Well it had to start some time. I can barely see some banding in that image. I saw a "banding-Like" effect on a couple of D300 pictures but it proved to be more likely some sort of aliasing with my polarizing filter.
I wonder if that's what's going on here?
Kind of interesting this is showing up in a normal photo. Light bulb photos never really concerend me, but banding on a normal image becomes more interesting.,
I shot this in RAW and converted it to JPG and TIFF with NX2. I see the same thing in the RAW file and all the files have this. If you like I can post the full image somewhere or send someone the entire RAW file. I used an 85/1.4 and the only filter I had on was Nikon L37C. Hope this helps.
Assuming that is a 100% crop, the lines are every 12 pixels. So it would appear that one of the 12 channels in the 12 channel readout needs adjusting. If I'm right it's probably just a sample variation that not everyone will encounter and your camera needs a minor adjustment.
I agree. It has to be a hardware sample variation. I think we've now seen dozens of D700 photos from at least a dozen different owners posting on various sites. No banding of any kind - not even hint of it anywhere. I'm delighted so far with my own D700 shots too.
I wonder if the OP could provide a link to the RAW file or at least an original JPG conversion. There might be something worthwhile in the File or EXIF data that would point in the direction of a solution.
Did the exchange this morning. No worries so far and the replacement has scary-fast autofocus and no banding of any kind. This was the first time in over 35 years of buying Nikon products that I received a new camera body or lens with problems.
- although there is an effect it is very different to the effect with about 3% of early D200 bodies. Digressing whilst it is rare to get a defective new product buying from a reputable retailer makes an exchange or refund a straightforward matter. It is probable D700 quality control is not quite so high as for the D3 - if so the percentage of defective D700's will not be quite as low as for the D3.
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.
>It is probable D700 quality control is not quite so high as >for the D3 - if so the percentage of defective D700's will not >be quite as low as for the D3.
Yes, I would assume that the D3 being the flagship, would get a bit more per-camera scrutiny at the plant than the D700. Part of what goes into the final cost point for the more expensive product.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of the D700s now in user hands were built 'in secret', so to speak. The D3 and D300 were announced months before they were shipped and released for sale. Nikon had a lot of time to wring them out in the field and at the demo shows. The D700 was kept quiet until this June and released to retailers less than a month after it was officially announced. Given the rate of sales and the availability, it seems that there were a lot of D700s being built in the dark days before its release to the world.
Even with better quality control, the D700 is probably selling at 2 ~ 3 times the rate of the D3 and there are a LOT more of them available from day one versus the D3. This leads to a potentially higher number of sample issues appearing all at once.
"... you see, but you do not observe." - Sherlock Holmes