Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Canon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 6, 2005 12:36:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
too dark.
I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features, and Oh
yes spot metering along with that.

More about : canon

Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:36:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
> too dark.
> I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
> problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features, and Oh
> yes spot metering along with that.

Canon doesn't put true spot metering in mid range bodies. It's one way
they differentiate the higher models. So don't hold your breath :) 

Lisa
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:36:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
> too dark.

What's banding?

> and Oh
> yes spot metering along with that.

NO KIDDING! Why do they keep producing SLR's without this?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Corporate
http://www.onelauter.com
Related resources
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I
>> here in this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's
>> up, or flash is too dark.
>
> What's banding?
>

Underexposed
http://www.fototime.com/3F76E09F7A4A14B/orig.jpg
to show banding
http://www.fototime.com/6E5366E4C33DF68/orig.jpg
Rescued, kinda
http://www.fototime.com/9266A5A62F097E9/orig.jpg

Canon 20D, ISO 1600


--
Frank ess
May 6, 2005 2:15:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4NSdnX-WZs6JV-ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>too dark.
> I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
> problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features, and
> Oh yes spot metering along with that.
>
>
>

I'm keen to see the digital equivalent of the EOS 3, ie 'professional'
features in an 'amateur' body,
a 1DMk2 in an 'amateur' body perhaps. Multi point focusing, not the limited
7 or 9 point, and multi-spot etc.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:37:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So, is the 20D not worth the money because of these problems? I am on the
verge of buying a 20D is why I ask.

"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4NSdnX-WZs6JV-ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
> too dark.
> I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
> problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features, and
Oh
> yes spot metering along with that.
>
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So, is the 20D not worth the money because of these problems? I am on
the
verge of buying a 20D is why I ask

The 20D is an excellent camera and is worth buying. The only problem I
have ever had with mine is the flash exposure is not correct all the
tme even with the 550 EX. As far as the rest of the items he mentioned
I've never had any of those occur. Two things would make it an awesome
camera and that is spot metering and fixing the flash exposure problem.


Art
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>> too dark.

It's easier to complain than to make pictures.

> What's banding?

Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.

http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg

>> yes spot metering along with that.
>
> NO KIDDING! Why do they keep producing SLR's without this?

I think I understand why, but I sure do wish the 20D had it.
It's one thing I really miss from using an Olympus 8080.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>> too dark.

It's easier to complain than to make pictures.

> What's banding?

Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.

http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg

>> yes spot metering along with that.
>
> NO KIDDING! Why do they keep producing SLR's without this?

I think I understand why, but I sure do wish the 20D had it.
It's one thing I really miss from using an Olympus 8080.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:00:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 5/6/05 5:37 AM, in article bOHee.9163$db7.1135@trnddc01, "DelphiCoder"
<delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So, is the 20D not worth the money because of these problems? I am on the
> verge of buying a 20D is why I ask.
>
> "John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4NSdnX-WZs6JV-ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>> too dark.
>> I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
>> problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features, and
> Oh
>> yes spot metering along with that.
>>
>>
>
>
>
I suspect that the original question may be a troll, but I will respond
rather than let some believe that that stuff is all a real problem! Dark
flash pictures *may* be a problem in some circumstances because a number of
people have reported it. Personally, I have never experienced it. Banding
was a problem with flash only at high ISO's and Canon issued a firmware fix
for that quite some time ago. I am sure all new 20D's would ship with the
new firmware already installed. If someone happened to get a camera with
older firmware updating it is a very easy process. Regarding soft pictures,
that is a matter of taste. Most pro or 'pro-sumer' digital cameras default
to a soft image because many use programs like Photoshop where an image can
be sharpened as much as desired. For most photographs of people the soft
image is more desirable. Those that prefer a sharper image right out of the
camera should read the manual that came with their camera! For the 20D the
amount of sharpness, saturation and color tone can be set to the users
preference.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:41:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > What's banding?
>
> Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.
>
> http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg

Thanks. I've seen this before on my little compact P&S.

> > NO KIDDING! Why do they keep producing SLR's without this?
>
> I think I understand why, but I sure do wish the 20D had it.
> It's one thing I really miss from using an Olympus 8080.

If the 20D had it, the choice between 350 and 20d would be clear.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Corporate
http://www.onelauter.com
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 3:49:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks for the info!

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bOHee.9163$db7.1135@trnddc01...
> So, is the 20D not worth the money because of these problems? I am on the
> verge of buying a 20D is why I ask.
>
> "John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4NSdnX-WZs6JV-ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here
in
> > this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash
is
> > too dark.
> > I think they learned from this and the 350 seems to have none of these
> > problems, now give me a good Camera Canon with the 20s good features,
and
> Oh
> > yes spot metering along with that.
> >
> >
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 3:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <AoTee.381$hb1.349@trnddc05>,
"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the info!

Aw, get it anyway. I bought my 20D last November and am STILL lovin' it!

:) 
JR
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 5:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <HnDee.1035$IO.924@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:

>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>> too dark.

>What's banding?

There are two types.

One is electrical interference when reading the sensor, coming from the
flash recharging circuitry. That was fixed in a firmware upgrade, and
is not an issue with recent 20Ds.

The other banding is caused by variations in the blackpoint offset
during sensor readout, on a line-by-line basis. The RAW data in the 20D
has an offset, so that "black", as far as exposure is concerned, is
somewhere from about 120 to 130. The firmware in the camera, and almost
all RAW converters, subtract a single value from all pixels to get the
RAW data so that black is zero, but the camera does not apply the exact
same bias to each horizontal line, so that even if the average
blackpoint should be 129, individual lines may really require
blackpoints of 131, 127, 128, etc, or even in-between values like 130.7.
The result is that some horizontal lines are shifted a couple of RAW
values up and down, heavily biasing small signals that only use a few
bits. With a nice bright, even exposure, it is not a problem, but in
the "shade" immediately after sunset (if there are no bright orange
clouds on the horizon), the red channel will be very weak, and it will
record even a stop darker because the color-filtered sensor pixels are
already biased against red, because the red ones are a stop less
sensitive than the green ones. The blue ones are also a half-stop less
sensitive than the green ones, and this combines with the weak blue of
incandescent light to cause a similar problem in the blue channel. This
throws the local color way out, on a line-by-line basis, in the shadows.

All 20Ds show some banding when pushed to the limits, but there are a
lot of individual cameras that show it even when the image is not
under-exposed by much, if at all, and Canon does not acknowledge the
problem. Banding occurs at the RAW level at all ISOs, but it is usually
only visible at high ISOs for two reasons. One is that high-ISO shots
are generally taken in unbalanced lighting, and indoors, there are a lot
of shadow areas if the light is not diffuse. The other is simply that
the higher ISOs are generally noisier (all other things being equal),
and banded noise is easier to see than banded signal.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 5:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <Oa2dnTkLcObwDebfRVn-qw@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Rescued, kinda
>http://www.fototime.com/9266A5A62F097E9/orig.jpg

Yeah, the noise is mostly gone, but I can still see the levels-bands
that caused the noise to band.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 5:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <BEA0F0D6.25953%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>,
C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

>Banding
>was a problem with flash only at high ISO's and Canon issued a firmware fix
>for that quite some time ago.

No, that was a particular type of banding. The other type of banding
hasn't even been officially recognized by Canon, no less fixed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 6:00:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:55:17 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>>> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here in
>>> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash is
>>> too dark.
>
>It's easier to complain than to make pictures.
>
>> What's banding?
>
>Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.

Have you upgraded the firmware? That was addressed in a firmware
upgrade.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:07:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:00:33 GMT, John A Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:55:17 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
><br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What's banding?
>>
>>Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.
>
> Have you upgraded the firmware? That was addressed in a firmware
> upgrade.

No, I am running version 1.1.0, which came with the camera. The
only firmware upgrade since then is 2.0, which adds a feature that I
don't need. I believe that the particular type of banding that I
demonstrated has not been fixed in any firmware upgrade. I'm not
even sure whether that would be possible.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <slrnd7q4et.2pa.br@panix1.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

> No, I am running version 1.1.0, which came with the camera. The
> only firmware upgrade since then is 2.0, which adds a feature that I
> don't need. I believe that the particular type of banding that I
> demonstrated has not been fixed in any firmware upgrade. I'm not
> even sure whether that would be possible.

It is certainly possible, and I consider it entirely likely, that there are
UNDOCUMENTED bug-fixes in any upgrade or patch. To VOLUNTEER that an upgrade
fixes a previously unacknowledged problem/bug opens the company to all manner
of hassle and even potential liability.

I upgraded to 2.0 and have no intention of adding infrared remote function in
the forseeable future.

Then again, I have yet to experience a lock-up (an officially unacknowledged
problem) or banding - and I started with 1.0.5.

:) 
JR
May 8, 2005 9:41:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <jim.redelfs-A2F6D3.23581807052005@news.central.cox.net>,
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

>It is certainly possible, and I consider it entirely likely, that there are
>UNDOCUMENTED bug-fixes in any upgrade or patch.

You mean there aren't a bunch of firmware hackers on the group, who can
simly let us know for certain what is, and what is not, in any given
configuration? Not even the astro guys, or the folks who turn one model
of Rebel into another?
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 5:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 7 May 2005 19:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:00:33 GMT, John A Stovall
><johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:55:17 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
>><br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's banding?
>>>
>>>Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.
>>
>> Have you upgraded the firmware? That was addressed in a firmware
>> upgrade.
>
>No, I am running version 1.1.0, which came with the camera. The
>only firmware upgrade since then is 2.0, which adds a feature that I
>don't need. I believe that the particular type of banding that I
>demonstrated has not been fixed in any firmware upgrade. I'm not
>even sure whether that would be possible.

What ISO was that shot that? 1.10 addressed the banding in 3200.
There are reports of it at low (100/200) iso's. .

I have a 20D and have never seen the banding issues at either 1.10 or
2.0 firmware. Have you contacted Canon about it?


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:58:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:D 6hp71piko45jg6rpfu0q1mj1g9bdr6vro@4ax.com...
> In message <BEA0F0D6.25953%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>,
> C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Banding
>>was a problem with flash only at high ISO's and Canon issued a firmware
>>fix
>>for that quite some time ago.
>
> No, that was a particular type of banding. The other type of banding
> hasn't even been officially recognized by Canon, no less fixed.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

The high ISO banding is in my 1D Mk II, in low light shots too.
Another problem Canon refuse to acknowledge is ghosting in some parts of the
image.
I first noticed it in a photo posted via aus.photo by "Admiral" shortly
after he got a 10D. His photo of a motorcycle during practice showed 2 boot
buckles where only one should have been in an otherwise correctly focused,
well exposed, highly detailed shot.

Some time later when shooting micro off-road racers, I saw the same double
image problem from my own 10D. Two door numbers where only one existed in a
shot capturing all detail otherwise sharply.

Last year, when I was using my first 20D to shoot some pelicans in flight,
one of them mysteriously developed two eyes on the same side where it only
had one. The other in the shot did not have any evidence of camera shake.
The shot was slightly off focus so I didn't bother too much with it then.

That same camera has now developed autofocus problems at close range and is
at Canon Australia in a six week queue waiting for attention. No wonder so
many Photographers just sell their fluky cameras and buy another one. Who
could afford to be without a camera for a couple of months with no guarantee
it will be fixed on return?

Canon may be the market leaders in Digital SLRs but the technology is not
yet fully understood and I dare say very few people would have pushed their
camera to the limits of it's ability.

Incidentally the banding at high ISO could well be temperature related.
Canon only certify the 20D for up to 40C but at that camera temperature,
using the internal flash for repetitive shooting (as I did) will kill the
camera but the shots it takes before death will display banding. If you
think 40C is high temperature, think again. The camera heats up with
continuous use and the flash is a big contributor to heat build up.

Douglas
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 11:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote
> The other banding is caused by variations in the blackpoint offset
> during sensor readout, on a line-by-line basis. The RAW data in the 20D
> has an offset, so that "black", as far as exposure is concerned, is
> somewhere from about 120 to 130. The firmware in the camera, and almost
<snip>

Wow, that was a really good explanation. Thanks.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 08 May 2005 13:54:36 GMT, John A Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> What ISO was that shot that? 1.10 addressed the banding in 3200.

3200. BTW, in response to Douglas's post, I can say for sure it
wasn't temperature-related in this case -- as it was a short shooting
session, sans flash, outdoors on a cool night. I was using firmware
version 1.1.0.

> I have a 20D and have never seen the banding issues at either 1.10 or
> 2.0 firmware. Have you contacted Canon about it?

No. It hasn't been a big issue for me.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:58:18 -0500, Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnd7q4et.2pa.br@panix1.panix.com>,
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> No, I am running version 1.1.0, which came with the camera. The
>> only firmware upgrade since then is 2.0, which adds a feature that I
>> don't need. I believe that the particular type of banding that I
>> demonstrated has not been fixed in any firmware upgrade. I'm not
>> even sure whether that would be possible.
>
> It is certainly possible, and I consider it entirely likely, that there are
> UNDOCUMENTED bug-fixes in any upgrade or patch.

I agree that it's possible. There are also sometimes new bugs;
and firmware upgrade procedures can fail. Weighing the (minor)
risks against the entirely speculative benefits, I decided not to
upgrade.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:33:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <eeip71h6pgrlgof0barnus1l7gb14939gt@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Have you upgraded the firmware? That was addressed in a firmware
>upgrade.

No. The banding that looked like radio interference, due to electrical
noise when reading the sensor and charging the built-in flash at the
same time, was addressed. That is a totally different thing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <jim.redelfs-A2F6D3.23581807052005@news.central.cox.net>,
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

>Then again, I have yet to experience a lock-up (an officially unacknowledged
>problem) or banding

Try taking a picture with mostly shadow areas under incandescent light,
or in deep outdoor shade.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:37:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <796s71piadaui9nlqtue9dc6kgg9u1obu5@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I have a 20D and have never seen the banding issues at either 1.10 or
>2.0 firmware. Have you contacted Canon about it?

Canon's position on this to date has been to cover their eyes and ears.
It is a hardware problem and would probably require a recall to fix. It
can be addressed somewhat in software, as the latest Adobe ACR and DNG
3.1 do.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
May 16, 2005 11:21:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <608881p4h7819b1vok0m7n558uur7ju8cd@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm says...
> In message <796s71piadaui9nlqtue9dc6kgg9u1obu5@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I have a 20D and have never seen the banding issues at either 1.10 or
> >2.0 firmware. Have you contacted Canon about it?
>
> Canon's position on this to date has been to cover their eyes and ears.
> It is a hardware problem and would probably require a recall to fix. It
> can be addressed somewhat in software, as the latest Adobe ACR and DNG
> 3.1 do.
>

Does it really exist or is it the result of some defective cameras???

If Canon doesn't recognize this as a fault, perhaps it is a defect common in
a batch of '20s.

That is the track I would follow if I found that all '20s dont do it. Since
I only see a few postings about it, among the many D20 owners, perhaps a
request for a replacement camera will wake them up to it.

Just a suggestion.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
May 16, 2005 9:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ben Rosengart" <br@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7n0om.8nj.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:36:39 GMT, Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com>
wrote:
> >> I hope next year Canon will come out with an improved 20D. All I here
in
> >> this newsgroup is the pictures are to soft, banding show's up, or flash
is
> >> too dark.
>
> It's easier to complain than to make pictures.
>
> > What's banding?
>
> Here's a picture of mine that demonstrates it. Look in the dark sky area.
>
> http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg

Am I right in saying that this type of vertical banding occurs ONLY when
shooting RAW - it doesn't appear when shooting jpeg?

Cheers,

Si.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:09:30 +0100, Si <dontbother@spammingthis.address> wrote:
> "Ben Rosengart" <br@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7n0om.8nj.br@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg
>
> Am I right in saying that this type of vertical banding occurs ONLY when
> shooting RAW - it doesn't appear when shooting jpeg?

I don't know. I wouldn't think so. Either way, you have RAW data
that's turned into a JPEG -- there's nothing magical about the JPEG
software in the camera vs. the JPEG software on my computer.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:27:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:09:30 +0100, Si <dontbother@spammingthis.address> wrote:
> "Ben Rosengart" <br@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7n0om.8nj.br@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg
>
> Am I right in saying that this type of vertical banding occurs ONLY when
> shooting RAW - it doesn't appear when shooting jpeg?

I don't know. I wouldn't think so. Either way, you have RAW data
that's turned into a JPEG -- there's nothing magical about the JPEG
software in the camera vs. the JPEG software on my computer.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:02:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <MPG.1cf24c2cc8f65da79899d5@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>Does it really exist or is it the result of some defective cameras???
>
>If Canon doesn't recognize this as a fault, perhaps it is a defect common in
>a batch of '20s.
>
>That is the track I would follow if I found that all '20s dont do it. Since
>I only see a few postings about it, among the many D20 owners, perhaps a
>request for a replacement camera will wake them up to it.
>
>Just a suggestion.

All 20Ds seem to have it to some extent, but some are worse than
average. My guess is that Canon tried a little too hard to get the 5.5
fps, and took shortcuts on readout quality.

If you don't shoot in colored (deep shade, incandescent) or very low
light, you may never notice it. Mine is one of the better ones, but I
still get lines that are darker and lighter than average in a blackframe
or under-exposures. I would expect random noise from the camera, but
offsets of entire lines by multiple RAW levels is very annoying, and
doesn't disappear at low viewing magnifications like totally random
noise does.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!