"Banding" is it really banding and does it matter?

W

wooster

Messages
1,140
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I keep reading about banding on the new mirrorless FF cameras from Nikon, Sony and Canon. It occurs when the shadows are boosted by several stops. It seems the cause is the PDAF sensors. It doesn't occur in DSLRs

This from DPR. It is first mentioned on the paragraph above the heading "ISO Invariance" and expanded upon as the article goes on.

I wonder the following.

Is this really banding or something else? Seems to me banding is not what's happening here.

Second, has anyone found it to be noticeable in their pictures? I don't know how many folk print nowadays but it would surely be more noticeable on paper than on a screen.

The venerable Mr Northrup is of the opinion that it is pretty insignificant on the Nikon cameras but intrusive enough to be of concern on the Canon EOS R. It occurs to a lesser extent on Sony but instead there is a weird blotchy noise effect ( maybe software covering up banding" ?) which looks even worse.

Any experiences?
 
Last edited:
Banding has been an issue on Canon DSLRs for years and years, it's one of the main reason Nikon users are smug about their cameras, they have the best sensors. Didn't stop everyone thinking the 5D2 / 5D3 etc was the best camera you could get (except, of course, for Nikon users).

The cause was different I believe but the results are similar so if you would have been happy with a Canon DSLR there's no reason to worry about this new banding issue.
 
IMO it's mostly youtubers/website overblowing this done for clicks as its become a hot topic and generates views.. You need to push it to stupid levels (read overexposing by 4-5 stops) to make the banding noticeable. I wouldn't worry about it.

My opinion is if you need to push the exposure by that much then you've ballsed up the shot anyway.
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
Banding has been an issue on Canon DSLRs for years and years, it's one of the main reason Nikon users are smug about their cameras, they have the best sensors. Didn't stop everyone thinking the 5D2 / 5D3 etc was the best camera you could get (except, of course, for Nikon users).

The cause was different I believe but the results are similar so if you would have been happy with a Canon DSLR there's no reason to worry about this new banding issue.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the Canon history - I owned 5Ds in mk1, 2 and 3, guises, but this doesn't seem like actual banding to me. This is what intrigues me. I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who has used these cameras to see if they have any experience of it.
 
Jake said:
IMO it's mostly youtubers/website overblowing this done for clicks as its become a hot topic and generates views.. You need to push it to stupid levels (read overexposing by 4-5 stops) to make the banding noticeable. I wouldn't worry about it.

My opinion is if you need to push the exposure by that much then you've ballsed up the shot anyway.
Click to expand...

I get that too but then sometimes people do bang the highlights up by a fair bit to lift shadows and I'm wondering if this is noticeable in real life experience.
 
I have only noticed banding on my Sony cameras when using the silent shutter.
 
What is the reason the silent shutter causes this? I have heard it said in reviews but I don't really understand why this should be the case.
 
wooster said:
What is the reason the silent shutter causes this? I have heard it said in reviews but I don't really understand why this should be the case.
Click to expand...
It's not so much because it's silent but because it's electronic and it reads the sensor out in rows and if the light levels change faster under some flickering artificial lighting than the sensor can read the frame this is what causes the banding. This is a different issue from the banding caused by phase detect pixels and different again from the banding caused by older generation sensor tech like that which we've seen in some Canon DSLR's.
 
woof woof said:
It's not so much because it's silent but because it's electronic and it reads the sensor out in rows and if the light levels change faster under some flickering artificial lighting than the sensor can read the frame this is what causes the banding. This is a different issue from the banding caused by phase detect pixels and different again from the banding caused by older generation sensor tech like that which we've seen in some Canon DSLR's.
Click to expand...

Thank you. All of that makes sense and answers the question in my original post too :)
 
I'm still pretty curious as to why the Z7 would produce such obvious PDAF banding yet the Sony apparently doesn't, though the latter apparently produces some other odd noise. Does Sony use a software solution which eliminates the bands but introduces another issue?

I'm also still wondering how obvious the Z7 bands would be in real life situations. It does seem according to T Northrup that it would not be a real world issue with the Z7 but is with the Canon.
 
Personally I wouldn't worry about phase detect pixel banding as the examples I've seen tend to be a combination of extreme crops and exposure pushes combined under some artificial lighting and even then some reviewers have tried to reproduce it and can't.

I'm not saying it isn't a real problem for some people and I do hope that a fix of some sort can be found, I just don't think I'd worry too much about it.
 
woof woof said:
Personally I wouldn't worry about phase detect pixel banding as the examples I've seen tend to be a combination of extreme crops and exposure pushes combined under some artificial lighting and even then some reviewers have tried to reproduce it and can't.

I'm not saying it isn't a real problem for some people and I do hope that a fix of some sort can be found, I just don't think I'd worry too much about it.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to believe there's ups and downs with every camera and most of them don't matter to most photographers.

At the moment, I enjoy my Fuji the most. I have tried to become enthused by the FF mirrorless on offer from the big 3 but I'm not feeing it. I'm currently saving my pennies for a 5DIV ( with an outside chance of a D850 being on the cards ) though I might change my mind by the time I get the £s together :)
 
It's not "banding" in the sense where we normally use that term (i.e. color banding/compression artifacts). But it is obviously a real effect/factor.
I think the issue is being blown out of proportion because Nikon users have gotten used to expecting (nearly) ISO invariant behavior and having the ability to exploit it... the D5 got slammed for it's lower DR when it was released.
 
Nawty said:
Banding has been an issue on Canon DSLRs for years and years, it's one of the main reason Nikon users are smug about their cameras, they have the best sensors. Didn't stop everyone thinking the 5D2 / 5D3 etc was the best camera you could get (except, of course, for Nikon users).

The cause was different I believe but the results are similar so if you would have been happy with a Canon DSLR there's no reason to worry about this new banding issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I personally think this a complete non issue. I've owned a Canon 350D, 40D, 5D2, 5D3 and currently own a 5D4 and the number of unusable shots caused by banding is zero. There seems to be an expectation amongst those that bang on about this phenomena that every shot has to have a huge dynamic range. Either that or they habitually under-expose to a huge degree.

If you look for problems with any system, you will find them.
 
I get that it doesn't affect you fellows which is good obviously. As I said in another post, DR has become the new black. I'm also finding it difficult to believe that the undeniably poorer dynamic range of Canon cameras has ever caused anyone a real - world issue but OTOH I would I genuinely would be interested if anyone had found that it did effect their experience and in what circumstances.

As far as this thread is concerned I'm particularly interested in the statement by T Northrup that the EOS R PDAF "banding" would actually appear in pictures and I'm not really that bothered about reduction in DR in the Nikon Z7, but I am curious to the extent that this "banding" appears in photographs.

I wonder, song with woof woof, if a fix can be found, maybe via firmware?
 
If you search on line you'll find post capture processing fixes, I had a look and decided that if I had a camera that did this I wouldn't / couldn't be bothered with the fix as it looked too much of a mess on. I'd post a link but I can't remember where I saw this, might have been one of the Sony boards.

Eventually I think the manufacturers will possibly find a way around it, somehow.
 
Maybe most canon shooters know how to nail an exposure where Nikon shooters know a little less....
:)
 
gerry s said:
Maybe most canon shooters know how to nail an exposure where Nikon shooters know a little less....
:)
Click to expand...

I know / hope you're joking but I still get tired of reading this. It's not about "nailing" an exposure as there isn't to date a camera on Earth that can do that for some scenes so the choice is to capture the shadow detail and blow the highlights or protect the highlights and end up with too dark shadows and boost them post capture. The only other way of doing it is to take multiple exposures and blend them post capture which for some shots will be completely impractical.
 
wooster said:
I'm also finding it difficult to believe that the undeniably poorer dynamic range of Canon cameras has ever caused anyone a real - world issue but OTOH I would I genuinely would be interested if anyone had found that it did effect their experience and in what circumstances.
Click to expand...

There's virtually nothing in it with the latest gen sensors. If you can't expose and take a decent image in good light at ISO100 with 13.5 stops of dynamic range then there are other issues you should be addressing first.

Here's a comparison of the three contemporaries Sony, Nikon, Canon. The Canon is clearly "least good" (deliberate wording) but all three are impressive.
 
Last edited:
wooster said:
I get that it doesn't affect you fellows which is good obviously. As I said in another post, DR has become the new black. I'm also finding it difficult to believe that the undeniably poorer dynamic range of Canon cameras has ever caused anyone a real - world issue but OTOH I would I genuinely would be interested if anyone had found that it did effect their experience and in what circumstances.
Click to expand...

I haven't had a Canon since the 5D but if you want to see noise banding due to sensor limitations take a look at a 20D or 5D shot and boost the shadows post capture. You'll see it. Those are old cameras now but the same issue will be visible in later cameras to a degree.
 
Yes of course I’m joking and am equally fed up reading predictable comparisons but I’ve never had banding problems and it’s becoming increasingly common to see people blame all their woes on shortcomings of equipment. No matter what you say getting exposure right does make a massive difference to potential for banding.
 
gerry s said:
Yes of course I’m joking and am equally fed up reading predictable comparisons but I’ve never had banding problems and it’s becoming increasingly common to see people blame all their woes on shortcomings of equipment. No matter what you say getting exposure right does make a massive difference to potential for banding.
Click to expand...


Grooooaaaannnnn, So we're back to nailing the exposure are we?

Maybe you're happy to blow the highlights? Maybe you're happy to protect them and boost the shadows and live with the consequences? Maybe all you shoot is still life scenes that can be bracketed and blended? Maybe you only shoot in a studio with lighting?

Other than those scenarios how do you get around the fact that no camera can get close to capturing the dynamic range of some scenes? The choices are to protect the highlights and boost the shadows and deal with the issues, take multiple exposures and blend them if practical, or light the shadows if possible. Using lighting or blending exposures may not be possible and in many cases you're left with the choice of blowing the highlights or protecting them and boosting the shadows. Those are the real world choice and "nailing" the exposure just isn't the answer. It's a limitation of the technology.

Actually never mind. The equipment makes no difference what so ever and no technical advances have helped or moved things on one jot since the first picture was taken in 1800 and frozen to death. All that's needed is to nail the exposure.
 
woof woof said:
I haven't had a Canon since the 5D but if you want to see noise banding due to sensor limitations take a look at a 20D or 5D shot and boost the shadows post capture. You'll see it. Those are old cameras now but the same issue will be visible in later cameras to a degree.
Click to expand...

I did own a 20D and also each of the 5Ds except the Mk IV and I remember the happy discussions about banding they provoked, which is why I was differentiating between actual banding in these (and other) digital cameras and the PDAF "banding" of the new mirrorless cameras from Canon and Nikon. The latter is the issue I'm really interested in. You can mitigate actual banding in post but I'm guessing you'd struggle to do much with the PDAF issues without a real hassle. Hence I'm wondering if anyone has found it to be a problem in use.

In general, re DR, I believe the human eye has up to 20 stops DR so cameras won't be able to reproduce all that we see at once, and will, on occasion, have to choose which visible areas to reproduce. I'm guessing as this is a simple fact that no camera is immune to the restricted DR issue though some will go further than others in mitigating it.

I believe many 35mm films have a DR or around 13 stops and presume that MF film has a fair bit more but I'm not sure if this is correct or not.
 
I think a lot will depend on image size and viewing distance.

As far as I remember the pdaf banding I saw in example shots had to be viewed at high magnification to make it visible. Normal non geek people wont see it or care so it's probably only a problem for us geeks. There's loads of stuff that probably doesn't matter to 99.9% of people in a whole picture and they'll never see it or if they do they'll dismiss it as unimportant, crops and pixel peeping for us geeks is another matter.

And another point.

In a video I watched a famous internet blogger type moaned about all the pictures that seemed to have been taken on another planet because of the white skies. He said that you're judged by your photography so faced with a scene that would lead to blown highlights he'd turn round and shoot in the other direction. I thought about what he said and I think that in some respects he's right as all he'll get is perfectly exposed pictures but think of the pictures he's missed because he wont take them because the sky will be blown and people will judge him...

So, I suppose we can avoid banding by not shooting if there are blue led's about or anything else that could cause pdaf banding but I think I'd rather take the shot and not worry about it if it's only really visible to a geek like me at 100% on screen.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think a lot will depend on image size and viewing distance.

As far as I remember the pdaf banding I saw in example shots had to be viewed at high magnification to make it visible. Normal non geek people wont see it or care so it's probably only a problem for us geeks. There's loads of stuff that probably doesn't matter to 99.9% of people in a whole picture and they'll never see it or if they do they'll dismiss it as unimportant, crops and pixel peeping for us geeks is another matter.

And another point.

In a video I watched a famous internet blogger type moaned about all the pictures that seemed to have been taken on another planet because of the white skies. He said that you're judged by your photography so faced with a scene that would lead to blown highlights he'd turn round and shoot in the other direction. I thought about what he said and I think that in some respects he's right as all he'll get is perfectly exposed pictures but think of the pictures he's missed because he wont take them because the sky will be blown and people will judge him...

So, I suppose we can avoid banding by not shooting if there are blue led's about or anything else that could cause pdaf banding but I think I'd rather take the shot and not worry about it if it's only really visible to a geek like me at 100% on screen.
Click to expand...


Probably best just not to bother taking photos at all really.
 
woof woof said:
Grooooaaaannnnn, So we're back to nailing the exposure are we?

Maybe you're happy to blow the highlights? Maybe you're happy to protect them and boost the shadows and live with the consequences? Maybe all you shoot is still life scenes that can be bracketed and blended? Maybe you only shoot in a studio with lighting?

Other than those scenarios how do you get around the fact that no camera can get close to capturing the dynamic range of some scenes? The choices are to protect the highlights and boost the shadows and deal with the issues, take multiple exposures and blend them if practical, or light the shadows if possible. Using lighting or blending exposures may not be possible and in many cases you're left with the choice of blowing the highlights or protecting them and boosting the shadows. Those are the real world choice and "nailing" the exposure just isn't the answer. It's a limitation of the technology.

Actually never mind. The equipment makes no difference what so ever and no technical advances have helped or moved things on one jot since the first picture was taken in 1800 and frozen to death. All that's needed is to nail the exposure.
Click to expand...

We aren’t back to anything and sarcasm is fine but is often better if a little bit more subtle.... I made a throwaway comment and now you are making all sorts of assumptions.... I’ve already said yes I was joking so there is no need to go on needlessly making clever (really???) remarks. I will obviously change my ways and forget everything about exposure and just winge when I realise cameras don’t have a 20 stop range. Or maybe just try using them within their known limitations.
 
Maybe it would be better to call the type of "banding" I'm referring to, "PDAF striping" to avoid the confusion when discussing it.
 
wooster said:
Maybe it would be better to call the type of "banding" I'm referring to, "PDAF striping" to avoid the confusion when discussing it.
Click to expand...

The term banding seems to describe a number of different issues, but if it's only present in electronic shutter mode, and goes away when the mechanical shutter is used, then wouldn't that suggest it's not PD-AF related?
 
HoppyUK said:
The term banding seems to describe a number of different issues, but if it's only present in electronic shutter mode, and goes away when the mechanical shutter is used, then wouldn't that suggest it's not PD-AF related?
Click to expand...

It would but that isn't what's happening according to the link I provided above.

EDIT although that does also occur as a separate issue :) So much banding :eek:
 
wooster said:
Maybe it would be better to call the type of "banding" I'm referring to, "PDAF striping" to avoid the confusion when discussing it.
Click to expand...
I agree, there’s the pinstripe banding caused by the PDAF sensors, and the banding caused by shutter speed ‘interfering’ with the lighting.

HoppyUK said:
The term banding seems to describe a number of different issues, but if it's only present in electronic shutter mode, and goes away when the mechanical shutter is used, then wouldn't that suggest it's not PD-AF related?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe so, the pinstripe banding is a physical attribute to the PDAF sensors and occurs with both mechanical and electronic shutter.

This pinstriping is less of an issue imo, not an issue in most shooting conditions. That being said it’s already been shown to ‘ruin’ some portraits when shooting with strong backlight. I think as the move is towards mirrorless this is just something we are going to have to accept, but for 99% of us it won’t cause an issue.

Banding when using electronic shutters is a bit of a problem in some situations, but should (in theory) be eradicated as and when global shutters make it to the market. For now you can just use the mechanical shutter, unless you’re a Sony A9 user and want to shoot faster than 5fps :facepalm:
 
Some sensors seem to be more prone to banding than others.
I have never seen an example in my own images.
It would seem that on-board focus pixels are the main culprit. however they don't seem to affect all such sensors on mirrorless cameras, so it would seem some maker's firmware copes with the situation far better than others.
I can not believe that it will continue to be a problem for long, especially since "everyone" is now focusing their attention on Mirrorless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top