera such that _its sexiest spec'd feature crumbles to dust without it_, A9 could certainly be in trouble.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 28, 2017)

After follow 6D2 threads for a while, what a breath of fresh air to hear intelligent replies!!! 

One way or tother this camera is certainly pointing to what is coming, maybe sooner than later. It reminds me of my following the news on new migraine therapies. Some very expensive drugs are just now showing up that are potentially game changing.

Now, about the faithful wife analogy ........ :-\ Good for a laugh never the less.

Must be a very nerve wracking time for Sony, like high stakes gambling.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 28, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> To quote from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance -
> 
> "Oh horrible ! Catastrophe appalling ! And so farewell"



As a retired EE this is a very interesting/enlightening treatment. Thanks very much for posting the link!

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 28, 2017)

Wow, http://blog.kasson.com/ now there is a guy who is both talented and sharp doing his bit to contribute positively to photography. 

Five years ago getting seriously back into photography with an entry crop Nikon camera and then after a year stepping up to the 6D and L glass and now entering the realm of the 1DX2 ...

There are days when I am just totally overwhelmed by all there is to know/sort out. I'm in awe of those who have most of it sorted out and really appreciate the help/education I'm receiving free via CR (although it can be a bit of a time waster). Can't thank the positive CR contributors enough. 

Jack


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 28, 2017)

I got a couple of weird shots out of my Sony a6500 shooting at a jazz performance with silent shutter. (the reason I got the camera) first shot was shot at a 1/200 and I saw the bands in the evf so I set the shutter down to 1/160 and no problem. Have no idea what was going on but have often had to change shutter speed when shooting video under LED stage lights, so I thought it was a similar issue. (the images are quite different due to not processing the first shot until now, but i didn't notice a change in the lighting between the shots)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2017)

Shooting at too high a shutter speed with artificial lighting can indeed cause strange artifacts and colors. That is a user issue, not a camera issue. Slower shutter usually fixes the issue. Newer models detect light flickering and attempt to synchronize with the flicker to eliminate or reduce the effect.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 28, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Shooting at too high a shutter speed with artificial lighting can indeed cause strange artifacts and colors. That is a user issue, not a camera issue. Slower shutter usually fixes the issue. Newer models detect light flickering and attempt to synchronize with the flicker to eliminate or reduce the effect.



It's a different issue with uneven light like fluorescent (which the anti flickering works great with) and these stripes.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 30, 2017)

No, it's the same type of issue, it just happens to manifest in a visually different way with different types of lighting fixture.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 30, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> No, it's the same type of issue, it just happens to manifest in a visually different way with different types of lighting fixture.



Semantics, same or similar; I'd tend to agree. We need someone with the physics background in light sources to detail how what's on the market works and then with the detailed operation of the shutter it should be possible to determine how the interaction takes place. I'm guessing that it's not going to be a simple fix.

Meanwhile it's not really much different than loosing a % of shots due to OOF or whatever. No camera is perfect.

Jack


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 30, 2017)

just anecdotally, I've been shooting performance for over 10 years, the last 4 with a Canon 6D, usually 300 to 500 shots per performance and I have never seen this banding or other stripes in any of my images. When I saw the pattern with the Sony a6500, in silent shutter mode, I reduced the shutter speed because of my experience with shooting video under LED light and the aliasing beat (usually around 1/60, but different shutter speeds depending on dimmer setting) you sometimes get with these lights.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2017)

you get it right. here is a pretty reasonable write up on the issue by DPR:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7370859353/sony-a9-banding-reported-by-fro-fact-or-fiction

it all makes sense to me.



peterzuehlke said:


> just anecdotally, I've been shooting performance for over 10 years, the last 4 with a Canon 6D, usually 300 to 500 shots per performance and I have never seen this banding or other stripes in any of my images. When I saw the pattern with the Sony a6500, in silent shutter mode, I reduced the shutter speed because of my experience with shooting video under LED light and the aliasing beat (usually around 1/60, but different shutter speeds depending on dimmer setting) you sometimes get with these lights.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> you get it right. here is a pretty reasonable right up on the issue by DPR:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7370859353/sony-a9-banding-reported-by-fro-fact-or-fiction
> 
> it all makes sense to me.



I wonder what DPR would have concluded had such banding been reported on a Canon 1-series body? :


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 30, 2017)

Maybe the DP Review people will find a new test protocol, maybe a repeating strobe flash that is synced to the readout bands in Sony sensors when in silent shutter mode, that shows this to be a positive feature, probably resulting in lower shadow noise and greater dynamic range.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 30, 2017)

That's my laugh for the day! Tony already has demonstrated the symptom. He wants so badly to believe it's perfect (can't really blame him considering the up side of it is so great). As Neuro and others have said, innovation and early implementation has it's up side and down side; high stakes gambling that Canon avoids.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 30, 2017)

"Granted, as a camera designed (partly) to satisfy the needs of sports photographers, the a9 is probably going to be found shooting in situations with LED signboards around where, after-hours, they might account for a significant portion of light on your sideline subjects. If that describes the situations you'll be routinely shooting under, and you're concerned about the 2% banding rate in sideline action, this may be something to add to your 'cons' list when considering this camera."

How polite of DPR. "May be something ..." I wonder if "partly" relates to the 20 fps they brag about?

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> "Granted, as a camera designed (partly) to satisfy the needs of sports photographers, the a9 is probably going to be found shooting in situations with LED signboards around where, after-hours, they might account for a significant portion of light on your sideline subjects. If that describes the situations you'll be routinely shooting under, and you're concerned about the 2% banding rate in sideline action, this may be something to add to your 'cons' list when considering this camera."
> 
> How polite of DPR. "May be something ..." I wonder if "partly" relates to the 20 fps they brag about?
> 
> Jack



A number of photography websites -- DPR included -- seem to be defending this as a nitpicky little oddity and not a show stopper of a problem. That's certainly possible, but they are not really offering a defense. They are simply dismissing JP as a non-sports photog making a big deal about a very rare occurrence. 

All Sony needs to mitigate this is any one of the following:


A statement that this indeed is a confirmed issue, but it is firmware correctable and that firmware update is in progress.


They have their sports photogs state that mechanically shuttered cameras suffer from this as well and that it's not a unique problem to the A9. The narrative then becomes 'Sports guys need to judiciously manage their shutter speeds under certain lighting' instead of 'the A9 has problems'.


A statement that this only happens to a very small number of cameras and they will be serviced/replacedon request.


Confirm the electronic shutter + some artificial lighting uniquely generates this problem, and give guidelines for max shutter speed under such lighting.

...but in absence of that, _we don't know what we don't know_. If the electronic shutter will globally exhibit this performance in artificially lit sports/action work, folks will wonder why they ponied up $4500 for a rig that occasionally needs to be 'downshifted' to a 5 fps max mechanical shutter.

- A


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 30, 2017)

generally, the venues i shoot in are so dim (and light by dmx addressed LED stage lights) i am lucky to get up to 1/100 sec shutter speeds, at f/2.0 and 6400 to 10,000 iso (thank you lighting designers) and yet they manage to get the sound up to 100 dB plus, so I probably won't see it again. I got the Sony for the silent shutter, small size and image stabilized primes, plus still shot IBIS (hello Canon). Waiting to see some real shots out of the 6dII. was tempted by the 5DIV, and love the color and tonality out of a friend's 5DS. hopefully be able to make a decision soon, before i go totally nuts. (i just bought a folding 6x9 cm film camera.)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 30, 2017)

Agreed on how to handle this situation. It's kind of sad when anyone puts their heart and soul (myself included) into a project and unanticipated problems surface, especially when it's high stakes gambling. Not that I feel sorry for Sony but still ...

Jack


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 30, 2017)

I am not sure why Sony is marketing this camera as a sports camera. Canon has owned the sidelines with those big white lenses for a long time. (and many of us think lenses are the important part of the kit) I got the sony in large part due to IS (whatever Sony calls it) primes specifically for small dark clubs. was thinking of just getting the new 85mm IS, but i am afraid it will be the size and weight of a 70-200 2.8 and pointing big lenses at musicians is a problem. Actors light up, musicians not so much.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 30, 2017)

I rather doubt that this is a problem that is restricted to the Sony A9, and I think that it is a problem that will get bigger.

One has to understand how LED lighting panels work..... At full power, the LEDs are constantly on. To dim them, they pulse them on and off. For example, at half brightness, the LED will be turned on half of the time, and turned off half of the time. When you do that with an incandescent bulb, it takes tens of milliseconds to turn on and up to 100 milliseconds more to turn off, resulting as if you pulse it at 60hz the dimming is not noticeable to the human eye or to a camera.

LEDs turn on and off in Nanoseconds, so if you pulsed them at 60 hz, it would be a very noticeable flicker. The solution is to pulse them at a faster rate, say 1Khz.... At 1Khz, the human eye will not detect the flickering and the light levels will appear to be stable, but if you have a camera with a reasonably fast shutter, it will. 

The same thing happens with florescent lighting.... older lighting flickers, some of the newer lighting is at a higher frequency and the flicker is too fast for the eye to detect...... BUT A CAMERA STILL CAN!

This is why Canon has been putting the anti-flicker software into every camera released since the 7D2. They realize that this is a problem and have taken steps to prevent it. I would suspect that other manufacturers will start giving the option.....


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jun 30, 2017)

i have heard that the dmx dimmed led stage lights actually don't just change dwell (duty cycle) they change frequency at different dimmer settings. with video sometimes you have to pick the best frame rate, no ideal one. i am always happy to see an old tungsten halogen ellipsoidal light.


----------



## foo (Jun 30, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> We need someone with the physics background in light sources to detail how what's on the market works and then with the detailed operation of the shutter it should be possible to determine how the interaction takes place. I'm guessing that it's not going to be a simple fix.



That's likely to be a practical impossibility. There will be many different lights that operate differently, even the same type of light with a different controller may have a different effect on the result. Multiplied by how many lighting manufacturers who all have a different rate of progress in their technologies..

Simplistically this looks like an interference pattern created by the scanning frequency of the sensor vs the frequency the light source is operating at.

The line from the DPR article _'typical artifical lighting, which tends to flicker at 60 or 120 Hz'_ is far too simplistic as it's assuming US style 60Hz mains, so with most of the rest of the world using 50Hz there may be different effects.

Increasingly flourescent lighting is using more efficient high frequency electronic ballasts, so may be operating in the 100's of kilohertz, but likely not all of these operate at the same frequency.

Then you have PWM controlled LED's etc. What happens if some lighting somewhere uses PFM, or even just PWM with pulse skipping?

If we assume that it is an interference pattern between the two frequencies, you're going to get odd things like 50kHz lighting is really bad, while 50.1kHz may show nothing.

Whatever the outcome, it could be that the issue is just an inherent limitation of the architecture of the sensor and as such can't be fully mitigated. Suspect Sony won't be up for giving out those sorts of details just so that they can be roasted on various forums by a bunch of keyboard warriors though..


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2017)

Here is an attempt at defending this as a non-issue: https://sonymirrorlesspro.com/sony-a9-banding-problem/

Which is at least an attempt to explain things.
_
"As a refresher, the Sony a9 operates primarily in electronic shutter mode, an operation where instead of a physical, mechanical shutter ending each frame, the camera controls the shutter duration by powering on and off the imaging sensor.

...

With a mechanical shutter, the whole sensor is on when the shutter goes up, and it’s still on when the shutter goes down. This makes a mechanical shutter camera less prone to the effects of flicker because the whole sensor is exposed at once. An electronic shutter (at least a progressively read electronic shutter) reads lines of information from the sensor from top to bottom or from side to side. Because it’s reading while the light is flickering, it’s possible for the sensor to record that flicker, and the result is banding."_

But my take home from this (pls read the entire article) is:


He doesn't want to call it banding, but later refers to the phenomenon as banding anyway. ??? What you call it doesn't mitigate that is happening, and the output is unacceptable.


He seems to believe this is absolutely electronic shutter related, and seems to chalk it up to 'the price of admission' for such a rig. You get 20 fps, but you also may get banding in some circumstances -- use your noggin to avoid this. *But how to avoid this remains undefined*: is there a magical max shutter speed threshold to stay under or a multiple of 30/60 Hz that will prevent this? Must you downshift to 5 fps mechanical shutter to truly rid yourself of this?


If this is a consistent electronic shutter problem for all the A9s out there in certain lighting, and the only fix is 'please slow down your shutter or consider 5 fps mode' is the only recourse, this is a big deal. This should scare the hell out of one group this rig is squarely aimed at: sports folks.

But if this is just a nutty nutty rare phenomenon, perhaps this isn't a big deal. 

I'm just not seeing any context to the scale/likelihood of this happening from those that are dismissing this, and as such, they aren't dismissing it very effectively.

- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2017)

Don,

Yes, problem seems to be not brand restricted. Canon anti-flicker won't help though as we deal here with multiple light sources flickering at multiple frequencies, sadly.
here is a similar case:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4133297

p.s. I suspect that application of CPL may help to isolate frequencies in theory?



Don Haines said:


> I rather doubt that this is a problem that is restricted to the Sony A9, and I think that it is a problem that will get bigger.
> 
> One has to understand how LED lighting panels work..... At full power, the LEDs are constantly on. To dim them, they pulse them on and off. For example, at half brightness, the LED will be turned on half of the time, and turned off half of the time. When you do that with an incandescent bulb, it takes tens of milliseconds to turn on and up to 100 milliseconds more to turn off, resulting as if you pulse it at 60hz the dimming is not noticeable to the human eye or to a camera.
> 
> ...


----------



## foo (Jun 30, 2017)

peterzuehlke said:


> i have heard that the dmx dimmed led stage lights actually don't just change dwell (duty cycle) they change frequency at different dimmer settings.



It's quite common for stuff that's nominally fixed frequency PWM to do pulse skipping at lower levels to increase efficiency. This will essentially give interesting effects as it may not simply skip every other cycle, but could do every third.. The decsison to skip or not is also probably re-evaluated every cycle, so around the transition points could be particularly problematic for the camera to predict.

Have to be careful with lighting though as at some point the flicker will become visible to the human eye. Peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, so it's not just about what's in the center of the stage as you may see flicker from the same light as it reflects off things in the periphery.


----------



## foo (Jun 30, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I rather doubt that this is a problem that is restricted to the Sony A9, and I think that it is a problem that will get bigger.



Definately, more likely it's a general thing for electronic shutters. Given time I expect that software strategies or different sensor architectures will get better results though.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2017)

what a bunch of clowns.  what about shutter speeds in excess of X-Sync??? bang... shooting at speed exceeding the camera x-sync speed becoming potentially problematic even with mechanical shutter. hence shooting at 1/250s with 1DX shoud not pose an issue and that seems can be easily verified..



ahsanford said:


> Here is an attempt at defending this as a non-issue: https://sonymirrorlesspro.com/sony-a9-banding-problem/
> 
> Which is at least an attempt to explain things.
> _
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> what a bunch of clowns.  what about shutter speeds in excess of X-Sync??? bang... shooting at speed exceeding the camera x-sync speed becoming potentially problematic even with mechanical shutter. hence shooting at 1/250s with 1DX shoud not pose an issue and that seems can be easily verified..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

Oh, c'mon. It's not like sports shooters shoot using shutter speeds faster than 1/250 s, right? _


----------



## foo (Jun 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Here is an attempt at defending this as a non-issue:



for someone critisizing Fro for a lack of understanding, he's demonstrating his own misunderstandings too. 



> But if this is just a nutty nutty rare phenomenon, perhaps this isn't a big deal.



If it was, it wouldn't show up so easily.

Like most of these things it'll affect some more than others, there'll be people who blow it out of proportion and the die hard defenders. Whatever, for some people it's going to be a real issue and the reasons behind what's happening are almost irrelevant.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Don,
> 
> Yes, problem seems to be not brand restricted. Canon anti-flicker won't help though as we deal here with multiple light sources flickering at multiple frequencies, sadly.
> here is a similar case:
> ...



A decent algorithm for detecting flicker would also figure out the frequency and adjust accordingly, but that only works in simple cases where one source is the bulk of the light. You are right about the multiple sources, with each one at a different frequency or offset, the problem gets worse. It can still be detected and predicted in software (think spectrum analyzer), but the odds of finding a period when all the sources are stable gets more and more unlikely as the setup gets more complex...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2017)

they do! Hence getting similar issues but not to that extent. we are going to come accross this issue more as LED lighting becoming widely adopted. electronic shutter is obviously most affected.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4133297

guys discussed how LED lighting affects catwalk shoot with 1DXII at shutter speed 1/300s- 1/400s ( over x-sync, obviously).



neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, c'mon. It's not like sports shooters shoot using shutter speeds faster than 1/250 s, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> they do! Hence getting similar issues but not to that extent. we are going to come accross this issue more as LED lighting becoming widely adopted. electronic shutter is obviously most affected.
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4133297
> 
> ...



Sorry, I wasn't clear. I've edited my post to give the relevant bit a little more emphasis. Hope that clarifies! If not, I can add formal <sarcasm> tags.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2017)

oops. my bad. 8)



neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > they do! Hence getting similar issues but not to that extent. we are going to come accross this issue more as LED lighting becoming widely adopted. electronic shutter is obviously most affected.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2017)

So just curious, if this impacts mechanical shutters as well, what does a sideline sports 1DX2 or D5 user do today to combat this lighting phenomenon? Anti-flicker can manage consistently flickering lighting, but under this mad blend of different lighting, what do they do?

Do they slow the shutter down? Do they keep snapping away at high shutter speeds and simply accept a certain percentage of banded shots?

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> So just curious, if this impacts mechanical shutters as well, what does a sideline sports 1DX2 or D5 user do today to combat this lighting phenomenon? Anti-flicker can manage consistently flickering lighting, but under this mad blend of different lighting, what do they do?
> 
> Do they slow the shutter down? Do they keep snapping away at high shutter speeds and simply accept a certain percentage of banded shots?
> 
> - A


This might be a problem with no solution at the camera.... a choice between blur and bands.... A problem that will have to be solved by the lighting manufacturers....

I wonder if this phenomena will entice high-end LED lighting systems to change from time based modulation to percentage based modulation in the hope of evening out the lighting, or if they will go to a higher modulation frequency.....


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> So just curious, if this impacts mechanical shutters as well, what does a sideline sports 1DX2 or D5 user do today to combat this lighting phenomenon? Anti-flicker can manage consistently flickering lighting, but under this mad blend of different lighting, what do they do?
> 
> Do they slow the shutter down? Do they keep snapping away at high shutter speeds and simply accept a certain percentage of banded shots?
> 
> - A




From the sounds of it, this does not impact mechanical shutter. I would expect it not to do so, but I can be wrong. I _think_ the sensor is read as a whole, with the shutter physically controlling the exposure time.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 30, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So just curious, if this impacts mechanical shutters as well, what does a sideline sports 1DX2 or D5 user do today to combat this lighting phenomenon? Anti-flicker can manage consistently flickering lighting, but under this mad blend of different lighting, what do they do?
> ...



I bought some cheap LED bulbs for 99 cents a piece last month, they're probably on sale because of the flickering. I could never use those bulbs indoors every day, and now I'm starting to worry that CFL bulbs will stop being manufactured and getting "pure" light sources might become difficult.


----------

