DPReview moan about Sony A9 banding with 7700hz LED advertising

[Andrew Reid]

I wrote for DPReview for a few years contributing video advice and where it was a talking point as on the 5D Mark III and Panasonic GH4, I wrote that part of the review.

DPReview was for me the original trusted authority on digital cameras and it was an honour to work for them but I am really sad at what the site has turned into today.

Read the full article

[RobertCop3]

Did you read the dpreview article?

They were referring to someone else's complaints and scientifically broke down the possible reasons for issue.

[JurijTurnsek]

The internet can be a awful place and it is impossible to police it. Just accept the fact that video oriented consumers don't look at dpreview and take a breather. Fake news, advertorial and all that. It has happened to print and it is taking over the professional web media. Independent media can live a hobby or a click bait conspiracy machine aka that fro guy that started this whole banding debacle (for ad money of course).

Schools should probably implement classes so we can spot bias and secret interest in all types of media online or offline. This is not your battle to win.

[Oliver Daniel]

Wow, stinging article. 

Sadly the money wagon does take over in every genre of publication ever. 

It's great that EOSHD is still impartial, brutal, sometimes funny, insightful and on a few occasions, off the rails! But I like that. It's genuine and human. 

I cant give an opinion on DPReview, I've barely read it as I find the site design frustrating. 

Oh, and Ebrahim is a video genius, obviously. His knowledge is the greatest thing on Earth  

[Andrew Reid]

Let's see how many people he defrauds out of their money on DPReview before they do something about it.

[BTM_Pix]

The two major problems those LED ad board actually present to us shooting in stadiums as they become so widely adopted are :

1) We've had to get taller stools.

2) They are quite temperamental so you often have their techs crouching next to you and fiddling about with them.

White balance changing in a fast burst due to floodlights pulsing is an order of magnitude higher as a lighting issue than the LED boards.

For this LED board stuff to be causing a genuine problem for people shooting at stadiums with the A9 then people would have to be actually shooting at stadiums with the A9 in the first place. And in my experience, they're not. For reasons that have zero to do with banding.

Such an odd thing to go after them for in the overall scheme of things with that camera.

This image they've used to show the banding though....

I'm not being catty, because I don't mind that fro fella, but I don't look at it and think "Wow, look at the banding"

I think "Where's the ball, why is your horizon off, why is the focus on the wrong player, why is it so noisy for a shot in broad daylight, why is it so heavily processed"

If I sent that on the wire, it wouldn't be the banding that would be preventing it from getting published.

[Ed_David]

Did someone say "ES" ?  Haha, I just went back into that post. Man, I acted like an idiot.  Nice one Andrew on this.  Expose their biases, man!!!

I wonder when ES graduates dental school.  

 

[fuzzynormal]

5 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

I wonder when ES graduates dental school.  

Not sure.  I need implants though.  Think he could get me a deal?

[Andrew Reid]

ES can get you teeth with built in Canon cameras, and they are the best teeth ever made. Amazing white balance.

8 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

The two major problems those LED ad board actually present to us shooting in stadiums as they become so widely adopted are :

1) We've had to get taller stools.

2) They are quite temperamental so you often have their techs crouching next to you and fiddling about with them.

White balance changing in a fast burst due to floodlights pulsing is an order of magnitude higher as a lighting issue than the LED boards.

For this LED board stuff to be causing a genuine problem for people shooting at stadiums with the A9 then people would have to be actually shooting at stadiums with the A9 in the first place. And in my experience, they're not. For reasons that have zero to do with banding.

Such an odd thing to go after them for in the overall scheme of things with that camera.

This image they've used to show the banding though....

I'm not being catty, because I don't mind that fro fella, but I don't look at it and think "Wow, look at the banding"

I think "Where's the ball, why is your horizon off, why is the focus on the wrong player, why is it so noisy for a shot in broad daylight, why is it so heavily processed"

If I sent that on the wire, it wouldn't be the banding that would be preventing it from getting published.

LED boards I assume are a problem for non-Sony cameras too then?

Because this article will go round the internet and kill A9 sales like a mercenary assassin, which is really unfair as they are trying to innovate and Canon are taking the piss!

[yohh770]

first of all i wont trust any Ibrahim !!! and your article is to the point canon is ruling out the SLR Market for their Cine line . I never trusted dpreview articles let alone they are certainly not experts in Video its basically a photography  magazine on the internet period.....   

[BTM_Pix]

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

LED boards I assume are a problem for non-Sony cameras too then?

Because this article will go round the internet and kill A9 sales like a mercenary assassin, which is really unfair as they are trying to innovate and Canon are taking the piss!

I suppose it depends on the definition of problem to be honest.

Can Nikon and Canon have the same issue? Yes, if the circumstances are right.

You'd have to test both of them side by side to see if its exactly the same circumstances or if, as you'd expect, the electronic shutter is more prone.

But taking it all as an actual problem?

Nah.

As I say, white balance changes off floodlights are a far, far bigger problem than LED boards and they all suffer from that.

Those LED boards are a problem because they ruin shots aesthetically rather than technically.

The article is talking about when your subject is predominantly lit by them, which when you consider they're predominantly used in field sports is a bit of an interesting comment!

In the shot I put up that they are highlighting it with, the photographer has a sideline position and the boards are very close to the touchline and the players themselves are very close to it too.

That is definitely the worst case scenario and also the least likely.

The more usual position would be behind the goal where there would be at least 10 metres between the boards and the subject.

Even with sideline positions, the stadiums that are of the ilk to be having them would generally have a greater distance from them to the subject and not be as tight to the line as this.

The real story here of course is that of course its highlighted on a short shooting distance because the A9 doesn't have the lenses to do anything else. It just makes it so bizarre to be making such a fuss over the banding when you've got that particular elephant in the room.

Thats what makes me think its just general clickbait rather than some shill stuff for Canon because I'm pretty sure that until Sony magic up some lenses for it that this is Canon's (and Nikons) reaction to a problem like reports of banding on the A9  

 

[Andrew Reid]

Here's the source DPReview are using for the article

Doesn't look like click bait to me   

Here's the 1D X Mark II reacting even worse to high brightness pulsing LED light sources https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4133297

But it didn't make the front page, obviously

[Eric Calabros]

When I saw the link goes to Jared my instant reaction was WTF, seriously? 

[wolf33d]

Regarding ebrahim, let's all write to dpreview 

it is absolutely insane that this guy can be allowed on any forum on interbet

 insane.

and dpreview are insane too. Will never go on their website again 

[TwoScoops]

Jared is quite awful.

[Mattias Burling]

Jared is a nice guy bringing great content imo. Long time subscriber of his channel.

[dkovie]

Andrew, 

I can't speak to the forum censorship section of the article, but I'd like to touch on the alleged bias of dpreview.com's articles.

 

6D MII

In the third paragraph of your article (http://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/dpreview-moan-sony-a9-banding-7700hz-led-ad-boards/) you write, "I’ve yet to see anyone come back from one of these exotic trips kicking a camera for lacking 4K."

However, in the very same DPReview article which you reference regarding the 6D MII (dpreview.com/articles/8979194861/the-same-but-different-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-shooting-experience) Barney Britton writes, "The 6D Mark II isn't the low-cost 4K B-camera you might have been hoping for [...] It's a shame though, because an affordable 4K-capable camera with Dual Pixel AF really would be a wonderful thing. Maybe one day..."

 

7700hz

Regarding the 7700hz banding with the a9, you had stated that "this article [https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7370859353/sony-a9-banding-reported-by-fro-fact-or-fiction] makes a huge fuss about banding on the A9".

From what I read in the article, the writer, Rishi Sanyal, was investigating a reported banding issue, did a fair analysis, and came to the conclusion that it had limited scope and effect on most photos taken on the a9 during sports shooting. "The 2% banding rate in sideline action [...] may be something to add to your 'cons' list when considering this camera"

If anything, Mr. Sanyal seems to be praising the a9's performance, writing that "even a mechanical focal plane shutter will experience some kind of banding with a light source cycling 7700 times a second", further noting that the only visual difference being that a mechanical shutter "would yield smoother bands".

 

Perhaps your past with DPReview is leading you to gloss over these points, or maybe there's something I'm not seeing. Either way, I'd like to know what you think about all this ?

-Damodara

[jamesh2015]

What equivalent sites (to DP Review) are out there that cover as much equipment as they do? Canon (and DP Review) have shot themselves in the foot.

I was waiting for the EOS 6D Mk. II for 4k video. I won't be buying one now.

[bamigoreng]

On 30/06/2017 at 8:11 PM, Ed_David said:

... I wonder when ES graduates dental school.  

 

[deleted]

[Andrew Reid]

Don't post personal info please bamigoreng.

12 hours ago, dkovie said:

Andrew, 

I can't speak to the forum censorship section of the article, but I'd like to touch on the alleged bias of dpreview.com's articles.

Why can't you speak for it? It's right in front of you. Try posting a link to EOSHD on their forums.

Then you can perhaps speak up about it... You know, like someone with a spine and principals.

Quote

6D MII

In the third paragraph of your article (http://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/dpreview-moan-sony-a9-banding-7700hz-led-ad-boards/) you write, "I’ve yet to see anyone come back from one of these exotic trips kicking a camera for lacking 4K."

However, in the very same DPReview article which you reference regarding the 6D MII (dpreview.com/articles/8979194861/the-same-but-different-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-shooting-experience) Barney Britton writes, "The 6D Mark II isn't the low-cost 4K B-camera you might have been hoping for [...] It's a shame though, because an affordable 4K-capable camera with Dual Pixel AF really would be a wonderful thing. Maybe one day..."

This is one sentence in a big article praising the camera.

And it only criticises it for one thing.

Most of the people reading it aren't even pros looking for a 'low-cost' B camera.

$2000 is a lot of money for enthusiasts.

The 6D Mark II is quite fucking expensive for them, and it doesn't even have 4K.

If he'd have said that, my respect for Barney would have increased, instead of his usual softly-softly approach to soft-pawing his critique out there to the manufacturers.

Which is how they keep getting away with such distain for their customers in the first place (surrounded by YES MEN)

Quote

7700hz

Regarding the 7700hz banding with the a9, you had stated that "this article [https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7370859353/sony-a9-banding-reported-by-fro-fact-or-fiction] makes a huge fuss about banding on the A9".

From what I read in the article, the writer, Rishi Sanyal, was investigating a reported banding issue, did a fair analysis

It's one in a serious of negative A9 articles, you should learn to read between the lines.

They should have shot with a Canon or Nikon under the exact same circumstances and done a proper evaluation of it across a range of cameras.

Instead they chose to hold aloft some clickbate from youtube and do an analysis of the clickbate.

The guy who did the original test shots, didn't even try the mechanical shutter to see what impact it would make on the banding.

Until a global shutter comes along, you are going to get interference patterns sometimes on an electronic shutter...The article makes no mention of how every single rolling shutter system in the world even an Arri Alexa would struggle under those conditions... It just lays it all at the A9's door and then scampers off into the distance scott free.

And in the same breath they praise the 6D Mark II and don't really mind that it lacks 4K.

6D doesn't even HAVE an electronic shutter at 20fps, 24MP RAW.... Yet Sony does and THEY get a kicking for it!

Quote

and came to the conclusion that it had limited scope and effect on most photos taken on the a9 during sports shooting. "The 2% banding rate in sideline action [...] may be something to add to your 'cons' list when considering this camera"

Then put it in the headline then!

"Very slight problem in 2% of shots at a particular sports ground"!

Oh but that wouldn't be clickbait enough would it?!