04-22-2011, 07:23 AM
[quote name='Ayoh' timestamp='1303454190' post='7840']
I own both cameras. Just because you have not used your 5d in circumstance demanding enough to make the banding obvious and detrimental to image quality does not mean it is not there; I have examined files from multiple 5d's and they all have it, the numerous on-line complaints from other owners add further testimony. Simple test; point your camera in live view mode at a featureless wall in a darkened room with the gain turned up and see the tartan hatched banding for yourself. Whether you can live it is your own decision, but for me it is very poor performance for such an expensive camera, especially since the most basic of cameras no longer have problems with banding. If the banding was not there the 5d would indeed have the 1 stop advantage you claim at the image level(mainly due to double the sensor area since high-iso read noise is slightly worse than on the sony sensor used in the k-5), but unfortunately canon chose to leave it uncorrected. Also, the DxO sensor mark figures unfortunately do not take banding noise into account in their DR assessment (only measure averaged read noise over a small section of the frame) and as such give the 5d a unrealistically optimistic DR rating. Despite that, the low iso DR is still over 2 stops less than the K-5. The 5d does provide more detail on account of the larger pixel count, weaker AA filter and lower demand on lens resolution but that again is mostly due to a larger sensor - the 5d's only real advantage, which is spoiled by sloppy signal processing.
[/quote]
I do not get that people keep focussing on quite nonsensical DR measurements that much.... Photos with an actual high dynamic range are bland and contrastless. The ONLY time it matters that a camera is more noisy in shadows is when you have under-exposed severely and have to adjust a lot. That my 450D, by modern standards (compared to the 7D/60D/600D/D7000/D5100/K5/A580) is very noisy in shadows, that is evident. BUt the 5D mk II, that camera performs fine. Only when the photographer does something stupid, one might notice that "banding" you mention.
The K5 is not that great in high ISO, it gets as noisy as the current rest. Just as base ISO is is remarkably clean. One can still get superb results with 5D mk II's, 60D's and so on.
I own both cameras. Just because you have not used your 5d in circumstance demanding enough to make the banding obvious and detrimental to image quality does not mean it is not there; I have examined files from multiple 5d's and they all have it, the numerous on-line complaints from other owners add further testimony. Simple test; point your camera in live view mode at a featureless wall in a darkened room with the gain turned up and see the tartan hatched banding for yourself. Whether you can live it is your own decision, but for me it is very poor performance for such an expensive camera, especially since the most basic of cameras no longer have problems with banding. If the banding was not there the 5d would indeed have the 1 stop advantage you claim at the image level(mainly due to double the sensor area since high-iso read noise is slightly worse than on the sony sensor used in the k-5), but unfortunately canon chose to leave it uncorrected. Also, the DxO sensor mark figures unfortunately do not take banding noise into account in their DR assessment (only measure averaged read noise over a small section of the frame) and as such give the 5d a unrealistically optimistic DR rating. Despite that, the low iso DR is still over 2 stops less than the K-5. The 5d does provide more detail on account of the larger pixel count, weaker AA filter and lower demand on lens resolution but that again is mostly due to a larger sensor - the 5d's only real advantage, which is spoiled by sloppy signal processing.
[/quote]
I do not get that people keep focussing on quite nonsensical DR measurements that much.... Photos with an actual high dynamic range are bland and contrastless. The ONLY time it matters that a camera is more noisy in shadows is when you have under-exposed severely and have to adjust a lot. That my 450D, by modern standards (compared to the 7D/60D/600D/D7000/D5100/K5/A580) is very noisy in shadows, that is evident. BUt the 5D mk II, that camera performs fine. Only when the photographer does something stupid, one might notice that "banding" you mention.
The K5 is not that great in high ISO, it gets as noisy as the current rest. Just as base ISO is is remarkably clean. One can still get superb results with 5D mk II's, 60D's and so on.