1st issue with D700 ?

Came across this while researching D700

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/671842

He who Ignores Discipline despises himself

But whoever heeds correction gains understanding

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It is impossible to make a reasonable quality print equivalent to 100% viewing image size without using good interpolation software.
With interpolation software the effect (which needs to be viewed at 40 inches or more print size to just detect) is not going to show.
If we were discussing the $100,000 50 and 60 MP cameras promised for Photokina it might be possible to show the effect in a 40 inch print - but from a 12 MP camera the underlying resolution is not there.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>It is impossible to make a reasonable quality print
>equivalent to 100% viewing image size without using good
>interpolation software.
>With interpolation software the effect (which needs to be
>viewed at 40 inches or more print size to just detect) is not
>going to show.
>If we were discussing the $100,000 50 and 60 MP cameras
>promised for Photokina it might be possible to show the effect
>in a 40 inch print - but from a 12 MP camera the underlying
>resolution is not there.

Forgive me Len, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China? I mean, if the D3/D700 output has banding, it shouldn't be there. Suggesting that a 100% sized print using image interpolation will suffice to hide it, seems to me to be an odd band-aid for a problem that shouldn't exist. Obviously something is not working correctly. Are you suggesting users should stick their heads in the sand and hide from every problem rather than admit their beloved camera isn't perfect?

Since I intend to purchase either a D3 or D700 in the near future, I spent a lot of time last night reading up on this problem that appears to be surfacing with regards to the Nikon FX sensor in both D700s and D3s. From the pictures and tests reported in the dpreview links posted above, it appears that there is a software issue with the results from FX sensor output when high contrast light sources are in low-light images. One dpreview poster presented an image that he said had no 'banding/blooming' to illustrate his point and after the problem was clearly pointed out in his image as well, has now changed his mind. Another poster who hadn't previously noticed the problem has now found that he can reproduce it with his and another D700 owner's camera easily.

From what I have seen in the posts that I have read so far, there appear to be 2 issues. The dark lines in the image approx every 12 pixels and highlight banding in low-light images. I don't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that the firmware is not interpreting the output from the sensor correctly in these situations and/or there is a hardware setting internal to the sensor-to-converter interface that needs adjustment. It may require a hardware fix, but based upon the type of problems seen and the conditions under which they occur, it is my guess that this can be resolved in a firmware patch. No biggie. First though, the problem has to be recognized and admitted to exist.

I still intend to buy an FX sensor body. I'm sure that Nikon will resolve the issues, but I may wait a bit to see what they decide is required. There was an initial banding issue with the D200 and a metering issue with the D2H. Even so, I have purchased one of each. A problem with a relatively new and very complex product isn't the end of the world, just another challenge to be overcome in 21st century photo-technology. Once it recognizes a problem in its products, Nikon has proven to be pretty good at taking care of the customer and I expect the same to be true with these issues.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

>I still intend to buy an FX sensor body. I'm sure that Nikon
>will resolve the issues, but I may wait a bit to see what
>they decide is required. There was an initial banding issue
>with the D200 and a metering issue with the D2H. Even so, I
>have purchased one of each. A problem with a relatively new
>and very complex product isn't the end of the world, just
>another challenge to be overcome in 21st century
>photo-technology. Once it recognizes a problem in its
>products, Nikon has proven to be pretty good at taking care of
>the customer and I expect the same to be true with these
>issues.

Well said I think. The problem does not occur in the vast majority of cameras. I experienced an autofocus failure - nothing to do with banding obviously. I exchanged my D700 and all is perfect now. We're undergoing early adopter teething pains, as usual, because a small percentage of flawed units undergoing even the most rigorous field testing and quality control still escape the factory.

I think Len's comments are valid, but that they might apply to somewhat more esoteric issues. As Len implies, being able to detect a problem visible only under high magnification, and which remains undetectable in print or most other circumstances, is worthy of note and even repair, but not the strident panicky comments expressed elsewhere. For the record, a brief search on the issue of banding in various electronic and mechanical devices (camera sensors, printers, etc.) seems to show that the solutions are often clearly tied to device calibration correction - firmware updates for cameras and driver updates for printers. No big deal, but supremely irritating for a very small percentage of new device owners who have just dropped $3K on a D700 and have to wait for a firmware udpate.

Note that there are now tens of thousands of published D700 photos on flickr, photo.net, smugmug, red bubble, etc., which exhibit no banding or problems of any kind (beyond bad composition and lousy lighting that is).

!!OFF-TOPIC SARCASM WARNING!!
I think that people should immediatley cease reading MTF test results published by Nikon and Canon, because it's apparent that every single lens every designed and manufactured shows focus and falloff problems at some point on the test charts, and if you continue to use all of these 'flawed' lenses you will eventually detect a problem in one of your photos. Of course, without any lenses, your camera body is just a doorstop (the D3 in particular). Hmmm - what to do, what to do!?!

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>Forgive me Len, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Everything
If you read the link the camera body was instantly changed anyway, with D200 banding there had to be some remote prospect of printing the effect for Nikon to show significant interest.
Why on earth wait? It obviously is not common to all D700's - and might even be something other than the camera, like a CF card.
Just take a picture in the shop (they are likely to have a charged battery), zoom out to 6 feet picture size on the rear screen and if the effect does not show it is not there
If you buy mail order you can ship it back next day.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

If this was a problem with the camera design all of them would exhibit the same tendency. Mine does not, period. And I have truly pressed hard to see if anything is amiss. If there is a design issue there would be a cyberspace avalanche of very upset people by now.

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

many post on dpreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28793981&changemode=1

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28796225

Kind regards,
Cayzi

we'll see. it could be by design so users switching from canon won't feel strange without banding

that was a joke but there was actually an official comment about this a few years ago. it related to 5d but all cmos cameras might get banding, including the low end 450d or 40d. a quick google will sort your questions fast.

http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-5d-banding-issues/
maybe one of you guys which i see on dpreview forum also could bring that idea there see what happens.

And so it begins.

I downloaded the actual jpg and could definitely see banding. The banding was particularly pronounce in shady/dark areas and through the picture.

Perhaps you could try shooting in raw and process the raw file with Capture NX2 and see if the banding still exist in the jpg. If yes, I suspect it is likely to be hardware. If no (i.e. no banding), I suspect the fault is in the processing software on board the camera in which case, it can (and will) be fixed with a firmware update. I may be wrong of-course.

john

I actually have possession of a D700, arrived Tuesday, and the image quality is phenomenal. Shot in low light and shadow details are amazing. I'm off now for some morning shots to see if I can push the dynamic range envelope.

Could be his camera.

>I actually have possession of a D700, arrived Tuesday, and the image quality is phenomenal.
As yet no Nikonian has reported this issue - and with 1,350,000 members and D700's reasonably available Nikonians is a better place than most for feedback.
I find it disappointing that some Nikonians conclude all D700's are garbage based on intriguing limited internet hype, some possibly posted by trolls.
There was a time when even Nikonians had problems with obvious trolls joining to spread mis-information.
If several Nikonians buy a defective D700 that moves the goalposts, but so far none seem to have the problem.
If only new members with no profile detail on their first post report D700 problems caution may be needed some of the time.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>As yet no Nikonian has reported this issue - and with
>1,350,000 members...

We'd love to have 1.35 million members, but I think we'd need a server upgrade or two...! I think you mean 135,000

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>>I actually have possession of a D700, arrived Tuesday,
>and the image quality is phenomenal.
>As yet no Nikonian has reported this issue - and with
>1,350,000 members and D700's reasonably available Nikonians is
>a better place than most for feedback.
Maybe no Nikonian has reported it yet. The D700 has been available for less than 2 weeks. You yourself have not had the camera for a full week. Not everyone is out shooting low-light high contrast scenes. Neither has anyone posted a similar shot that disproves this issue, that it is sample related, or that the original images provided are fakes. This isn't about all D700 images, just certain shooting conditions. The tough low-light kind that a low-noise sensor would be more likely to be used for than say a D200. It isn't a condemnation of the camera, it is a potential issue with one aspect.

>I find it disappointing that some Nikonians conclude all
>D700's are garbage based on intriguing limited internet hype,
>some possibly posted by trolls.
I find it disappointing that some Nikonians respond with exaggeration rather than fact. No other poster claims Nikonian membership to be 10 times what is true to bolster their argument. No other poster in this thread uses the term 'garbage' for the D700.

Please show me the post where a Nikonian says that ..."all D700s are garbage"?

Why is it some are so quick to make personal attacks and blame the individual when a brand new, man-made device is reported not to be perfect? It's a complex device, not your kid, don't take it personal.

>There was a time when even Nikonians had problems with obvious
>trolls joining to spread mis-information.
>If several Nikonians buy a defective D700 that moves the
>goalposts, but so far none seem to have the problem.

The operative words are so far and seem. The links have images. The exif data may be faked, but I haven't seem anyone show that it is yet. I have seen respondents in the dpreview threads who posted their own similarly exposed images to prove the original poster incorrect, and under closer observation they found that their own images were just as flawed.

Did you read the posts on the dpreview URLS already posted in this thread? Have you looked at the image at the beginning of the thread at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=28793981&page=1

The first image available at the top of that thread and from the poster's web site at http://www.seloma.net/photo/D700/DSC_0211.jpg looks to be legitimate. It is also the type of shot I expected to use my FX sensor based Nikon when I purchased it.

Before anyone starts accusing people of being trolls, have you at least downloaded the image and looked at it? The exif data says it is an ISO 2500 image from a D700. Please show me that this is faked. I intend to buy a FX Nikon, so I'll gladly listen. There are clear banding issues in the sky. Have ANY Nikonians shot a similar exposure and SHOWN that the dpreview image is a fake? It might well be a fake, but if it is let's see some real evidence and not personal attacks. Why not try answering claims of camera errors with actual evidence proving that the problem doesn't exist or is sample related?

All of the images that I have seen so far, show the banding going along the long axis of the sensor, from left to right, generally across the entire width. Nothing radial or along the short axis. That leads me to believe that there is something particular to the physical reading of the data off the sensors and not the sensors themselves. I'm guessing at this point that it is an issue in how the sensor to data converters are interpreting the values when an extreme difference between pixel values is seen and affecting that bank of data in memory. Maybe similar to the image corruption issue that the D3 had after the first firmware update. Most likely fixed in a firmware patch like before, but we will see.

I note that the second image posted in the dpreview thread had banding from all of the bright point light sources , but not so much from similar wide light sources. That image is available for download at http://www.seloma.net/photo/D700/DSC_0232a.jpg I can see banding/blooming going up from all of the circular lamps that are blown out, but the 2 hot panels in the front of the building which I would expect to exhibit the same problem, don't seem to do so on my monitor. Maybe there is a level of intensity and layout that makes the difference in the resultant image?

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

>Why is it some are so quick to make personal attacks and blame the individual when a brand new, man-made device is reported
>not to be perfect?
Keeping it absolutely basic there is a difference between "reported" and "reliably reported".
Any incompetent photographer can use a camera incompetently and then blame the camera instead of themselves
Like it or not ALL digital cameras are prone to more flare, blooming and double images because the sensor is much more shiny than film.
Some of what is reported on dpreview IS garbage.
What Nikonians members seem to be saying is we will sit up and take notice IF someone posts some reliable reports.
So far I have seen none that I consider to be reliable - and unless and until there is something reliable to talk about (as there was with early D200 banding) it is a none issue.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>I find it disappointing that some Nikonians conclude all
>D700's are garbage based on intriguing limited internet hype,
>some possibly posted by trolls.
>There was a time when even Nikonians had problems with obvious
>trolls joining to spread mis-information.
>If several Nikonians buy a defective D700 that moves the
>goalposts, but so far none seem to have the problem.
>If only new members with no profile detail on their first post
>report D700 problems caution may be needed some of the time.

Good observations Len.

I had an autofocus problem with my D700 and exchanged it over the counter. The second D700 is perfect. I've been back to the camera store I deal with every second day for the past week and a half for various items, and during that time I've run into three other new D700 owners. None of them have found any problems at all in their D700s. All we're seeing is the usual percentage of bad units that appear with every new product release. It's a very small burden imposed on early adopters. The designs, electronic components, calibrations, assembly and QC aren't perfect. At the end of the day, even these expensive camera bodies are essentially mass-produced electronic devices which are subject to the vagaries and consequential effects of component variations and a hundred other issues which have to be accounted for during the design, engineering, manuacturing and QC phases of the product development cycle. But people who pay such large amounts of money for these devices turn themselves inside out, sometimes, when they encounter occasional problems. In such situations I think they immediately begin devaluing their purchase decision if they hear anything which might serve to denigrate their possession, in essence publicly devaluing their possession (or intended possession) even more.

The trolls and wannabe product owners who occupy so much of their lives in the quest for, defense of or attack on valuable consumer products which compete with their preferences are nothing more than the sad and witless victims of a growing segment of western society which seems to value possessions over the presence of real substance in their lives.

To heck with Brian . . . I like the sound of 1.35 million Nikonians better than 135,000. Wait a minute! Did I just devalue Nikonians?

OMG!!!<BG>

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

This is also discussed on DPreview. It seems to happen at extremely high ISO (6400) with overexposure highlights on an underexposure background. With well exposused picture it doesn't occur. Nikon's response was as followed: "Thanks for the samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't see anything wrong with your camera. Thanks" - see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28811881. Follow also this thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28793981

I don't think this could be an issue for any prospect buyers of a D700, although the fredmiranda case seems a bit different with a possible damaged camera or a lemon.

Piet

>Nikon's response was as followed: "Thanks
>for the samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas
>of extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general
>underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially
>normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't
>see anything wrong with your camera."
>I don't think this could be an issue for any prospect buyers
>of a D700, although the fredmiranda case seems a bit different
>with a possible damaged camera or a lemon.

I love it!

Some guy takes a really lousy photo (there are actually several of these bad shots being used as examples of so-called problems), then complains because he finds technical flaws in it. The photo is basically awful in the first place (nothing more than a snapshot and impossible to print well), but might have been salvageable if he'd exposed it properly and composed it properly. This is complete idiocy.

Thank you Piet for posting Nikon's response.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

'This is complete idiocy'.

No it is not.
If you like the picture or not is totally irrelevant, this is about a technical problem in the camera. The exposure is of interest of course but this still should not happen, no matter what.

Could be a lemon though, so far the numbers of example pictures are pretty low.

Jeroen

>'This is complete idiocy'.
>
>No it is not.
>If you like the picture or not is totally irrelevant, this is
>about a technical problem in the camera. The exposure is of
>interest of course but this still should not happen, no matter
>what.
>
>Could be a lemon though, so far the numbers of example
>pictures are pretty low.

I think some perceived technical problems are totally irrelevant because they only occur in situations which the sensor and CPU were never designed to handle. It is one thing to point out a flaw which occurs in a properly exposed photo, but quite another to point out a flaw which occurs in a terrible exposure which exceeds the engineered technical capabilities of the camera. Suggesting that ridiculous exposures should not reveal technical limitations of a lens & film stock or a lens & camera sensor & CPU combination is not logical or reasonable.

When you overdrive your high-end speakers at ear-splitting volume levels while playing a high dynamic recording, the distortion you hear reveals a technical limitation of the speakers (and possibly the amplifier too). To suggest that the speakers are flawed is inaccurate. To suggest that the speakers (and the D700) have technical limitations is perfectly reasonable.

The D700 is not a magic box. In order to get the best out of it, you simply can't step beyond its technical limitations. The same was/is true for my old F5, and my D70, D80, D200, D300 and D3. Awful exposures, terrible vantage points, and lousy composition reveal lens limitations, film limitations, sensor limitations and CPU limitations. Even when creative photographers push the conventional boundaries of lighting, exposure and composition, they respect the technical limitations of the lenses and cameras they use. If they fail to do so, they simply won't get what they want. These cameras are amazing, but they're not magic boxes that can fix every dumb thing we do.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>The D700 is not a magic box

I agree completely. The venerable D70s definitely bands badly in underexposed shadows. It is not a problem with the camera and no one ever thought to even say so.

While the high ISO and dynamic range of the D700 is amazing, it has a range of operation and when one goes beyond that, walla! Bad looking picture.

""

Should an over-exposed image ever show blown highlights? If the effect does not occur with a properly exposed image, I'm not sure how it could be considered a problem with the camera.

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Now we have everything from a possible CF card issue (first link) to blooming/moire (dpreview link) being called banding.
***
As regards moire/blooming the D200, D80, D300 and D3 instructions refer to it (under filters), explain when it is likely to occur, and suggest how to reduce it.
Others have clarified the D70 (which I never owned) definitely could be induced to produce it.
I believe the D1, D2, D100, D40 and D60 series instructions also referred to it.
Speculation on my part but Nikon has probably sold 5,000,000 or more DSLR's to date on which moire can be induced - most have not found it to be a significant issue - and yet because of a possible troll type link at dpreview suddenly some Nikonians are talking as though all D700's (and by implication all Nikon DSLR's) are garbag
***
Back to the "banding" allegation as yet no Nikonian has confirmed the existence of an effect (which is similar to some defective CF card effects) using a D700.
***
I remember all the hysteria about the different D200 issue - which affected about 3% of early production models despite internet hype suggesting it affected 99.9%
At the time Henry Posner of B&H (it is years since he posted) said "there is a lot more talk about banding than there is banding to talk about".
I would be surprised if Nikonian members have so far bought less than 200 D700's - and no-one has reported a "banding" issue as in the original link.
Can we have some sanity please as, outside some peoples imagination, it seems up to now there is little (and maybe nil) D700 banding to talk about.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>I remember all the hysteria about the different D200 issue -
>which affected about 3% of early production models despite
>internet hype suggesting it affected 99.9%
>At the time Henry Posner of B&H (it is years since he
>posted) said "there is a lot more talk about banding than
>there is banding to talk about".
>I would be surprised if Nikonian members have so far bought
>less than 200 D700's - and no-one has reported a
>"banding" issue as in the original link.
>Can we have some sanity please as, outside some peoples
>imagination, it seems up to now there is little (and maybe
>nil) D700 banding to talk about.

Hear Hear Len and well said again.

When I took over a Kiosk software project for Fuji France in 2000, my project development team basically challenged Fuji to come up with a photo that could stump our scanning and automatic image processing algorithms. Fuji rose to the challenge and won in a walk. Our engineering liaison outside of Paris came up with an envelope of about two dozen 5"x7" glossy prints of a variety of subjects everyone of which kicked up wild and clearly visible moires, color shifts and all sorts of other problems. My lead developer cursed loudly, rounded everybody up for a technical meeting and re-worked a lot of our data input code and processing algorithms.

The point is that there are really smart and experienced camera and photography people out there whose job it is to stump the technology. Most of what they sort out is based on real-world examples of photographic subjects (a la Fujifilm France's secret stash of killer photos). This kind of corporate folklore is jealously guarded by a lot of companies including Nikon and all of its competitors because it has taken years to develop. Nonetheless, from time to time end users of all the products will inevitably stumble onto something which the engineers and QA/QC teams didn't think of or evaluate. Almost every time (except for the usual percentage of camera manufacturing defects, device mis-calibrations and third-party component problems) a perceived foul-up is visible or 'problematic' only in photos which are unusable to begin with.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

No banding here, and when pushing the camera beyond its dynamic range the blooming is well controlled. The image quality is incredible! Its amazing to obtain good-quality images in poor lighting at ISO 5000.

MarkF

D800
I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>No banding here, and when pushing the camera beyond its
>dynamic range the blooming is well controlled. The image
>quality is incredible! Its amazing to obtain good-quality
>images in poor lighting at ISO 5000.

Yes, but how do you know for sure? Did you zoom in to 7000% in order to examine the individual molecules of which the photo is comprised??

DO YOU REALIZE THAT IF THERE ARE FLAWS VISIBLE WHEN YOUR PHOTO IS VIEWED AT 7000% YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRINT AT 16 YARDS X 24 YARDS x 600DPI???

AH-HAH!!! Got you THERE, didn't I????

Seriously though, it has to be true that the usual very small percentage of bodies with flaws escaped the factory. It's frustrating for the people who happened to get bodies with problems and a bit of a burden for people who had to order online (and now go to the trouble or organizing an exchange - RMA, shipping, insurance, etc.) because they live in a place which doesn't provide them with direct face-to-face access to a Nikon dealer. The D700 I received over a week ago quickly developed a severe autofocus problem. I exchanged it over the counter and the replacement is perfect (gosh darn amazing actually). Nice camera.

Anyway, early adopters pay the highest prices and naturally complain the loudest - they're entitled to as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that's particularly disturbing about early adopter complaints is that so many panicky people and so many trolls immediately being ripping their sleeves and spouting a lot of uninformed hyperbole that it starts a negative wave propagating amongst potential buyers who delay their purchases or turn away altogether, thereby denying themselves a lot of early time with what happens to be a terrific camera.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I see a lot of responses whith the words hyperbole and troll being thrown around, but I don't see a lot of FACTS or IMAGES by the naysayers.

I want to shoot long exposure evening scenes. The dpreview posts and images show an ISO 2500 image that is not pushing the camera beyond its boundaries which clearly has banding that i would not accept. That image is similar to the type that I am interested in. That is why those reports concern me.

In addition to the dpreview threads with SEVERAL IMAGES, there is a thread at Nikon Cafe where a member who read the dpreview posts and owns both a D700 and D300 agreed to try reproducing the issue in her D700. She had previously not seen any issue with her D700 and had no reason to believe it affected her camera. To her surprise, she was able to reproduce the problem with her camera. Her reproduction isn't scientific and she admits that, but it was a surprise to her that it could be seen in her images. She then said that she would try a similar reproduction using both her D700 and her D300 at the same time to see if it was a 'pushed beyond boundaries' issue. She has posted images from both cameras in the thread at http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=181108

In the D700 image there is banding. It is slight and it requires that you look for it, but it is there. In the D300 image of the same scene, the banding is not there. So, I guess that the D700 is being pushed beyond its boundaries and the D300 is not. Interesting.

I'm interested in FACTS and IMAGES that prove the issue is faked or due to trolls, not name calling. I would love to see that proof that the ISO 2500 image at the top of the dpreview thread is sample related. All I ask is civil discourse and real proof. Surely someone has or can shoot some raw images that prove the point?

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

Reading through the whole NikonCafe thread you linked to, it is clear that:

a) many posters there cannot see any "banding" in the posted image;
b) the lady herself thinks the problem is not worth worrying about.

I agree that we certainly shouldn't be assuming troll-like behaviour if anyone posts here about this issue, and that what we need is, as always, a civilised and rational discussion. We all remember the various overdone reactions to perceived or actual problems with earlier Nikons...!

When (if...?) one of our members experiences the problem in normal (for them) usage, we will be in a better position to have said debate. Until then, to quote from the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... DON'T PANIC

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>I'm interested in FACTS and IMAGES that prove the issue is
>faked or due to trolls, not name calling. I would love to see
>that proof that the ISO 2500 image at the top of the dpreview
>thread is sample related. All I ask is civil discourse and
>real proof. Surely someone has or can shoot some raw images
>that prove the point?

Nikon has already responded with a technical comment quoted elsewhere on Nikonians. It should allay any concerns you may have.

Trolls exist. Nobody in this thread suggested any fakery.

I have made all sorts of JPG and RAW images with my D700. No banding and no problems of any other kind (except my frequently lousy composition, poor choice of focal length, inattention to backgrounds, etc.). You want examples? Here you go (it's a big ZIP file which contains a range of full res shots in both JPG & NEF as generated by the camera, with no post-processing, retouching or alterations of any kind). There's no banding:

http://www.kickstartnews.com/downloads/d700/nikonians_d700_testshots.zip

The link is good for 72 hours.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Thank you Howard. Now we have facts. The image dundas_square_night_2008-08-04_DSC0252.JPG and the equivalent .NEF image are exactly what I was interested in. Those shots are similar to the type of scenes I am interested in shooting and contain a similar mix of high and low contrast areas with some point sources of light. I see no banding in the .JPG and expect to fnd none in the .NEF when I have a chance to put it through NX2.

Based on the image that you supplied, I'd say the reported banding is sample or early batch related and not FX sensor inclusive. I note in the exif that the image was shot at ISO 1100. If you have the time and would be so kind as to indulge me, would you try shooting the same or similar scenes at ISO 2000, 3200, and 6400?

Brian, yes there were several posters in the Nikon Cafe thread that couldn't see the banding in the images posted, but it was seen by many others and I can clearly see it. That thread was a test of D700 versus D300 in response to the original thread at Nikon Cafe about the dpreview thread on banding. The original Nikon Cafe thread is at http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=180921 In that thread many people start out not seeing the problem and when shown where to look in the images, do see the banding. There are additional images posted from their members tests as well, which show the banding. One poster claims that he has tested his D700 and that of two others and was able to reproduce the problem in all 3 cameras. In his tests the extent he had to go to were extreme enough that those situations don't bother me. In the D700 versus D300 Cafe thread where a reasonable person who owns a D700 and D300 was able to reproduce the issue with her D700 and not with her D300 under the same conditions, that gets my attention.

Howard's night image convinces me that at ISO 1100 and below, this banding isn't an issue of any sort with his D700. If a similar scene shot at 3200 and 6400 is as free of banding, then most likely the issue is sample or production batch related. In any case, for 99.5% of all owners it probably will never be an issue, and I understand that. I would hope that other photographers might understand that there are some like myself that like to shoot night scenes a lot, so for us it is worth pursuing to find out what the limits really are. I'm not panicing, because I already have 2 great Nikon bodies at my disposal. banding or no banding, putting a D700 or D3 in my hands isn't going to instantly make me a 100% better photographer than I already am. I am interested in getting as many facts as possible before I make my choice and spend my money.

Again, thank you Howard for the excellent example. If anyone else has high ISO night shots with reasonably good exposure and bright points of light similar to the ISO 2500 image shown at the dpreview thread, I would really appreciate it if you would share them.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

>Thank you Howard. Now we have facts. The image
>dundas_square_night_2008-08-04_DSC0252.JPG and the equivalent
>.NEF image are exactly what I was interested in. Those shots
>are similar to the type of scenes I am interested in shooting
>and contain a similar mix of high and low contrast areas with
>some point sources of light. I see no banding in the .JPG and
>expect to fnd none in the .NEF when I have a chance to put it
>through NX2.
>
>Based on the image that you supplied, I'd say the reported
>banding is sample or early batch related and not FX sensor
>inclusive. I note in the exif that the image was shot at ISO
>1100. If you have the time and would be so kind as to indulge
>me, would you try shooting the same or similar scenes at ISO
>2000, 3200, and 6400?

>Howard's night image convinces me that at ISO 1100 and below,
>this banding isn't an issue of any sort with his D700. If a
>similar scene shot at 3200 and 6400 is as free of banding,
>then most likely the issue is sample or production batch
>related. In any case, for 99.5% of all owners it probably
>will never be an issue, and I understand that. I would hope
>that other photographers might understand that there are some
>like myself that like to shoot night scenes a lot, so for us
>it is worth pursuing to find out what the limits really are.
>I'm not panicing, because I already have 2 great Nikon bodies
>at my disposal. banding or no banding, putting a D700 or D3
>in my hands isn't going to instantly make me a 100% better
>photographer than I already am. I am interested in getting as
>many facts as possible before I make my choice and spend my
>money.
>
>Again, thank you Howard for the excellent example.

You are welcome. Once again though, I'm not trying to reproduce banding or light flare or lens flare of any kind, just decent exposures. I can force any camera (including the D700, D3) and lens combination to capture moires, banding, bloom and flare, but I just don't see the point in doing so when the goal is to capture good, creative or simply worthwhile exposures. Perhaps I'm misreading or otherwise misunderstanding your concerns, but my interpretation of your comments is that you are interested in seeing if a D700 produces image problems in well balanced, dynamic exposures. If so, I'm telling you that I can capture images all night long at all of the ISOs, apertures, shutter speeds, custom white balances and EVs I shoot and you're not going to find any banding.

One of the images I packaged in the examples is shot dead clean at ISO4000. To me it's almost unbelievable to be able to capture such clean, well balanced color at that speed.

I'll see if I can grab some night shots of value for your interest at ISO3200 or higher. I don't have anything to show right now at that ISO, mainly because with fast glass there's usually no need no matter what sort of creative mood I'm in. I'll post something later I think.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Houston we have a problem....

I hate to say it but there is definitely banding in one of your pictures Howard.
Just look at the sky (e.g. close to the LG sign) in the file called 'dundas_square_night_2008-08-04_DSC0252' file.
There is a large amount of vertical lines and they do not seem to relate to highlights. I see them both in JPEG and in the NEF. And we are speaking about ISO 1100 here!!

I really hate to say this because I am planning on buying this camera. And the problem is not huge but it's getting harder to keep denying that the D700 produces banding...even at moderate ISO's.

Jeroen

>I hate to say it but there is definitely banding in one of
>your pictures Howard.
>Just look at the sky (e.g. close to the LG sign) in the file
>called 'dundas_square_night_2008-08-04_DSC0252' file.
>There is a large amount of vertical lines and they do not seem
>to relate to highlights. I see them both in JPEG and in the
>NEF. And we are speaking about ISO 1100 here!!
>
>I really hate to say this because I am planning on buying this
>camera. And the problem is not huge but it's getting harder to
>keep denying that the D700 produces banding...even at moderate
>ISO's.

This photo and several others in the series have been shown to a dozen different photographers and graphic artists working for two different agencies over the past two days, and NOBODY can see any banding on any of the 8 different calibrated monitors on which the photo has been displayed. I also thought to zoom in to 1000%(!) on two different monitors just now (a Dell 2405WFP UltraSharp and an LG Flatron L245WP - both top rated graphics monitors) and there's still no banding. Check your monitor.

I don't know how long and hard you've been staring at the photo, but you can do so from now until Christmas and you still won't find any banding of any kind at any magnification. There are dozens of different monitor faults which can cause display problems including the dynamic range of the photo exceeding the monitor's capabilities, a faulty LCD backlight, radiating patterns caused by an LCD's inability to properly display certain images, poor or non-existent calibration, a CRT which is developing flyback problems, phosphor deterioration, etc., etc., etc.

I sold the shot - I was at the event on a project. Critical, experienced, professional eyes belonging to people who spend a lot of hours every day pushing pixels on calibrated monitors didn't/don't see any banding. Look at the image on a decent monitor. You'll be delighted.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

The guy writes: "When I received my camera the box of my camera was dented in the corner and wasn't packed well.
The padding was underneath the camera box instead of around the camera box. So I was thinking it was dropped."

Somebody dropped the camera this guy was using, so what's all the hubbub about?

There does seem to be a really marginal horizontal pattern in the sky, but you really need to strain your eyes and imagination to find it. Does this mean the D700 IS A FAILURE? NO. It's people blowing things out of proportion. I would like to hear from actual D700 owners on this, not from people who make judgments based on an image that could have even come from an entirely different camera.

>Somebody dropped the camera this guy was using, so what's all
>the hubbub about?
>
>There does seem to be a really marginal horizontal pattern in
>the sky, but you really need to strain your eyes and
>imagination to find it. Does this mean the D700 IS A FAILURE?
>NO. It's people blowing things out of proportion. I would like
>to hear from actual D700 owners on this, not from people who
>make judgments based on an image that could have even come
>from an entirely different camera.

Read my post above. The D700 is excellent and I'm delighted with it (as are thousands others in North America so far).

Here's Nikon's response to the images being discussed in the dpreview topic:

"Nikon's response was as follows: "Thanks for the samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't see anything wrong with your camera." This seems to be Nikon's very diplomatic way of saying that if we expose properly for the subject matter, we're not going to find any problems. Duh.

From what I can see for myself, a few people have received D700s and tried to make them perform under conditions which strain and break several of the basic rules of photography and optics.

In the fredmiranda thread, the OP was using a camera for which he requested an exchange or RMA/RSA because he believes it was dropped (or something) prior to or during delivery.

Having to strain to see something and then still not being able to see it easily (I've been doing it too!) usually means we're trying to observe something that's not really there or that is otherwise so inconsequential that we're actually wasting time better spent making photos.

In none of these so-called problem photo posts has anyone (except me I think) mentioned what lens they were using. Lenses of all types commonly exhibit flare and ghosting problems which in extreme exposure conditions can also manifest in unusual ways. So pre-flare conditions and other lens anomalies, combined with bad exposures, are also factors that should be considered. I really can't recall when so many average-to-poor snapshots have been so closely examined.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>There does seem to be a really marginal horizontal pattern in the sky, but
>you really need to strain your eyes and imagination to find it. Does this mean the D700 IS A FAILURE? NO.
>It's people blowing things out of proportion.
t774, Please don't take offense, but to me your response, like that of several others who don't appear to have completely read the threads, is blowing things out of proportion. Nobody here that I know of is calling the D700 a failure. No one on the Nikon Cafe threads was calling the D700 a failure. These problematic images all appear to be from actual D700 owners who paid their own money to buy a D700. The posts concering the dark lines in the sky were by only a couple of people and at least one of them reported up front that he/she had possible physical damage to the camera during shipment. Not the big issue here.

Even if it were to turn out that the D700 has provable flaws, if they are correctable by Nikon, it's not a long term issue. If they aren't correctable, then it's only an issue for those whose shooting style is affected. Even then, there may be workarounds. I and others who are interested in making the purchase, just want to know the facts.

>There is a large amount of vertical lines and they do not seem to relate to highlights.
>I see them both in JPEG and in the NEF. And we are speaking about ISO 1100 here!!
amedi, I have to agree with Howard on this one. Whatever it is you see on your monitor isn't the issue that has been reported for the D700. In ALL instances that I have seen, the blooming is along the long axis of the image and not the vertical axis as you mention seeing in this shot. If Howard's ISO 1100 image was demonstrating the same problem, then the smaller point light sources on the upper left side would show a line extending clear across to the LG sign. Please see the various threads I've referenced for real obvious examples of the blooming.

> Once again though, I'm not trying to reproduce banding or light flare or lens flare of any kind,
> just decent exposures. I can force any camera (including the D700, D3) and lens combination to
> capture moires, banding, bloom and flare, but I just don't see the point in doing so when the
> goal is to capture good, creative or simply worthwhile exposures. Perhaps I'm misreading or
> otherwise misunderstanding your concerns, but my interpretation of your comments is that you
> are interested in seeing if a D700 produces image problems in well balanced, dynamic exposures.
Howard, you are correct, I'm interested in capturing good, creative or simply worthwhile exposures. However, creative and worthwile exposures are not always balanced dynamically. I'm glad that you aren't tryng specifically to reproduce the banding. I WANT you to prove that one can reproduce the dpreview image type without the banding. That proves it is at most sample related. In the case of the church shot from dpreview, it is creative, worthwhile, and exposed pretty well. Well, it would have been worthwhile if it weren't for the blooming.

>From what I can see for myself, a few people have received D700s and tried to make them perform under
> conditions which strain and break several of the basic rules of photography and optics.
As I have mentioned several times, the church shot which is the primary image at one of the dpreview threads can be downloaded from http://www.seloma.net/photo/D700/DSC_0211.jpg Please look at that image. That ISO 2500 image is not excessively underexposed. It is not showing lens flare. It is a decently exposed night shot of a church building shot in camera vertical position. In that shot you can CLEARLY see the blooming from each of the lights at the base of the building. Those blooms run the long axis of the image and ruin the shot.

If you can honestly say that you believe that that the DSC_0211.jpg image strains and breaks several of the basic rules of photography and optics, then we don't need to discuss this anymore, because it is better balanced overall than the image you say you sold. Not running down your shot, just saying that the church shot is not breaking the basic rules of photography and optics any more than yours, not even close.

>"Nikon's response was as follows: "Thanks for the
>samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of
>extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general
>underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially
>normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't
>see anything wrong with your camera." This seems to be
>Nikon's very diplomatic way of saying that if we expose
>properly for the subject matter, we're not going to find any
>problems. Duh.
>
Duh indeed...
How do you account for the dpreview thread at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28796225
A D700 & D300 owner has posted 2 images shot of the same scene under the same lighting and again the D700 has blooming (very noticable) and the D300 does not. If the result from the D700 with blooming is normal then the results from the D300 with no blooming is abnormal?

Additionally, 2 images shot by a member of Nikon Cafe who owns both a D700 & D300 show blooming in only the D700. Both are shot of the same scene. The thread which I posted before is at http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=181108
Again, in the same conditions, the D700 image shows blooming and the D300 does not. Two different individuals who actually own both cameras and both have 'normal' D700s and abnormal D300s? Did they somehow find a way to break the bounds of photography and optics with their D300s that they couldn't with their D700s?

Now some will want to counter that most of the images presented were underexposed, and I agree. That isn't the point. If blooming is NORMAL, then why in both side-by-side instances, are the D300 images so ABNORMAL (no blooming)?

> One of the images I packaged in the examples is shot dead clean at ISO4000.
> To me it's almost unbelievable to be able to capture such clean, well balanced color at that speed.
I appreciate that you submitted several different scenes and ISO settings, but you are confusing the issue. Unbelievable or not, the ISO 4000 image is not even close to the type of scene we are talking about. Low contrast / daytime scenes are not at issue. Nobody is saying that the D700 is incapable of making great images. We just want to know if blooming is an issue in low-light high contrast, scenes similar to the church shot that I have referenced. And maybe why the D300 appears to have a problem with an abnormal amount of non-blooming.

> If so, I'm telling you that I can capture images all night long at all of the ISOs, apertures,
> shutter speeds, custom white balances and EVs I shoot and you're not going to find any banding.
I sincerely hope that you are right. Provide some ISO 2500 and above images that mimic the ISO 2500 church scene. Lay this issue to rest with proof.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

>Even if it were to turn out that the D700 has provable flaws,
>if they are correctable by Nikon, it's not a long term issue.
>If they aren't correctable, then it's only an issue for those
>whose shooting style is affected. Even then, there may be
>workarounds. I and others who are interested in making the
>purchase, just want to know the facts.

The fact is always that in any manufacturing run consisting of thousands of cameras, there are going to be few percentage points worth of bad units.

>amedi, I have to agree with Howard on this one. Whatever it
>is you see on your monitor isn't the issue that has been
>reported for the D700. In ALL instances that I have seen, the
>blooming is along the long axis of the image and not the
>vertical axis as you mention seeing in this shot. If Howard's
>ISO 1100 image was demonstrating the same problem, then the
>smaller point light sources on the upper left side would show
>a line extending clear across to the LG sign.

Absolutely correct. You're describing classic blooming caused by a combination of point light sources, lens optics and sensor physics.

>>. . . you are interested in seeing if a D700 produces image
>>problems in well balanced, dynamic exposures.
>Howard, you are correct, I'm interested in capturing good,
>creative or simply worthwhile exposures. However, creative and
>worthwile exposures are not always balanced dynamically.

True, but all such expansive creative exposures should at least respect the engineered limitations of the lens, sensor and CPU combination. Sometimes, blooming and flare is used as part of a creative composition. Usually not my style or anywhere near my personal tastes though.


>I'm glad you aren't tryng specifically to reproduce the
>banding. I WANT you to prove that one can reproduce the
>dpreview image type without the banding. That proves it is at
>most sample related. In the case of the church shot from
>dpreview, it is creative, worthwhile, and exposed pretty well.
> Well, it would have been worthwhile if it weren't for the
>blooming.

Let's just say we don't agree on the creative assessment of the photo. It's terrible in my opinion. Aim a camera & lens - any camera & lens - at a series of bright point sources of light and I guarantee you that I can make an exposure that will drive that camera & lens into all sorts of problems. This is a game that owners of new equipment inadvertently - inadvertently - play to test the limits of the hype/PR which precedes the release of the equipment. It happens with new high end speakers, microphones, amplifiers, lenses, cameras, cell phones, and you name it. The device may be working as designed, but people find all sorts of interesting ways of stepping outside the design parameters. Taking photos in pitch black, handheld, with little else but point sources of light with the expectation that the lens and sensor combination will somehow capture a natural exposure. When I overdrive my power amp into clipping, the audio is still listenable, but it is by no means anywhere near as gorgeous sounding as when I drive the amp within its sweet spot. The amp's sweet spot is actually huge. The D700 and D3 sweet spots are huge. My sample photo shows what the camera can do, and that was just a shot I made to check exposure! The final shots had even better range, much better composition and so on - all dead clean.

>As I have mentioned several times, the church shot which is
>the primary image at one of the dpreview threads can be
>downloaded from
> Please look at that image. That ISO 2500 image is not
>excessively underexposed. It is not showing lens flare. It
>is a decently exposed night shot of a church building shot in
>camera vertical position. In that shot you can CLEARLY see
>the blooming from each of the lights at the base of the
>building. Those blooms run the long axis of the image and
>ruin the shot.
>
>If you can honestly say that you believe that that the
>DSC_0211.jpg image strains and breaks several of the basic
>rules of photography and optics, then we don't need to discuss
>this anymore, because it is better balanced overall than the
>image you say you sold. Not running down your shot, just
>saying that the church shot is not breaking the basic rules of
>photography and optics any more than yours, not even close.

Nikon says the exposure is terrible (I'm paraphrasing obviously - Nikon is not that crass), several pros who've seen the shot say the exposure is terrible, and I my opinion is also that the exposure is terrible. Sorry, but snapshots are snapshots, in this case unworthy of analysis because they push beyond the limits of the camera & lens combination. You want to be able to just pick up a D700 on full auto and snap away under any crazy lighting conditions? Me too, but we both know that good photography is not that simple. If it was, everybody would be doing it.

>"Nikon's response was
>as follows: "Thanks for the
>>samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of
>>extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general
>>underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially
>>normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I
>don't
>>see anything wrong with your camera." This seems to
>be
>>Nikon's very diplomatic way of saying that if we expose
>>properly for the subject matter, we're not going to find
>any
>>problems. Duh.

>Duh indeed...
>How do you account for the dpreview thread at
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28796225
>A D700 & D300 owner has posted 2 images shot of the same
>scene under the same lighting and again the D700 has
>blooming (very noticable) and the D300 does not. If
>the result from the D700 with blooming is normal then the
>results from the D300 with no blooming is abnormal?

I don't account for it. The argument or case for this so-called issue is specious. A lens/sensor/CPU combination in one camera will always yield different results than the same lens with a different sensor/CPU combination. The angle of view is slightly different, angle to point sources slightly different, X/Y position is different, etc., etc. Show me rational exposures instead of bedroom shots directly at bare ceiling mini-floods in an otherwise darkened room. Does the absurdity of this so-called test escape everyone?

>Additionally, 2 images shot by a member of Nikon Cafe who owns
>both a D700 & D300 show blooming in only the D700. Both
>are shot of the same scene. The thread which I posted before
>is at http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=181108
>
>Again, in the same conditions, the D700 image shows
>blooming and the D300 does not. Two different
>individuals who actually own both cameras and both have
>'normal' D700s and abnormal D300s? Did they somehow find a
>way to break the bounds of photography and optics with their
>D300s that they couldn't with their D700s?

S'cuse me . . . THIS is the horrible bedroom exposure shot directly into a bare ceiling mini-flood. It's dopey, an utter waste of time, and a test of nothing except the photographer's lack of knowledge. I love the audiophile analogies - sorry - but how about if I turn my speakers to face a curtained window and then complain that the speakers suddenly have lousy stereo separation. These cameras were not designed to be aimed directly at point sources of bright light at such close proximity and still be able to magically balance the rest of the scene. The church shots are not much better (as Nikon indicated in its response).

>Now some will want to counter that most of the images
>presented were underexposed, and I agree. That isn't the
>point. If blooming is NORMAL, then why in both side-by-side
>instances, are the D300 images so ABNORMAL (no blooming)?

Answered above, but my opinion is that all the example images are terrible. Useless as tests, useless even as casual snapshots.

>We just want to know if blooming is an
>issue in low-light high contrast, scenes similar to the church
>shot that I have referenced. And maybe why the D300 appears
>to have a problem with an abnormal amount of non-blooming.

Blooming isn't an issue. My example shows that quite clearly. The D700 and D300 are both fine cameras when matched with all sorts of different lenses. The only 'gotcha' is that the photographer wielding either camera has to make a proper exposure which expresses the composition, lighting and mood he wants to capture. Sometimes, a simple point & shoot snapshot on full auto isn't going to cut it in difficult lighting and extreme dynamic range subjects. The D700, like any other great camera, has to be properly setup for such difficult scenes. The only thing I've managed to eke out of the blooming examples is that a couple of the photographers are being arch (trying to see exactly how outrageously the D700 can be pushed), at least one doesn't know how to expose a scene properly, and one doesn't understand the basics of lighting and composition. But maybe this assessment is too harsh? Maybe some people, excited about their new D700s, are just snapping away at everything in sight and then reacting very badly when, inevitably, some exalted (and unreasonable) expectations aren't met. I certainly sympathize (empathize?), but there's nothing at all wrong with the D700.

>If so, I'm telling you
>that I can capture images all night long at all of the ISOs,
>apertures,
>> shutter speeds, custom white balances and EVs I shoot and
>you're not going to find any banding.
>I sincerely hope that you are right. Provide some ISO 2500 and
>above images that mimic the ISO 2500 church scene. Lay this
>issue to rest with proof.

Technically that's a bit hard to do and I'm a wee bit too busy to undertake the creation of an accurate reproduction of the scene in question. I'm sure you understand. But I also understand the spirit of the request. I intend to grab some high ISO night shots in front of St. Paul's or St. James' Cathedral in downtown Toronto on Thursday night (weather permitting). If I get the shots, I'll post something here and bring it to your attention.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

For anyone who still cares about this non-issue, here are two test exposures shot in Toronto - a daylight shot at ISO4000 and the identical shot at night at ISO4000. No banding. No vertical bloom. The photos (JPG and NEF) are uncropped, unretouched, and unaltered. S'a 40MB download so be warned:

http://www.kickstartnews.com/downloads/d700/nikonians_d700_testshots_b.zip

The daylight shot at ISO4000 is soft due to the exposure settings, haze and smog. I think that the only thing these sorts of shots do is stretch the limits of lens physics/optics and push sensors to their practical limits, etc., etc., but without any sort of creative need underneath it all. It's a bit of a game with no payoff.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>For anyone who still cares about this non-issue, here are two
>test exposures shot in Toronto - a daylight shot at ISO4000
>and the identical shot at night at ISO4000. No banding. No
>vertical bloom. The photos (JPG and NEF) are uncropped,
>unretouched, and unaltered. S'a 40MB download so be warned:
>
Thank you Howard. I have no clue why you have included daylight shots in your examples when the issue is about blown highlights in night shots, but your latest ISO 4000 night shot is appreciated, so thank you again for taking the time and effort to prove your point. In your ISO 4000 night image I agree fully, that there is no problem. This is good news for all.

> If so, I'm telling you that I can capture images all night long at all of the ISOs, apertures,
> shutter speeds, custom white balances and EVs I shoot and you're not going to find any banding.
Interesting that although you claim to be able to "capture images all night long at all of the ISOs", you supply only one night image and didn't take the time to shoot an image of the night scene at ISO 6400.

> Show me rational exposures instead of bedroom shots directly at bare ceiling
> mini-floods in an otherwise darkened room. Does the absurdity of this so-called test escape everyone?
I did show you a rational exposure. You refuse to acknowledge it. It is at http://www.seloma.net/photo/D700/DSC_0211.jpg Your response was inaccurate, misleading, and from a dpreview thread different from the one where the DSC_0211.jpg was posted. To quote your post:
> Nikon says the exposure is terrible (I'm paraphrasing obviously - Nikon is not that crass), several pros who've seen the shot say the exposure is terrible, and I my opinion is also that the exposure is terrible. Sorry, but snapshots are snapshots, in this case unworthy of analysis because they push beyond the limits of the camera & lens combination.

First, I thought that the D3 FX sensor had a native range of ISO 200 - ISO 6400. Are you saying that using the D700 FX sensor at ISO 2500 constitutes pushing beyond the limits of camera and lens combination? Bummer. Maybe that is why the D3 costs more?

Second, Nikon did not say any such thing as you supposedly paraphrase about the ISO 2500 DSC_0211.jpg shot. And to say that several pros who've seen the shot say the exposure is terrible is as far as i can tell, made up. You are using the words from a poster on a different dpreview thread about the response that he received when he posted in the Nikon Support forum concerning his ISO 6400 shot, not the not ISO 2500 shot I mentioned. That poster in the different thread did not post his shot, nor did he post a link to it in the dpreview thread. It is not to be seen.

The poster that you quote stated:
"Since everyone's talking about the banding, no one really said they were going to check with Nikon. So I went ahead and submitted a sample of my own in their support forum. Since I'm at work, I don't have the sample to post here, but basically my test was ISO 6400, Apeture Priority using a fast glass 24-70mm at 24mm at 2.8 with no delighting, no noise reduction of any kind, jpeg testing, and no under or over exposure setting. The picture was taken in a dark room with one lamp on. Two very visible band appears. Here's Nikon's response:

"Thanks for the samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't see anything wrong with your camera. Thanks"

So one poster who admits he was concerned enough about "Two very visible band..." sends an image to Nikon Support Forum and gets a response. Since he never posted his ISO 6400 shot in the dpreview thread, we have no real way of knowing what it looked like or what Nikon was commenting on. I do not see posts by several pros who have seen the shot who say the exposure is terrible. If you could please point me to the remarks by the pros I'd gladly read them. They certainly could not have seen the shot that Nikon supposedly commented on, because it was never posted in any of the threads.

Also, The Nikon response says it is normal to see blooming next to the overexposed section, but a continuous band across the width of the image? Don't think so. Howard, your own ISO 4000 example image has already proven this full image width banding to be not normal to the D700.

> I think that the only thing these sorts of shots do is stretch the
> limits of lens physics/optics and push sensors to their practical
> limits, etc., etc., but without any sort of creative need underneath
> it all. It's a bit of a game with no payoff.
>

Well, in regards to creative need, I have a shot on my wall right now a 16x20 print of an image done 25 years ago with an OM2 and a 22 second exposure of searchlights playing across Niagara Falls at midnight. It is one of my favorite images from back when I was a full-time pro photographer. It mimics the type of scene the dpreview ISO 2500 image is, and is prominent in my film portfolio. It is that type of image I wish to shoot. Blooming as evidenced by the D700 examples that I have seen, would have ruined such a shot. Night scenes of buildings and churches may not be your cup of tea, but according to your own post concerning the high-contrast low light shot that you used as an example, "I sold the shot...", it would seem that there is not only an audience, but a paying audience for these type of images.

If you believe that pushing the equipment to its "practical limits" is unnecessary then in my opinion, you limit your creativity. I use my 24-70 f2.8 at f2.8 as much as possible. Sure, I may gain some sharpness at f4 or f5.6, but why do so if the lens is able to deliver sharp enough images at f2.8 that I can use it at that practical limit? A D3 photographer could become expert at bounce flash and ISO 200, thereby cutting down significantly in their need to use ISO 2500, but they don't have to. Since the 'practical limit' is ISO 200 - ISO 6400, why not use the D3 (or D700) at its "practical limit"? There are many ways to accomplish a task in photography and many real limits. Why accept one that isn't necessary?

For those who still have an interest in this thread and the possible issues with FX sensors in the D3 and D700, there appears to be very good news. In one of the original dpreview threads there has been added some tests by poster Drew Loker that show the banding issue when using his D3 versus his D700 and the SAME lens and scene. See the thread at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=28811881&page=4

Another dpreview member GaborSch hosted Drew's images at:
http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/DrewLoker_DC3_9203_noBanding.JPG
http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/DrewLoker_DC7_0310_Banding.JPG

It is clear from the above ISO 6400 images that both cameras have some sensor bloom with the D700 being much more pronounced. The D3 image is extremely marginal in bloom artifacts to the point of being a non-issue. Definately not bloom banding as seen in the ISO 2500 and other images. What is most interesting is that Drew reports returning the D700 and getting a new replacement. When retrying the test again with his second D700, he reports that the problem is basically gone. The second D700 is reported to be as good as the D3 under the same conditions with the same lens. i.e. marginal to non-existent bloom under the worst exposure conditions.

So, Howard's D700 shot at ISO 4000 shows no sensor bloom like the ISO 2500 image at dpreview, and a new replacement D700 shot at ISO 6400 has resolved the issue for Drew Loker as reported at dpreview. I'm now of the opinion that sensor bloom banding is probably an issue of varying magnitude in the very earliest batch of D700s. For most folks this will probably never be an issue even if their D700 has it, because the night-time conditions where it appears probably aren't what they will shoot. For those of us concerned with the possibility of this issue in high contrast night shots, it appears to me to be a sample or early batch production issue, that if discovered, can be remedied by replacement under warranty, or via return to the reseller.

My thanks again to Howard Carson, with whom I disagree on many aspects of photography, but who made the effort and took the time to shoot and make his images available for all to see that this isn't a model-wide issue.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

I think it would be fair to do a 100% quote as the concluding paragraph of the owner is not un-interesting:

All,

Since everyone's talking about the banding, no one really said they were going to check with Nikon. So I went ahead and submitted a sample of my own in their support forum. Since I'm at work, I don't have the sample to post here, but basically my test was ISO 6400, Apeture Priority using a fast glass 24-70mm at 24mm at 2.8 with no delighting, no noise reduction of any kind, jpeg testing, and no under or over exposure setting. The picture was taken in a dark room with one lamp on. Two very visible band appears. Here's Nikon's response:

"Thanks for the samples. It's normal to see some blooming from areas of extreme overexposure (the lamp) next to areas of general underexposure (the rest of the photo). This is especially normal at extreme ISO settings. Based on this sample I don't see anything wrong with your camera. Thanks"
So people, this is NORMAL.

And by the way, I'm very happy with the D700 with it's performance. I'm coming from a D200. Since I use the camera for hobby, blogs, and other personal use I may not have the extensive knowledge that some of you may have. But I definitely enjoy seeing none or barely any noise at ISO 3200 and below. Compare to D200, which is basically anything over ISO 800 has bad noise, this is an awesome camera. So I'm NOT sending this camera back or exchaning it just because there's a little bit of banding at ISO 6400+.

Mark

>My thanks again to Howard Carson, with whom I disagree on many
>aspects of photography, but who made the effort and took the
>time to shoot and make his images available for all to see
>that this isn't a model-wide issue.

You are certainly welcome.

BTW, the reason I shot the test image at ISO4000 is simply because I rarely shoot beyond that speed. As well, I have now seen literally dozens of wonderful ISO6400 images shot with the D700 by Nikon pros at sporting events, street scenes and many other things using the D700. All of those example shots brag about the use of the D700, a good lens and nothing else (available light only, an occassional reflector, sometimes a tripod but usually not). Same was true for the D3 when it was released. Those example shots are all very impressive and exhibit no problems.

The other reason is that while my web site is busy and we have lots of bandwidth and data storage capacity, I try to keep the 40MB (and larger) downloads down to a minimum especially when I can't predict the volume.

I included the daylight shot for comparison purposes mainly because it's important to get a clear view/perspective of the relationship between the point sources of light and nearby reflective surfaces at night and during the day. With no reflective surfaces nearby, there's no way to cheat the shot at night. The point is that a large reflective surface close to the individual light sources can push enough light at the lens to overcome some causes of vertical bloom. So the daylight shot is proof that there's no 'cheat' nearby.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Sorry to dredge up this old issue, but it's something I'm advising a friend on and exploring for myself to understand a bit better. I've experienced the issue first hand and have experimented a bit - hopefully I can shed some light on things...

First off, my references here are to the problem people have seen with what appears to be "blooming" - not the "banding" issue that the original poster referred to at FredMiranda.com, which appears to be completely unrelated.

>Another dpreview member GaborSch hosted Drew's images at:
>http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/DrewLoker_DC3_9203_noBanding.JPG
>http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/DrewLoker_DC7_0310_Banding.JPG
>
>It is clear from the above ISO 6400 images that both cameras
>have some sensor bloom with the D700 being much more
>pronounced. The D3 image is extremely marginal in bloom
>artifacts to the point of being a non-issue. Definately not
>bloom banding as seen in the ISO 2500 and other images.

Note that the D3 image is slightly less exposed as well as had NR on, and the D700 did not. This is extremely important, since if you look at the channels the effect is most prominent in the blue channel, with it being almost completely absent in the green channel. Noise reducing greatly diminishes the effect since the blue channel noise is cleaned up. You can see in the following photos that while the ISO goes down (and the noise with it) the problem is lessened to a great degree:

ISO 25,600
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sambennett/2950124691/

ISO 12,800
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sambennett/2950977736/

ISO 6400
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sambennett/2950977820/


I have two D700's, and I've tested them both for this issue, and they both exhibit the problem. It does require particular situations to see it, but I would imagine it would be a real problem for people who do a lot of shooting at night, where bright point sources are commonplace. For me personally? Not really a big deal since I don't regularly shoot in conditions where it would be a problem. But it's a genuine problem, Nikon needs to get pressured about it and they need to fix it.

>I have two D700's, and I've tested them both for this issue,
>and they both exhibit the problem. It does require particular
>situations to see it, but I would imagine it would be a real
>problem for people who do a lot of shooting at night, where
>bright point sources are commonplace. For me personally? Not
>really a big deal since I don't regularly shoot in conditions
>where it would be a problem. But it's a genuine problem, Nikon
>needs to get pressured about it and they need to fix it.

You've examined images at the extremes of any digital camera's ability to actually capture anything containing discernible detail. It's no different from examining the surface of your skin with a microscope and being disappointed to find all manner of bacteria. At the extreme technical limits of visibility and exposure, there are all sorts of problems with digital images produced by Nikon and Canon cameras (and by all the others too). So what's the point? The photos used as examples are unprintable and unusable except to demonstrate that at the extreme technical limits of the camera, you end up with unusable, unprintable images? Personally, I don't get it. Solely on the basis of all such tests, all digital SLRs - Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Leica, etc., etc. - are junk.

So what's next? Shooting images without taking off the lens cap and being shocked that a couple of pixels are lit up anyway (due to electrical limitations in the sensor system)? Oh, wait. Some guy on DPReview already did that. I kid you not.

On the other hand, the low light/high ISO/high dynamic range images I provided as samples (links in a previous post, above) were made to show examples of just how clean, band and bloom-free the D700 (and the D300 and D3 too for that matter) can be at night, shooting difficult subjects in poor lighting.

I think we need to spend more time, out and about, making photos.

Bloom is caused by several things including (among other requirements) the ability of the lens to handle point sources of intense light, the ability of the sensor to effectively capture what the lens transmits, and the ability of the camera programming to render the data to a usable image file.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>So what's the point? The photos used as
>examples are unprintable and unusable except to demonstrate
>that at the extreme technical limits of the camera, you end up
>with unusable, unprintable images?

The extreme examples are provided for an easy-to-reproduce use case, that's all. I would never have brought it up if myself and others hadn't experienced the issue in the course of practical shooting. Like it or not, Nikon decided to stick ISO 25,600 into the camera so it is perfectly reasonable to look at the performance there and identify caveats with it.

>On the other hand, the low light/high ISO/high dynamic range
>images I provided as samples (links in a previous post, above)
>were made to show examples of just how clean, band and
>bloom-free the D700 (and the D300 and D3 too for that matter)
>can be at night, shooting difficult subjects in poor lighting.

No argument there - generally the D700's performance is incredible. But I have personally encountered situations where it's problematic. Here's the thread on another forum that spurred my further research into the issue (since I didn't find it to be terribly disturbing in my own experience):

http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10327

That's a perfect example of where even at 6400 it can be an issue for some shooters in the right conditions. The shot is an otherwise well-exposed photograph that is not extreme by any stretch of the imagination.

You can look at this as damning the D3/D700 if you like, but that's not my intent. My only intent is to show the problem with the system so shooters are aware of where their gear may give them issues. Showing the extreme, repeatable case shows the problem clearly and allows people to apply that to their own shooting and supplies Nikon with the sorts of information they'd need to fix the problem in future cameras.

Personally, for the type of the shooting I do on a regular basis, I'm not concerned. I shoot at 3200 and 6400 for the vast majority of my paid work, but this sort of lighting isn't commonplace. In the conditions I bought these cameras for, their performance in exemplary and I couldn't be happier. But ignoring issues doesn't make them go away - so if I can help others photographers help Nikon to sort these sorts of things out, I'm happy to do so.

I, for one, appreciate your post. I am buying D700 strictly for the low light, high ISO(not FX). Where I live the only places I will find good lighting is at the new five star hotels. I want to be able to shoot functions(school,civic and social) in villiage halls,very old churches, etc. I also want to be able to shoot street/candids and local sports where there will be single source bright lights.

I am not a pro but many of my prints will be from these activities as well any money that I make from my photos(lol).

Since Nikon does not ,at the moment, seem to see this as a problem and it appears that it is not widespread, I will insist on trying the camera before I buy(or at least get confirmation that the store will exchange, before I buy). I will continue to follow this subject on this and several other forums.

If I happened to get a model with the problem with no fix and no exchange it would make me very unhappy.

Many thanks,

T.D.Hardin
http://taja.smugmug.com/
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/165169

I think you may be misinterpreting previous posts.

My take on this is that all D700's (along with other DSLR's capable of high ISO settings) will probably exhibit a similar blooming effect in such extreme conditions. I'm sure sensor development will make this a thing of the past eventually, but I would not hold out too much hope of Nikon treating this as a fault and "fixing" it.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>My take on this is that all D700's (along with other DSLR's
>capable of high ISO settings) will probably exhibit a similar
>blooming effect in such extreme conditions. I'm sure sensor
>development will make this a thing of the past eventually, but
>I would not hold out too much hope of Nikon treating this as a
>fault and "fixing" it.

This isn't the first camera I've owned with high ISO capabilities. I cannot recall either my old 5D or 1D Mark III showing the same problem. I certainly got that some people seemed to be implying that this is an issue that isn't unique to the D3 and D700, but no one's really shown proof to back that claim up.

I certainly don't expect Nikon to "fix it" in terms of a firmware release, recall, etc. I would expect them more to look at the problem for future cameras. Again, my main intent is to give a heads up to people who may use their cameras in these sorts of conditions so they don't get a rude surprise.

>I certainly don't expect Nikon to "fix it" in terms
>of a firmware release, recall, etc. I would expect them more
>to look at the problem for future cameras.

This sounds like we are of the same mind

My post was intended to help Tommie, who had perhaps picked up the impression that if he can't find a "good" D700, Nikon might be able to improve the D700's performance in this area with a firmware upgrade. I don't see that as a realistic expectation.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

from following this subject on several forums I have been under the impression that it is not an issue with all D700s and that it was an issue with some D700 sensors.
Cheers.

T.D.Hardin
http://taja.smugmug.com/
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/165169

I'm following this issue with interest also, because I've been considering a D700, and will be using it for amateur theatre work, in lighting conditions that may be close to those in which the problem sems to show up.

I don't actually know any more than what I have read, here and elsewhere, but for what it's worth my impressions are as follows:

+ the blooming seems to be real, but occurs only in pretty extreme lighting;
+ my guess is that all D700's (and D3's) can bloom in the "right" conditions, but...
+ ...manufacturing tolerances and camera settings may affect the degree of blooming;
+ whether it's viewed as a significant problem depends on the photographer.

My own conclusion is that I still want a D700

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>I'm following this issue with interest also, because I've been
>considering a D700, and will be using it for amateur theatre
>work, in lighting conditions that may be close to those in
>which the problem seems to show up.

I shot a lot of stage productions with film. What little I've done with my D3 and D700 thus far is suitable only for private use rather than public display. However, bloom is only a problem when shooting from the wings directly parallel and into tormentor lighting in the opposite wing, and even then only if the lamps are aimed directly across the deck (rarly, for some types of dance lighting) and additionally are not geled. In every situation shooting toward cyc floods, floor cans, spots with gobos, fresnels used for area lighting, etc., etc., bloom is just not a factor. I can force bloom, sometimes, if I try really hard, but even when I'm trying to do so it's often impossible because gels, diffusers, barn doors, high hats, scrim material and other issues moderate lighting point sources sufficiently to allow the camera and almost any lens to handle the situation beautifully. Bloom when shooting theatrical performances has in my experience been more a factor of lens choice than DSLR choice.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Thanks, Howard.

It's great to hear from someone who has used the camera in a real situation with no problems. Your post is very encouraging (unfortunately for my wallet...)

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>It's great to hear from someone who has used the camera in a
>real situation with no problems. Your post is very
>encouraging (unfortunately for my wallet...)

You're welcome.

I think the biggest problem I've encountered over the years when shooting indoor stage productions is lack of truly great theatrical lighting designers. Although the general knowledge of stage lighting design has improved over the past 15-20 years in particular, too many theatres are saddled with lighting positions inadequate to the task of properly illuminating faces and body contours. Too many lighting designers, as well, go for effect rather than visibility. Those realities often result in the placement of makeshift, temporary and visible lighting positions which, from a variety of good otherwise angles, result in lighting sources directly visible in photographers' compositions. It's pure aggravation for exposures.

I've seen some great results nonetheless from photographers working with D300's and fast Nikkor fixed glass including the 105mm f/2.0, 105mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 & 1.8 and the 35mm f.20. I think the 'trick' with a lot of theatrical performances is a shooting position that is very close to the apron or prosc and high enough (the performers' chest height) to get good light off sets, faces and bodies but little from direct point sources. The best position I've described is often not available in many theatres but can sometimes be arranged.

My thoughts on the subject anyway . . .

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I replaced a dissatisfactory D300 with a D700 and have been very critical in my examination of the camera. I have not seen the banding which is referenced and am extremely pleased with the quality of the body and images it produces. Hopefully this will be a nonissue. It certainly is for me.

Hello everyone that was my post on fredmiranda.Since then I have had my d700 replaced and have been happy ever since. And yes I did open the image in capture NX 2 and at that time it was the only software that would open the file without doing the hex hack..

I've only had my D700 for a whole 10 days now, and I think it is a delightful camera.

I don't want to fire this issue up again, but I've noticed the comments above seem to fall into two camps, the "there's a design flaw" group and the "you only have a problem if you don't shoot properly" group. I'd like to toss my take on it into the mix.

I have experienced banding issues on high contrast low light exposures. This phenomena is most evident at 6400 ISO but can occur at lower settings as well. I would define the banding as "wide banding" (keeping in mind it's just my term for it, not some industry definition) as opposed to the corduroy striping some of the D200's had an issue with, which was small repetitive bands confined to the immediate area around objects of high brightness. In WB, a bright object will cause a shift in sensor behavior across the entire horizontal dimension of the sensor in surrounding dark areas, resulting in lighter stripes radiating horizontally away from the bright area approximately the vertical height of the bright picture elements.

Does it occur only in improperly exposed pictures? That's certainly a good way to cause it to happen (or via manipulation in post-processing), but I don't have a difficult time imagining that I could come across some unusual combination of subject and lighting requiring a certain sort of exposure that would provoke the WB issue. Or what about shooting an HDR series, which requires multiple exposures to accommodate the variety of compositional elements? I can imagine that some images in such a series would experience WB.

With my previous cameras, I could predict fairly well what the consequence of doing something not technically perfect would be. Blooming? That might be okay, depending on the composition. Noise? Potentially removable in post-processing, albeit at a price. But the banding artifact is just nasty, and will for all practical purposes wreck any image it occurs in, unless one is in the mood for extensive rehab work in PShop.

The main reason for my buying the camera was improved low light performance. It has great low light performance. Until it doesn't.

What I don't like about the banding (assuming it is a normal behavior for this model) is that it is a very graceless way of sliding towards the limits of the camera. Some victim images I've seen on the web with WB are hardly pushing the compositional envelope. Though I know some of you feel that such problems could have been avoided with different technique, I am not willing to dismiss user concerns with such judgments. This is a body for advanced amateurs and pros, and it cost a lot of money, at least by my standards. So pardon me if I have high expectations for it, and wish for it to not do weird c__p with an element of unpredictability.

I have tried repeating my own problem test images using the D300 instead. There isn't anything like WB, though there are much smaller coherent patterns visible in the sensor noise when pushed to serious extremes (esp. when shot w/ noise reduction off). But those extremes are truly when the exposure has gotten gawdawful in numerous ways. With the D700, it just seems disappointing that a picture can start exhibiting the obnoxious effects of WB without necessarily feeling like the camera has been pushed to the limit.

As an aside, some may disregard the picture of a naked lightbulb as implausibly stupid (from the D200 days), but it did serve as a repeatable test that allowed D200 users to clearly identify the presence of the pesky striping bug in that camera. And as I already alluded, what might be a crazy test scenario perhaps isn't that far off from some peculiar demanding real-world situation.

What I am most unclear about at this point is: Do all D700's behave in this manner, or are there actually some bodies working better than others? Should I badger my dealer to swap it out? If it is normal behavior, fine, but I'm not going around telling people one can shoot as easily at 6400 as say 640, as many reviewers have implied.

You refer to the D700 as a professional body and that it is. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge not a single professional photographer has reported so-called banding or bloom problems with any D700. That's probably because, as innovative and creative as some of them are, professional photographers don't deliberately venture beyond the design, engineering or electronic limits of their D3's and D700's. The reason? All sorts of unwanted junk shows up. Ditto for Canon and Pentax pros (and all the others).

I posted high ISO/low noise images some time ago, complete with point sources of light, none of which show any banding or bloom of any kind. That's because the exposures and compositions were sane.

So what's next for Nikon products? End users who cry foul when they discover their 400mm primes won't close-focus down to 3"? Exceed the physical design limits of optics and you end up with blurry junk. Exceed the electronic design limits of the body and you end up with other junk. Why is this any sort of cause for concern?

For the record, my D700 doesn't exhibit even the slightest hint of banding or bloom. Then again, I try my best to get out and shoot projects, subjects of interest and all sorts of other things rather than bare light bulbs, dark bedrooms and other silliness. I'd venture to guess that anyone who takes the time to really learn the D700 will absorb the design limits of the camera and drive up the percentage of keeper shots to the highest percentage they've ever achieved and, magically, never end up with images containing banding.

. . . of course it's just a theory.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Hi Howard,

That's just so true.

Regards Arthur

Dutch Nikonian
Music was my first love,photography my last.
Shoot everything without bullets.
www.arthurbender.nl

Hi Arthur:

I like some of the macro shots in your gallery.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I must admit that this banding/blooming was an issue at first. (I purchased and returned my first d700 in August, after finding this blooming effect on 1600 iso - and having not, up tot that point read or looked for any posts about this issue. I noticed it form my LCD while shooting. However, I realize that I was intentionally pushing the limits of the camera.) I purchased a second d700 a couple weeks ago out of necessity as I need to get comfortable with a new camera before I go abroad in a couple weeks. I have to say that this issue, after shooting again hasn't even crossed my mind. I've been just blown away by this camera and the 14-24 that I haven't had a chance to think about the blooming situation. Granted, all the shooting I've been doing these last couple weeks were daytime shooting and not lowlight, I am going to try and approach my night shooting with a bit more consideration of the negative effects which can be present with strong light sources and high iso. It just means I have to work around a situation, that's all. I'm excited for it actually.

I have just posted photos on my photo link from two weeks of extremely fun shooting with this camera, and I have to say, it is everything I wanted out of my d200 when it first came out plus the whole world of FX-ability. Very happy to say the least.

___

Shivaan My gallery