Gear Talk > EOS Bodies - For Stills
A bad workman blames his tools? (5DMkIII)
ereka:
I've had the 5DMkIII for about a week now. I haven't had the opportunity to use it in anger yet, just a few casual test shots around the house. However, looking at all the complaints in the forums, particularly about image quality, I have to admit that I'm in real danger of catching a bad dose of buyer's remorse. This was supposed to be an all round camera that would last me the rest of my life (or a very long time anyway). On the other hand, it has been gently hinted at in various threads that some of the problems might be more to do with lack of familiarity with setting up and using the camera. Also, quite a few of the posters reporting problems e.g. with soft images have only recently upgraded from crop to full frame, which might also be a steep learning curve in itself? Jeff Ascough's words stick in my mind i.e. "So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability." Is this what is happening here, at least to some extent? I'm also reminded of Lloyd Chambers' articles on image sharpness i.e. there are so many reasons why images might not be sharp, most of which can be resolved (excuse the pun) by good shooting technique. Only when all other alternatives have been explored can the finger be pointed at the equipment. So, what do YOU think? Are there REAL problems with 5DIII IQ or is it just a case of "a bad workman blaming his tools" or maybe just excessive "pixel peeping"? I'm not pontificating in any way, shape or form here, just don't want to believe that I've spent my money unwisely. Most importantly, I'm off on a trip of a lifetime in a couple of weeks and intended to take just the 5DMkIII with me with a view to coming back with some saleable images and perhaps recouping the costs of the trip. In fact I bought it with that specific purpose in mind. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether I should buy a 5DMkII as a backup or even a replacement - at least the MkII has a proven track record and all it's various quirks are well known. With the 5DMkIII, it's beginning to feel like a "leap of faith" to rely on it completely as my only camera body. What would you do in my position?
PS: please take part in the poll
psolberg:
the problem is not the workman or the tool. it is managing expecations. many expected something that could reasilicaly not be built to please everybody. the 5DmkIII is not unlike other cameras that it is full of compromises to try and please the greatest % of people but will inevitable let down many.
ereka:
--- Quote from: psolberg on March 28, 2012, 06:55:29 AM ---the problem is not the workman or the tool. it is managing expecations. many expected something that could reasilicaly not be built to please everybody. the 5DmkIII is not unlike other cameras that it is full of compromises to try and please the greatest % of people but will inevitable let down many.
--- End quote ---
IQ is the most important aspect for me. I'm perfectly happy to work on achieving the potential of the camera e.g. by microadjusting lenses, developing better shooting technique, post processing technique etc, provided that the IQ is there to be had. I agree with your point about managing expectations. Perhaps some people are trying so hard to find fault with it that they are almost bound to find something to complain about. There do also seem to be quite a few who are more than happy with their purchase, though, reinforcing your point.
neuroanatomist:
There do seem to be issues in terms of loss of detail with the in-camera jpg conversion, but that won't affect those shooting RAW. I'm not sure that's a 'problem' it may simply be the way Canon set the camera defaults (Picture Style settings are applied to in-camera jpgs, and you can modify them from what Canon thinks is 'best' - in general, Standard is pretty saturated and has a fair bit of NR, too).
I do think people have somewhat unrealistic expectations - in terms of resolution, the 5DIII is essentially equivalent to the 5DII, and while the gapless microlenses and improvements in circuitry mean less light and signal loss, those mean less ISO noise, not sharper pictures at low ISO.
ereka:
--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on March 28, 2012, 07:34:57 AM ---There do seem to be issues in terms of loss of detail with the in-camera jpg conversion, but that won't affect those shooting RAW. I'm not sure that's a 'problem' it may simply be the way Canon set the camera defaults (Picture Style settings are applied to in-camera jpgs, and you can modify them from what Canon thinks is 'best' - in general, Standard is pretty saturated and has a fair bit of NR, too).
I do think people have somewhat unrealistic expectations - in terms of resolution, the 5DIII is essentially equivalent to the 5DII, and while the gapless microlenses and improvements in circuitry mean less light and signal loss, those mean less ISO noise, not sharper pictures at low ISO.
--- End quote ---
Just a quick couple of questions:
Is any noise reduction at all applied to RAW files in-camera e.g. at a lower level than or in a different way to in-camera jpegs?
Can you suggest the best alternative to "standard" picture style for general shooting (i.e. when shooting jpeg/ RAW+jpeg)?
In tab 3 of the shooting menu, third item down is "High ISO speed NR", By default this is set to "standard" on my camera. The other options are "low", "high" or "off" and the help note at the bottom of the screen reads "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." This implies that the noise reduction is set for all ISO speeds, just has a more noticeable effect at higher ISO speeds. If NR really is the 'problem' has anyone experimented with e.g. turning it off and then processing the jpegs using third party NR software?
Finally, I noticed that in tab 1 of the shooting menu, lens aberration correction (peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration) is enabled by default, at least with the 24-105 kit lens. On tab 2 of the shooting menu, "auto lighting optimiser" is also set to "standard" by default. I'm guessing that any one of these in-camera corrections could potentially have an effect on sharpness?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version