October 22, 2014, 09:57:32 PM

Author Topic: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)  (Read 22399 times)

Invertalon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2012, 08:10:43 PM »
Shooting the camera all day today, IMO the 5D3 has superior IQ and that is just JPEG comparing now... I assume it will get even better with LR4 RAW processing.

AF is WAY better no doubt. Tracking is dead on. No contest.

ISO performance also clearly better, even the RAW files.  The ISO 12,800 RAW file looks better then the 5D2 6400 file. The noise is nicer, cleaner looking with more detail. ISO 25,600 RAW is not shabby either. No blotchy RAW noise, just nice grain. No banding, amp glow, etc...

To ME, clear improvement with high ISO. YMMV.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2012, 08:10:43 PM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4520
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2012, 08:16:56 PM »
Anyone compared it at iso 100-400 against the 5DII??
I haven't done any side by side yet just took the 5D3 out last night over the weekend i'll do some decent side by side shooting

actually the closer i look at the raws in bridge and ACR PS the less impressed i am with the 5D3
sharpness seems better in DPP but I hate using DPP :(
APS-H Fanboy

te4o

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2012, 08:21:23 PM »
Pretty stoked on mine.. Feels more substantial, and the AF is pretty crazy.  That said, I'm not seeing a huge amount of IQ difference except at high ISO, above 3200.  Going to test it at a shoot tomorrow night "for real".  At the end of the day though, it doesn't seem like a massive jump from the 5d2.  I also mainly shoot full manual, even focus, so maybe the finer points are being lost on me.  Can't tell if I have the "new gear afterglow" or if I really feel like I got my $3400 worth (compared to what I already have).

How is the Fully MF going without a focusing screen? Is the new VF better in that respect than the MkII one?

WIckedW, good luck with the review comparisons - much appreciated!
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 10:23:15 PM by te4o »
5D3 (04/12), Carl Zeiss ZE 21, 35/1.4, 50MP, 100MP
Canon 135/2, Sigma 85/1.4
SONY RX100

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2012, 08:23:01 PM »
Anyone compared it at iso 100-400 against the 5DII??
I haven't done any side by side yet just took the 5D3 out last night over the weekend i'll do some decent side by side shooting

actually the closer i look at the raws in bridge and ACR PS the less impressed i am with the 5D3
sharpness seems better in DPP but I hate using DPP :(

I am not a supporter of LR or CS but <3 DPP. Why not use the software that was designed to process RAW - and it is free :D

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3929
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2012, 08:28:26 PM »
http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

video mode seems to big a nice improvement in terms of moire/aliasing but a big let down for resolution, maybe C300 protectionism now? :(


LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3929
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2012, 08:37:16 PM »
It is really starting to sound like they RADICALLY improved the AF but kinda lamed out on everything else. For that, IMO, it should not have been above the old $2700 price. The new AF should be totally awesome, but I mean for 3.5 years it was expected to have SOMETHING be much better for the same price.

I really hoped that at least the video would totally stomp it out of the park but all the talk is it's still pretty soft video and has more of a DVD feel compared to the cams that can give blu-ray-like resolution. darn. I thought they'd at least knock the video out of the park in all respects.

I don't get all the talk about we chose 22MP to focus on image quality and getting perfect video if the video turns out to still be mushy and soft and the low ISO has zero dynamic range improvement and now I wonder if the high ISO will be more like 1/3rd stop instead of 2/3rd stops better unless you shoot over ISO6400 which is always a bit marginal anyway.

Man, I do like the AF, but I kinda feel like they held back on us a bit too much to deserve my $3500. I'll see. I may wait it out a while. It sounds like the video world is semi-underwhelmed and that may not create a market sustaining rush as much as it did for 5D2 pricing. We'll see.... Of course ridding moire/aliasing is certainly very big true, that alone will make a big difference, especially for landscape/nature-type stuff, but to still have the old not really at all full 1920x1080 after 3.5 years, hmmm.

For $2700 I think I'd be diving at it now, but $3500.... man, I don't know at all. Can't help but feel they are over-pricing it.  Maybe DxO results and the detailed video tests will still change my mind.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 08:53:30 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

gecko

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 08:57:50 PM »
actually the closer i look at the raws in bridge and ACR PS the less impressed i am with the 5D3
sharpness seems better in DPP but I hate using DPP :(

Is that using DPPs un-AA function?
EOS 3, 7D, 5DII, EF 17-40 f4L, EF 100-400 f4-5.6L,  TS-E 24 f3.5 II, Zeiss 21.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 08:57:50 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3929
    • View Profile
another video review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

he doesn't seem too thrilled :( to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
(to be fair the GH2 is a bit stair-stepped, so it's maybe not quite a 100% natural extra detail, but the 5D3 does look a bit soft though, mcuh softer than the C300, which has a great quality)

I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums, but this why, so they avoid stuff like this and stop being so conservative before they blow it all. They did finally listen on AF, but as soon as they listen on that then they get even more conservative on the other elements. That is not the way to charge forward, take over and dominate markets and become THE player for the long term. You don't want to sit on leads and milk things so much.

And it is a good thing they got lots of heat on AF, because if they hadn't gone to town on that this time, finally, they'd really have been in trouble. They do seem to ahve delivered in spades on that at least and it's not a minor element by any means.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 09:05:51 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

kubrick

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml
5D Mark III, 24-105L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100L, EF200mm f/2.8L, 70-300L, Sigma 12-24 DG HSM II, Sigma 35mm f/1.4

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
...while nikon put much process sensors in the D4 and D800, even the D4 a non-exmor, managed to improve 1 stop low ISO DR over a few years, but Canon not a single bit  :'(. It seems Canon is investing less in sensor fab while charging a lot more for their equipment now.  :-\


BTW when we look at DxO for the D4, the sensor is actually less performant then the old D3s by a small margin.  Granted they increased resolution so it does not mean the sensor is not good, just pointing out they have not increased ISO performance with the D4.  D3s is still king from NIkon unfortunately.
1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, and a whole bunch of Nikon lenses

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml

Just looking at these sample I dont understand why poeple say the new sensor is not better.  First on noise these pictures suggest to my eye ~1.5 stop better ISO.  Color and details are way better on the mkIII compared to the mkII, again using these pictures.
1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, and a whole bunch of Nikon lenses

Invertalon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
The 5D3 is clearly better, if you shot one yourself... Many people are just finding bad excuses for examples and going based of that. It IS better, no doubt...

x-vision

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 478
    • View Profile
BTW when we look at DxO for the D4, the sensor is actually less performant then the old D3s by a small margin.  Granted they increased resolution so it does not mean the sensor is not good, just pointing out they have not increased ISO performance with the D4.  D3s is still king from NIkon unfortunately.

+1

canon rumors FORUM


x-vision

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 478
    • View Profile
CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml

Just looking at these sample I dont understand why poeple say the new sensor is not better.  First on noise these pictures suggest to my eye ~1.5 stop better ISO.  Color and details are way better on the mkIII compared to the mkII, again using these pictures.

Because these are out-of-camera JPGs.
The JPG engine in the 5DIII is obviously vastly better than in the 5DII.
Produces results on par with a good RAW converter.

Surely a big improvement but RAW comparisons show that the sensor (not the JPG engine) is hardly improved.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3929
    • View Profile
another video review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

he doesn't seem too thrilled :( to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
(to be fair the GH2 is a bit stair-stepped, so it's maybe not quite a 100% natural extra detail, but the 5D3 does look a bit soft though, mcuh softer than the C300, which has a great quality)

I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums, but this why, so they avoid stuff like this and stop being so conservative before they blow it all. They did finally listen on AF, but as soon as they listen on that then they get even more conservative on the other elements. That is not the way to charge forward, take over and dominate markets and become THE player for the long term. You don't want to sit on leads and milk things so much.

And it is a good thing they got lots of heat on AF, because if they hadn't gone to town on that this time, finally, they'd really have been in trouble. They do seem to ahve delivered in spades on that at least and it's not a minor element by any means.

although to be fair I can't agree when he says his video there would have looked the same from teh 5D2, my 5D2 turns all those fine tree branches into aliased city and as you pan or move the finest twigs can literally pop in and out of existence and I see none of that in his video, it is true that is not bitingly sharp though :(, although I do think the GH2 has some issues with stair-stepped sharpness that he fails to mention, still that could probably be cured in post and the detail can't be brought back from the Canon
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 11:17:41 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

canon rumors FORUM