Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?

[shizam1]

I received my 5DIII a couple of days ago, and haven't done extensive testing with it yet, but I plan on doing some studio shots tonight.  I did notice in some of my high ISO comparisons that the 5DII seemed sharper in some instances.  And yes, I was shooting RAW and used the LR ACR 6.7RC to do the conversion.

Then, while looking again at the DPReview comparison, looking at the RAW versions of that studio image they shot I'm noticing the same thing ( but I don't know what method they used ).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[shizam1]

So I did some studio shots, and looks like the 5DIII is as sharp if not sharper than my 5DII.  At least at ISO 100 Also, focus was pretty much nailed on nose of teddy bear test subject, while 5DII was kind of all over the place.  So looking good.

One thing to note, I had to bring down the exposure on the 5DIII shots by .25 in Lightroom, so that camera is over-exposing ( or more sensitive to light ) than the 5DII.  I used the same lighting of course, and all 3 shots with the 5DIII were over-exposed as compared to the 5DII, so it's not light variance.  The strobe is an Einstien BTW.

[shizam1]

Share the photos?  Ha!

People might pick apart my teddy bear selection.  I just wanted to respond to this post and say that I don't have any softness problems, just in case anyone comes upon it later with a search of some sort

[Janus]

I'm an owner of 60D and think to switch to full frame camera. I saw some test pictures of Mark III and compare to Mark II and have some feeling that Mark III a little softer and the picture not voluminal (a little bit flat) compare to II
What owners of both II and III can tell about my feeling?

[YellowJersey]

I compared my new 5D3 to my 5D classic and if anything the 5D3 is sharper by a significant degree. The colours are also far more vivid and really pop. I haven't even micro adjusted for my lenses yet (waiting for FoCal to have 5D3 support).

 I think that the people claiming the5D3 is soft is due to unfulfilled and unreasonably high expectations and/or user error. Someone around here said that whenever a photo doesn't come out right, they're inclined to blame the photographer rather than the gear. I am inclined to agree. Not to mention, I have a feeling that a lot of the people complaining don't even have a 5D3 of their own and are just going off the samples available online.

 Just my two cents.

[wickidwombat]

yes the 5D3 is softer at iso100 than the 5D2 however the margin is so small for real purposes its negligible and only noticeable when pixel peeping at 200% with side by side comparison shots.

I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

I'm definitely keeping my 5Dmk2s though as they still make kick ass images and I might grab a brightscreen for one and keep it for use with my MF only lenses

[Janus]

And what about Flat image from III? Does enybody see it?

[lessmore]

Has there been any definitive testing - using both cameras with the same lens, same subject, same settings - to see if the Mark III is actually softer?

I shot a number of portrait/face shots with the Mark III using spot focus. Using ACR and Photoshop PS5, with the same post processing settings that I usually use for the Mark II, I felt that the images were a bit soft. When I turned the sharpening plugin in Photoshop up to a higher level, I thought that the Mark III images looked better, even though that is usually too much sharpening for my Mark II images. My lens was not AF microadjusted for the Mark III (this lens was dead on with the Mark II), so that is one possible reason.

Can someone point me in the direction of any of the Mark III reviews where they compare the sharpness of the same RAW images shot with each different camera?

[JR]

I noticed it also on my unit which I returned.  to be honest it is more obvious with the kit 24-105 lens.  With my prime lens and the proper RAW software out now it is hard to see a difference...but for the unit I had I did find a bit of softness compared to my mkII.  When I lok at some of the pictures posted by others,makes me wonder that it was indeed my unit.

j

[Janus]

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx
author talk about soft image because of RAW converter bug in DPP

[JR]

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx
author talk about soft image because of RAW converter bug in DPP

Even using ACR or the new version of Lightroom (LR4.1) I noticed a small difference between the mkII and mkIII sharpness.  If I had never looked at a mkII before maybe I would not have picked on it but still was there on my unit.

In all fairness I did not perform a lens micro adjustment which would have helped.

[Martin]

Hmm...I have seen that softness from every image produced with 5D3, starting with official canon jpgs and other test images and images made by others, I saw it see it in jpgs as well as unporcessed raws. It must be something bad about this If so many people complain about the fact. I was used to 5d2 images viewed at 100% and more so I was disappointed. I think it's better to wait for saome tests, on the other hand, why there is a need for test if so many people share the same feeling. It is strange cause IQ should be better in general, also in terms of sharpness, I also read that AA filter is weaker in new 5D so what is wrong? I will wait for some reviews, as I am holding my finger on buy button from some days.

[Chris Geiger]

I have been very happy with the focus on my two 5d3 bodies. I've shot two weddings with them now.

This shot was hand held using 24-105 and a 12mm extension tube.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have not been able to tell any difference from my 5D MK II using the same lenses at low ISO's.  I have not really taken any meaningful images at higher ISO settings.
 
Now that Lightroom has a beta out that supports my MK III, its much faster and easier than using Adobe DNG or the RC of ACR.
 
The sensor in the MK III appears to me to be a much higher grade sensor, my MK II had a lot of hot pixels in a dark frame when the exposure was pulled way up, but I do not see a one with the MK III.

[kaiser]

This softness issue just doesn't seem to die down. While a number of people have suggested a "workaround", I can't understand why Canon cannot come up with a fix over this whole DPP problem. To shell out $ 3,500 for a new camera and look for "workarounds" seems pretty dumb.

Also, what the hell were the beta testers doing? Did they not have similar problems with the software?

It is bad enough to launch a product which is not supported by third party image processing software, but Canon's own software is faulty

I'm still debating whether to avoid all heartburn by opting for the 1DMIV!