EOS 5DMKIII RAW samples

Imaging resource has posted the standard studio samples from EOS 5D MKIII.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

I converted the CR2 files using ACR6.7RC neutral settings. here is an example at ISO 6400 side by side with the 5D2.

It seems like there are some improvements but it is way less than the two stops Canon was claiming (which was physically impossible any way unless they were talking about JPEG files). you can see the results here

http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Other/tes...JHHjd&lb=1&s=O

for me this improvement is not significant in terms of IQ, but I hope to play with the camera soon and most importantly test the new AF system!

Thanks Arash. That is more like what I would have expected. There seems to be a little bit of difference in the lighting, but when I look at flatter areas, like the gray wall behind and between the two bottles, and find a spot with similar intensity, the noise looks pretty much the same. The files won't open in CS5 (yet) so I need to go install other software. Have you looked at ISO 100 (or so) files for fixed pattern noise? I would hope Canon has improved that a lot. If not, I see little reason to upgrade from my 5DII (I don't need the frame rate as I have it in the 1DIV and 7D).

Roger

Hey Roger,

Here is what you need to open the files http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/ after installing CS5 should open the files.

I haven't looked at ISO 100 but there is another ISO 100 RAW image that has been circulating on dprview.com It shows that FPN has been somewhat reduced but unfortunately not eliminated.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=40825115

Some people also have measured read noise based on the masked pixel values in the RAW files, it seems that read noise has not improved much either...I think the only reason to upgrade to a 5D3 is the AF.

Bummer! Fixed pattern noise looks similar (5d2, 5d3). The dpreview thread is typical--a lot of whining and not understanding different issues--that's why I don't post there. I do a lot of low light night scenes with stars and sometimes city lights. The sky background in my 5D2 images usually have noticeable banding at low ISOs. But I often want low ISO, e.g. for long exposure star trails and to get a good signal on foreground objects. I will wait for the next generation.

Roger

I agree, if you don't need the AF there is really no reason to upgrade. One other factor that is important for bird photographers is the shutter lag. Sometimes I miss shots with the 5D2 because it just takes too long to take the photo after I release the shutter, the shutter lag + mirror blackout is about 170msec which has now been shortened. And a few other small things... Overall I think this camera is a 5DMKIIn rather than a 5DMKIII.

I have ordered one for the new AF system. See my comments on both the 5D II and the 5D III here. In my world I have never much been concerned with either noise or super-fine detail.

I agree. There's probably only a half-stop difference between the Mark II and Mark III. This is about what you would expect with the new gapless sensor and 1 additional MP. It is somewhat irritating when Canon makes all these claims about 2-stop improvements when they are using NR on jpg images. The truth is in the raw image.

I've always hoped that Canon would come out with an improved version of the Mark II by giving it a decent autofocus system and faster fps. 8 fps would have been fantastic, but at least 6 fps with less lag-time is certainly a good thing.

I am certainly anxious to try this camera out!

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

I see most examples captioned with the pre-production disclaimer, including the ones at IR. Think the production model will be any different in terms of IQ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I have ordered one for the new AF system. See my comments on both the 5D II and the 5D III here. In my world I have never much been concerned with either noise or super-fine detail.

---

Artie,

This statement surprises me. I understand the noise part but with your passion for bird portraits and feather pattern close ups with your super-tele lenses I would expect that you would be very concerned with fine detail.

It surprised me too....I kind of figured it was a typo or misunderstanding of some sort. Artie?

I guess it's a typo. This is a quote from his review on the new 300mm f/2.8: "The 300 f/2.8L IS lens is a superb tool for bird photography; it is light enough for most folks to hand hold, it is fast, it is versatile, and it produces stunningly sharp images with incredible fine detail."

No typos. Just some fine distinctions. I have long said, written, posted, and professed that I do not have a keen eye for fine detail. Folks are often incredulous when they hear that. I do have a good eye for color, shape, and form but not for super-fine detail. I do not enlarge my images to check for sharpness. I view my images in BreezeBrowser with High Quality set. If the eye looks sharp, the image is sharp enough for me. I always speak of the Pen Test for image sharpness; if the person buying the image signs the check, it is sharp enough for me. When a very few folks here on BPN are talking at length about the need for super-fine detail, I am often at a loss. What are they doing with their images that require such super fine detail? When I wrote above "In my world.." I was referring to the world of selling images and sharing them with others on line. Examining RAW files at 100% or examining large prints with a magnifying glass is not part of my world. Please understand that I intend no offense for those who are extremely concerned with these things.

So where do I come off writing that the 300 f/2.8 L IS II is a superb tool for bird photography; it is light enough for most folks to hand hold, it is fast, it is versatile, and it produces stunningly sharp images with incredible fine detail"?

The incredible fine detail comment is based on the reactions of others to the images, prety much anyone who has seen them. Everyone who has seen images made with the new 300 f/2.8 has raved about the sharpness and about the incredible fine detail. Those folks include top professional Tom Murphy on the Southern Oceans trip, my pal Robert O'Toole, the incredibly skilled Paul Mckenzie who is hanging with us as we mop up in Japan, and the aforementioned Chris Robinson, editor of Outdoor Photographer.