Nikon confirm D200 banding, fix available

[birddog114]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021 ... anding.asp

On Nikon support wbsite:

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/ni ... aqid=13872

[nito]

Thanks for the links. I take it that nikon will only repair long banding and not short banding?

[birddog114]

Thanks for the links. I take it that nikon will only repair long banding and not short banding?

Shame that Nikon should have their voice at the first discovery of banding issue, and Nikon still do not want the mass recall same as BLGOD.

Better leave it for Nikon to put more stress on their QC with the new batches.
Short or long banding are the issues of non perfectly merchandise, which are selling in Australia (Fair Trading Office).

[birddog114]

Next confirmation from Nikon is battery and battery's draining issues on the D200.
Stay tuned.

[Gordon]

Strange they only admit the D200 has the banding, my D70 has always had "long banding" as they call it.

Gordon

[nito]

gordon I havent had any banding in my D70.

[dooda]

This is interesting, and I wonder if this has been brought up before, but I get banding every so often, but not every time. I don't know what the routine is, but I bet that it follows a pattern. It's quite strange. I wonder if the D200 owners tend to be more scrutinous when it comes to their image quality, where D70 shooters tend to be less so?

[Gordon]

gordon I havent had any banding in my D70.

Try taking a very underexposed image, then increase the contrast a lot.
This is essentially what I do with astrophotos- very low background levels, and it pretty much always shows up.
I just took this of a plywood cupboard door, ISO200, 1/200 @f/11, which was about 6 stops underexposed. Now I realise its not usual practice to underexpose by that much, but thats probably why many people dont know they have banding. Its always there, but at low levels and rarely shows up in daytime photography, but does show when working at low light levels such as with astrophotography.



Gordon

[nito]

Thanks gordon, but I would think that its artifact introduced by increasing the contrast. May be that is what nikon refers to as digital artifact, hence, the short banding explanation.

[Gordon]

Thanks gordon, but I would think that its artifact introduced by increasing the contrast. May be that is what nikon refers to as digital artifact, hence, the short banding explanation.

I'd have to disagree with you there nito, increasing the contrast does not create the banding, it just allows it to be seen. Take a photo of the night sky and you dont have to increase the contrast very much at all to see the bands.

These bands go all the way across the image, so cant be "short banding".

Gordon

[dooda]

Yes, I seem to get this, but I only really see them sometimes, often I don't increase the contrast very much. Weird.

[nito]

Take a photo of the night sky and you dont have to increase the contrast very much at all to see the bands.

These bands go all the way across the image, so cant be "short banding".

Gordon

Never thought of the issue as such

[Grev]

Just an educated guess, but I think all the D70/D70s' would have banding?

[PiroStitch]

The D70 does have banding but as Gordon has shown, only when the photo is fairly underexposed....why you would underexpose an image about 6 stops, i don't know

[Gordon]

The D70 does have banding but as Gordon has shown, only when the photo is fairly underexposed....why you would underexpose an image about 6 stops, i don't know

Astrophotography often has the night sky as a large part of the frame, its not necessarily "underexposed" as such, its meant to be dark! and it shows the banding.

Gordon

[PiroStitch]

Point taken with astro photos - though I'd imagine the same thing would happen with night photos as well as so far I haven't seen anything like that on any of the night shots taken by myself or the members.

[Gordon]

It does happen, but depends on the levels as to whether its obvious. The banding is only at a fairly low level, so is not going to show on any parts of the image that are well lit (technically- a high signal to noise ratio), even if it is at night.
If there was anything black or very dark in a night scene it would probbaly show the banding.
Since the bands vary from frame to frame they cant be subtracted by any sort of noise reduction image (dark frame).
I think the bands might be related to the readout speed of the CCD, the rate of readout varies across the chip, and changes the noise of readout. Maybe readout is interrupted by processor activity in the camera?

In astronomical CCDs if the readout is faster it tends to be noisier than if it was slower. If it is interrupted then you get a change in the levels, ie a band.

Gordon

[gstark]

I'm not sure I understand the problem.

It's a reasonably accepted fact of life that the D70, because of its sensor heating issues, is not the best camera for astrophotography, although clearly it can be done.

In this case, the issue is one that is being caused, by and large, as a result of the specific user conditions, which are also, by large, beyond the expected typical usage for the camera. I'm not convinced that this is a "problem" but more of an expected outcome.

Regarding whether it's "long" or "short" banding, have no idea about this, but I'm wondering whether the long/short designation may be relating to a frequency response or some other technical aspect within the way the camera creates the image, rather than whether or not it appears along the whole length (or breadth) of an image - i.e it's technical, rather than visual.

Just thinking aloud here ...

[Gordon]

In this case, the issue is one that is being caused, by and large, as a result of the specific user conditions, which are also, by large, beyond the expected typical usage for the camera.

If the camera has the ability to do up to 30 minute time exposures, then surely photography at very low light levels is within its normal expected usage? 30 minute exposures, or 30 sec for that matter! are not something you can do in daylight
Some astronomical CCD cameras from about 15 years ago were limted to 5 minute exposures due to amplifier heat/noise in one corner, (just like the D70 has) and they were definitely designed purely for night time use.

Gordon

[gstark]

Gordon,

I'm unconvinced.

There's no designed-in feature in any of my cars that will prevent me from driving head-on into cars coming in the other direction, yet it's something that the cars are clearly capable of doing.

Just because a camera doesn't disable certain facilities, or because it does include certain other facilities, doesn't mean that they should be used.

Perhaps the 30 minute shutter limitation is because the shutter mechanicals come from the same parts bin as the shutter for one of the film cameras, and it was seen as satisfactory to just use the existing shutter mechanics rather than design a whole new onw.

Again - and I view this issue in a similar light to that of some noisy images on the D70 and D2h - the problem is more one of usage than of a particular failing in the camera. I have yet to see an instance of excessive noise in, for instance, a D70 image, where that "excessive noise" exists within a portion of the image that is correctly exposed. Even at high ISOs.

In most cases, I would even go so far as to say it's operator error, but in your case, I'm going to suggest that it's a knowledgable user trying to work around (and beyond) some known design limits.

In your case, you're working at the edges of the camera's design specs, and these are expected outcomes when you're right at those edges, or exploring beyond them.

[Gordon]

Gordon,

I'm unconvinced.

There's no designed-in feature in any of my cars that will prevent me from driving head-on into cars coming in the other direction, yet it's something that the cars are clearly capable of doing.

True, but (fortunately!) your car user manual does not tell you how to perform a head on collisoin, my camera manual tells me how to take 30 minute exposures

Perhaps the 30 minute shutter limitation is because the shutter mechanicals come from the same parts bin as the shutter for one of the film cameras, and it was seen as satisfactory to just use the existing shutter mechanics rather than design a whole new onw.

All the film cameras I ever owned had a bulb setting that was not limited

In your case, you're working at the edges of the camera's design specs, and these are expected outcomes when you're right at those edges, or exploring beyond them.

I'll go along with that I know that Canon make better digital cameras for astrophotography, indeed they have a model specifically for it, but all my lenses are Nikon mount and I work around the noise banding if possible. I have taken some good astrophotos with it, and no doubt will continue to do so. Check out some of the comet photos on my web page such as: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~loomberah/2comets.htm

Gordon

[Big V]

Gordon, I feel your pain regarding the D70 and its issues with long exposure photograpjhy and this is exactly why I chose the 300D over it. The D70 would have suited me better for sports photography as it has a much better frame rate and buffer but it simply can not compete with the canon when it comes to long exposure photography and as you know I do a lot of this type. I agree that they should have been more explicit with their info on what to expect at the longer end of the bulb setting and that you should not have to discover this through trial and error. Please understand I think that the D70 is a wonderful camera, it is just not as suited to astrophotography as the canon is. The real pity is that with so many D70's out there, there are a large number of people who may like to try their hand at astrophotography but are not going to be pleased with their results if they try and photograph the faint stuff...

[gstark]

Please understand I think that the D70 is a wonderful camera, it is just not as suited to astrophotography as the canon is. The real pity is that with so many D70's out there, there are a large number of people who may like to try their hand at astrophotography but are not going to be pleased with their results if they try and photograph the faint stuff...

Absolutely correct.

Each camera has some technical benefits over the other, and we each will make our choices based upon our percieved priorities.

Which is why people need to be specific and thoughtful when asking about which camera they should buy; as it is in your case, this is an important consideration.

[dooda]

I must say, I'd probably have gone with Canon had I known the difference in noise and the banding I get in my long exposures. I sometimes have to expose the sky more than I'd like, and then tone it down to get rid of the horizontal bands. Also, Canons don't have to use the in camera NR to get rid of the massive pink heat marks, they can just use black frame, I think, atleast that's what I heard.