Since the poll function isn't working, I would like to do one manually. I will monitor reponses here and track them myself.
I will try to update the numbers daily. Hopefully we get enough responses to see what's really going on but it will depend on how many choose to respond.
I would like to know the following two pieces of information:
1) Banding Type accoring to these definitions (from Bjørn Rørslett's D200 Review):
None found but haven't specificially tested for it
None found and have specifically tested for it
Type I. A comb-like pattern of short, alternating very light and very dark lines surrounding smaller and often intense highlight areas, some "combing" seen also at the boundary between bright and darker backgrounds. Often needs 200% magnification to show up clearly. Different post-processing can reduce to a large extent the visibility of combing.
Type II. Alternating light and dark lines occurring in shadows, where they may extend across the entire area, but highlights are clean and show no trace of this. Contrast difference between lines less than in (I). Seen with studio portraits, against-the-sun shots, and suchlike setups, in which there are significant areas of highlights. May be seen already at 100%.
Type III. Striping across the entire image frame in a very regular pattern, often clearly visible below 100% magnification and starting to show up at 33%. Less contrast between stripes than in either (I) or (II). Can occur with night exposures, severely underexposed images, or more unpredictably for quite normal scenes although these tend to have some contrast in them.
2) Your serial number leaving off the last three digits
Some rules please:
Please reply directly to this post, it will make it easier for me to find new entries
Please be honest. This poll will be based on truthful claims. If you have found banding, report it. If you haven't found it then report that but be specific as to wether you have tested or not
No discussions about banding. Just provide the two answers
It is not necessary to post examples. We will just take your word for it that you have banding.
If you are normally a lurker, please participate. We need as many entries as possible to make this work
If you had a camera that had it and was repaired, please report the type of banding before you had it repaired.
And finally, if you had a camera that had it and was replaced (not repaired), go ahead and report on both cameras. This might tell us if newer cameras have resolved the problem
1) Banding Type II - Fixed by Nikon, Melville. There is a trace of Type I banding, but only under extreme conditions and only visible at 200%. I have no issue with the current performance of the camera.
Pete "Cameras don't take photographs, people do" - John Hedgecoe said that. "Expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves" - Ansel Adams said that. "The camera is only a tool. The best saw in the world won't make you a great carpenter" - I said that A few photos, here for a reason
1.) Possibly Type I and have specifically tested for it.* 2.) SN: 3007XXX
You make the call. It is the infamous bare bulb test at ISO 400. I "think" I see some at 200%. My wife didn't see it until I educated her as to what she was looking for, then she thought she might have seen it and laughed.
Scott Chapin Powder Springs, GA, USA Nikonians Team Member
One problem with this poll is there is increasing evidence "type 1 banding" seems increasingly to be how the D200 advanced software removes the CA effect with some lenses, and in this sense it is not banding. Without the very slight edge effect there would be colour fringing to consider instead
I have managed to get type 1 on 2.5% of of the area of 1 shot with a CA prone lens at 200% in Capture. When I interpolated in CS2 to get reasonable quality for the 150 inch print equivalent I needed to show it it disappeared
I cant get type I at all with the 17-55.
As far as I am concerned in the real world as I cannot print it out interpolated for a 12 foot 6 inch print I have no banding.
For those with type 2 and 3 the issue is surely a prompt exchange or repair, then perhaps a poll will not be needed.
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.
Why oh why did I go looking for it... finally found it. 100 ISO, P mode, Optimize Normal, Auto WB, AdobeRGB, RAW + JPG, +0.3 EV Easily visible in RAW, must use a little imagination to see it in JPG. I'll never shoot another lightbulb.