September 23, 2014, 04:30:58 AM

Author Topic: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)  (Read 13966 times)

Ricku

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2012, 01:06:29 AM »
disappointing results at ISO 100:

banding:
horizontal banding appears to be entirely removed, this is good, and will help make ISO look better and get less badly clumped chroma noise and all but vertical banding appears to be zero improved and it shows up enough that I don't think you gain any usable amount of low ISO DR back compared to the 5D2

so for low ISO I'm not sure the removal of horizontal banding alone will really help usable DR any since the vertical sticks out to the eye just as much, maybe here on there on parts of the image it might help

DR:
5D2: 15760,1024,6.1 AU,3.8 8MP normalized ADU, DR - 11.2  , DR8MP - 11.9

5D3: 15309 (maybe the channels were still not quite blown though?),2048, 6.6 ADU, 6.4 normalized to 5D2 6.4 and then to 8MP 3.96, DR- 11.0  DRto5D2 - 11.0  DR8MP - 11.7
and let us say WP should be 15760 instead then DR8MP - 11.8
and let us even say it should be max 14bit 16383 - 11.8

so I actually get fractionally worse DR than for the 5D2, but it's for all intents, the exact same, within copy to copy variation and well within any difference you'd be able to notice

Sad to say but even the DX D7000 handily beats the latest Canon FF for DR, and not by a little. The D800, at 100% view, full 50% MP advantage may beat it by 2 stops, maybe even 2.5 usable stops.

I did not expect this at all.  :'(

(the high iso side of things should turn out more favorable though, most likely)

This is exactly what I have found out from my own tests.

What were Canon thinking?  :-\

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2012, 01:06:29 AM »

simonxu11

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2012, 01:17:46 AM »
disappointing results at ISO 100:

banding:
horizontal banding appears to be entirely removed, this is good, and will help make ISO look better and get less badly clumped chroma noise and all but vertical banding appears to be zero improved and it shows up enough that I don't think you gain any usable amount of low ISO DR back compared to the 5D2

so for low ISO I'm not sure the removal of horizontal banding alone will really help usable DR any since the vertical sticks out to the eye just as much, maybe here on there on parts of the image it might help

DR:
5D2: 15760,1024,6.1 AU,3.8 8MP normalized ADU, DR - 11.2  , DR8MP - 11.9

5D3: 15309 (maybe the channels were still not quite blown though?),2048, 6.6 ADU, 6.4 normalized to 5D2 6.4 and then to 8MP 3.96, DR- 11.0  DRto5D2 - 11.0  DR8MP - 11.7
and let us say WP should be 15760 instead then DR8MP - 11.8
and let us even say it should be max 14bit 16383 - 11.8

so I actually get fractionally worse DR than for the 5D2, but it's for all intents, the exact same, within copy to copy variation and well within any difference you'd be able to notice

Sad to say but even the DX D7000 handily beats the latest Canon FF for DR, and not by a little. The D800, at 100% view, full 50% MP advantage may beat it by 2 stops, maybe even 2.5 usable stops.

I did not expect this at all.  :'(

(the high iso side of things should turn out more favorable though, most likely)

This is exactly what I have found out from my own tests.

What were Canon thinking?  :-\

I said this a few times:
Nikon focus on making better cameras, Canon focus on selling more cameras

maxxevv

  • Guest
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2012, 02:00:12 AM »
disappointing results at ISO 100:

banding:
horizontal banding appears to be entirely removed, this is good, and will help make ISO look better and get less badly clumped chroma noise and all but vertical banding appears to be zero improved and it shows up enough that I don't think you gain any usable amount of low ISO DR back compared to the 5D2

so for low ISO I'm not sure the removal of horizontal banding alone will really help usable DR any since the vertical sticks out to the eye just as much, maybe here on there on parts of the image it might help

DR:
5D2: 15760,1024,6.1 AU,3.8 8MP normalized ADU, DR - 11.2  , DR8MP - 11.9

5D3: 15309 (maybe the channels were still not quite blown though?),2048, 6.6 ADU, 6.4 normalized to 5D2 6.4 and then to 8MP 3.96, DR- 11.0  DRto5D2 - 11.0  DR8MP - 11.7
and let us say WP should be 15760 instead then DR8MP - 11.8
and let us even say it should be max 14bit 16383 - 11.8

so I actually get fractionally worse DR than for the 5D2, but it's for all intents, the exact same, within copy to copy variation and well within any difference you'd be able to notice

Sad to say but even the DX D7000 handily beats the latest Canon FF for DR, and not by a little. The D800, at 100% view, full 50% MP advantage may beat it by 2 stops, maybe even 2.5 usable stops.

I did not expect this at all.  :'(

(the high iso side of things should turn out more favorable though, most likely)

This is exactly what I have found out from my own tests.

What were Canon thinking?  :-\

I have to ask ... where/what and how do you guys do the DR tests ?

WarStreet

  • Guest
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2012, 08:41:07 AM »
disappointing results at ISO 100:

banding:
horizontal banding appears to be entirely removed, this is good, and will help make ISO look better and get less badly clumped chroma noise and all but vertical banding appears to be zero improved and it shows up enough that I don't think you gain any usable amount of low ISO DR back compared to the 5D2

so for low ISO I'm not sure the removal of horizontal banding alone will really help usable DR any since the vertical sticks out to the eye just as much, maybe here on there on parts of the image it might help

DR:
5D2: 15760,1024,6.1 AU,3.8 8MP normalized ADU, DR - 11.2  , DR8MP - 11.9

5D3: 15309 (maybe the channels were still not quite blown though?),2048, 6.6 ADU, 6.4 normalized to 5D2 6.4 and then to 8MP 3.96, DR- 11.0  DRto5D2 - 11.0  DR8MP - 11.7
and let us say WP should be 15760 instead then DR8MP - 11.8
and let us even say it should be max 14bit 16383 - 11.8

so I actually get fractionally worse DR than for the 5D2, but it's for all intents, the exact same, within copy to copy variation and well within any difference you'd be able to notice

Sad to say but even the DX D7000 handily beats the latest Canon FF for DR, and not by a little. The D800, at 100% view, full 50% MP advantage may beat it by 2 stops, maybe even 2.5 usable stops.

I did not expect this at all.  :'(

(the high iso side of things should turn out more favorable though, most likely)


LetTheRightLensIn thanks for your time. Thanks for akiskev too, for providing the raw files !

So, from my understanding, these new measurements with lens cap on/off confirms the ones that you did using the masking area ?

I am disgusted with the results. Will look at DXO measurments when out, but I am afraid that they won't be significantly different from yours. :(  Do you confirm that DR has improved @ the high ISO's ?

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3738
    • View Profile
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2012, 01:41:41 PM »
I am disgusted with the results. Will look at DXO measurments when out, but I am afraid that they won't be significantly different from yours. :(  Do you confirm that DR has improved @ the high ISO's ?

It's tricky to say for the high ISOs since Canon was at it's least conservative ISO rating time back in the 5D2 days so it might not be fair to compare ISO6400 DR of the 5D2 to ISO 6400 DR of the 5D3. Head to head I actually found a real but very small DR advantage for the 5D3, I forget but it may have been not even quite a quarter stop or something, nothing meaningful. However, there is some reason to believe that that comparison was not fair and due to quite possible changes in named to actually delivered ISO so the 5D3 result might need to get 1/3-1/2 stop added to it, so maybe it is almost 1/2 stop to almost 3/4 stop more. But I'm guessing a bit. It's tricky to try to do with the samples we have and I don't feel like taking all the time it would take to try to plot out gain differences and so on. I'd rather wait until DxO calculates the ISO differences.

It's maybe dangerous to judge using ACR, but it seems like the high iso noise has a slightly nicer look on the 5D3 so that might give a tiny bit of an extra advantage too (At super duper high isos and for really tricky scenes it might give a notice usable bonus compared to the 5D2 over the pure measured values).

DavidRiesenberg

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
    • David Riesenberg
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2012, 03:07:11 PM »
I am disgusted with the results.

Isn't this a bit extreme?

WarStreet

  • Guest
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2012, 03:56:59 PM »
I am disgusted with the results.

Isn't this a bit extreme?

Yes might be, I am not english native. So, what should I say which is less severe than disgusting ? Not happy is just too soft, for 3.5 years.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2012, 03:56:59 PM »

tt

  • Guest
Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2012, 06:10:50 PM »
I am disgusted with the results.

Isn't this a bit extreme?

Yes might be, I am not english native. So, what should I say which is less severe than disgusting ? Not happy is just too soft, for 3.5 years.

Perhaps the word "disappointed"? Though the same issues with softness came out prior to the 5D Mark II launch if that's any consolation.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 06:15:09 PM by tt »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D mkIII untouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2012, 06:10:50 PM »