Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5DMKII - stragne balck dots next to highlights...?  (Read 18804 times)
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« on: December 04, 2008, 03:16:31 AM »
ReplyReply

This question has popped up on photo.net about small black dots appearing adjacent next to bright highlights.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RewZ


Has anyone else seen this artefact? Does it matter as far as printing goes?

Mike
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 03:16:56 AM by spidermike » Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2008, 10:24:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks from the comments on that thread like this may be a real problem; hope it's fixable by firmware update and doesn't involve the PITA procedure of camera returns etc etc........ I'll test mine out this evening.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 12:46:50 PM by mikelouw » Logged

Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2008, 02:55:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the black dots are there all right. Look at the lights on the right-hand side of the pic at 100% (JPEG straight from camera at ISO 6400; cropped to reduce file size but otherwise no processing outside camera). Handheld, so please ignore general lack of sharpness!





Logged

stiksandstones
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2008, 04:06:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mikelouw
Yes, the black dots are there all right. Look at the lights on the right-hand side of the pic at 100% (JPEG straight from camera at ISO 6400; cropped to reduce file size but otherwise no processing outside camera). Handheld, so please ignore general lack of sharpness!



As soon as I find a proper photo with issues, I will be worried. So far any internet bashing on the 5d2 has been from a horrible photo.
Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2008, 04:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stiksandstones
As soon as I find a proper photo with issues, I will be worried. So far any internet bashing on the 5d2 has been from a horrible photo.

Indeed this is a horrible photo, not to mention at ISO 6400. I'm not really worried; I just have an enquiring mind, and wonder what the cause of these artifacts is. I'm certainly not going to return the camera for an "issue" like this (despite my earlier post)! I expect any digital camera will produce some or other artifact when pushed in this way. By the way, there is a bright white spot in this photo near the middle top, which is not visible when the RAW file is processed using ACR.

No bashing here; I'm just interested in stuff like this.... Yes, I know I should be out taking real pictures.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 04:40:24 PM by mikelouw » Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2008, 05:34:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't it funny (or FANny), that mentioning an obvious problem is "bashing"?

Yes, this is a very real and serious proble. It is present in the raw data, i.e. it is not the creature of the raw conversion.

I contacted Canon, will post when I hear something.
Logged

Gabor
ZoltanZZZ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2008, 05:38:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not a fan of dpreview but there are some technicality competent people on the forums, may want to check out the thread below.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...2755&page=2

Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2008, 06:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting: some people are saying on the dpreview forum that the 1DSIII shows similar artifacts, although nobody seems to have posted an example yet.
Logged

ZoltanZZZ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2008, 02:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hopefully it will not be a replay of the Mk III focusing problem.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8017



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2008, 05:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: spidermike
This question has popped up on photo.net about small black dots appearing adjacent next to bright highlights.

It would seem that this is a real sensor issue that might be reasonnably easy to deal with at the raw converter level since it appears that the issue is well localized. Would it show in print? Not sure, but it is likely to be worsened by output sharpening.

Could it be fixed in firmware? Canon must have seen this (there would be a serious issue with their validation matrix if they didn't) and/or:

- ruled that it was not an impacting issue (probably true for many users),
- figured that they could not fix it easily in firmware without introducing some other larger issue,
- found the issue too late to fix it before the release date of the camera (and might have a fix already in the works).

Either way, it shows once more that designing and validating high end imaging devices accross the board is a really tough job. What do you do as a Canon product manager discovering the issue in May 08?

Still, some guys must be drinking champain in Sony Imaging HQs. The A900 looks better every day that passes by. As of now, the most remarkable thing about the A900 is that it appears to be devoid of any noteworthy issues.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 05:09:19 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2008, 05:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Reminds me of small digicams made between 1998 and circa 2003. Those cameras often would show noise as small black clumps or pinholes. This is slightly different, though, appearing right next to bright areas, almost as though something in the software was aiming for the bright areas and missed slightly to the right.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2008, 06:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Still, some guys must be drinking champain in Sony Imaging HQs. The A900 looks better every day that passes by. As of now, the most remarkable thing about the A900 is that it appears to be devoid of any noteworthy issues.

Cheers,
Bernard

  My A900 won't seem to leave my hands, so that could be an issue    Seriously, though, everything seems ok, although it's meter needs a firmware adjustment, I believe.  I tend to need around +.7 EV comp for most shots.  No biggie.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8017



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2008, 06:16:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
My A900 won't seem to leave my hands, so that could be an issue    Seriously, though, everything seems ok, although it's meter needs a firmware adjustment, I believe.  I tend to need around +.7 EV comp for most shots.  No biggie.

It might have been tuned for jpg shooting?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 06:16:40 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8017



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2008, 06:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: spidermike
Has anyone else seen this artefact? Does it matter as far as printing goes?

Found this other sample on Dpreview: http://glubsch.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/_mg_0166.jpg

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2008, 06:44:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Some things need to be spelled out clearly for the worse fanboys.

1. A serious error does not go away by simply stating, that you don't see it. Buy a new pair of glasses or a better monitor. Even better: buy a P&S and you land where you belong.

2. A pixel level issue can not be discussed away with the rubbish that it is not visible on print. It may not be visible on your print, but it may appear on others. If you never heard of the term cropping, then it's time to start learning digital photography now. Crops show the truth on print as well as on monitor.

3. An issue can not be discussed away by saying, that it appears only in high ISO shots (I found it down to 1600, but then it is not so serious as at 6400 and 12800).

Yes, for some of us this is a non-issue (if I could justify the 5D2, I would probably never go higher than ISO 200 in landscaping), but this camera is defined as the one for high ISO as well.
Logged

Gabor
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2008, 05:27:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
Some things need to be spelled out clearly for the worse fanboys.

1. A serious error does not go away by simply stating, that you don't see it. Buy a new pair of glasses or a better monitor. Even better: buy a P&S and you land where you belong.

2. A pixel level issue can not be discussed away with the rubbish that it is not visible on print. It may not be visible on your print, but it may appear on others. If you never heard of the term cropping, then it's time to start learning digital photography now. Crops show the truth on print as well as on monitor.

3. An issue can not be discussed away by saying, that it appears only in high ISO shots (I found it down to 1600, but then it is not so serious as at 6400 and 12800).

Yes, for some of us this is a non-issue (if I could justify the 5D2, I would probably never go higher than ISO 200 in landscaping), but this camera is defined as the one for high ISO as well.


I don't get some people here, if my 5DII which I will pick up next week, has these problems it will go straight back. This is unacceptable.
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2008, 06:52:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like a possible glitch with the 2x2 compression predictors.
Logged

Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2008, 06:58:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
Looks like a possible glitch with the 2x2 compression predictors.

If this is the case, would it be fixable by a firmware update? I have no idea what a 2x2 compression predictor is :-)
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2008, 10:00:53 AM »
ReplyReply

There a were a bunch of somewhat similar-looking problems with the Leica M8, though the Leica problems were worse (and, in fact, still are in some cases.) For example, you can't shoot an M8 with a very bright light just outside the frame, or you will get artifacts all the way across the sensor. This is easily manageable in most cases -- don't put something just outside the frame (the bright light had to be extremely close, right on the border of the frame, to force the effect. Move the camera a millimeter one way or the other, and it won't happen.) There was also an effect called "green blobs," which happened when there was an extremely over-exposed light within a frame that was otherwise dark. That seems somewhat similar to what's happening within the Canon frames. There was no firmware fix for these problems -- they are physical effects -- just as there's no firmware fix for the problems you get when you shoot into the sun.

I wonder if these small artifacts could be taken out of the picture with Lightroom's spot remover?
Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2008, 10:28:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I suppose all digital cameras will have some or other artifact. Trouble is, there's nothing you can do about the 5D II one, aside from not taking night shots with lights in them.......
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 10:28:51 AM by mikelouw » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad