Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?

[albertocanetta]

Concerning the sharpness, I did a comparision test between MK 2 and MI 3 at 160iso. (same lens, manual focus in liveview, DPP develop or acr 6.7).
The result is that the MK2 is better than MK3.
Tomorrow I' ll return it on the shop.
Is a wrong one or other people had the same result?
The difference is really noticeable.

Here you can see a 100% crop.

[marekjoz]

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.

Chris - are you glad with the quality of pics with the use of extension tube?

[drjlo]

Concerning the sharpness, I did a comparision test between MK 2 and MI 3 at 160iso. (same lens, manual focus in liveview, DPP develop or acr 6.7).
The result is that the MK2 is better than MK3.
Tomorrow I' ll return it on the shop.
Is a wrong one or other people had the same result?
The difference is really noticeable.

Here you can see a 100% crop.

Were they on Tripod from same position, and I presume critical focus was achieved in live view for both?
If true, it's rather alarming finding, likely explainable by possibly heavier anti-aliasing filter on MkIII.  If so, one should be able to increase sharpening a little more for MkIII photo and achieve the same results as MkII. 

[drjlo]

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.

Chris - are you glad with the quality of pics with the use of extension tube?

I'm not Chris, but extension tubes are just hollow tubes with no lens or glass elements in the tube, so IQ will not suffer like it does with teleconverters, which do have lots of extra lens elements.  Extension tube will only change the focal length closer for more magnification but now one can't focus near infinity.

[albertocanetta]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

[drjlo]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Good to know.  I must sigh because I have my 5DIII and have been trying to decide whether to send it back or not.  I do not have 5DII on hand to compare so must rely on others who have both.  I am finding that I am *still* using the spot focus most despite all the AF points of MkIII, and if MkII actually may be at least as clean or better at low ISO, I may need to just get a MkII instead.  High ISO is great, but honestly, I always try to keep my ISO at or below 1600-3200 max anyway by introducing good lighting. 

[albertocanetta]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Good to know.  I must sigh because I have my 5DIII and have been trying to decide whether to send it back or not.  I do not have 5DII on hand to compare so must rely on others who have both.  I am finding that I am *still* using the spot focus most despite all the AF points of MkIII, and if MkII actually may be at least as clean or better at low ISO, I may need to just get a MkII instead.  High ISO is great, but honestly, I always try to keep my ISO at or below 1600-3200 max anyway by introducing good lighting.

If you want I send you some files...About the iso, since the file is so soft, it is obvious that you haven' t so much noise... I just bought the MK3 because the autofocus, but I can't accept to have a worse file than the MK2. I really hope to have a damaged body but it seems that it is not only me to have this problem...

[marekjoz]

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.

Chris - are you glad with the quality of pics with the use of extension tube?

I'm not Chris, but extension tubes are just hollow tubes with no lens or glass elements in the tube, so IQ will not suffer like it does with teleconverters, which do have lots of extra lens elements.  Extension tube will only change the focal length closer for more magnification but now one can't focus near infinity.

Thanks for explanation though I know the difference and the way ETs work. Since I don't own my ET and never experimented with one, I'm just curious in impressions of people who did. I don't own true macro lenses and am aware of IQ degradation without it. All I did was stacking lenses 24-105 and 70-200 with 17-40 (front to front with 17-40 dettached from body) to achieve macro effect and was not amazed with IQ at all, although magnification was really big

[Martin]

The photo above taken with 5D3 looks like out of focus for me. IMHO it is not possible that there is such a difference. Unbelievable. I will rather wait for more opinions/tests before my purchase/switch. Hope that is back or front focus only, or software problem, however if you are a pro you are probable aware of this so...sensor placed badly...or really such a soft images-can't be. look at "compact disc player" sing- it's too soft in comparison to 5D2, the difference is very significant.

[albertocanetta]

The focus is made in live view.
If the sensor were placed in wrong way, I had the problem only in one part of the photo instead of the all area.

Yes, I'm very surprised too, and I made several tests, but with the same result...

[JR]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got.  It was noticably softer then my mkII.  I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did.  Ultimately I returned my unit.   

[albertocanetta]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

[Marsu42]

Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got.  It was noticably softer then my mkII.  I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did.  Ultimately I returned my unit.   

This is hilarious - I just cannot believe Canon screwed up that badly. And please don't return your 5d3s and keep selling 5d2s: I want to get one used ... so let's hope that maybe the mk3 has been released to early and the issues will disappear in later bodies or firmware updates - afaik it's called "banana ware" since it ripens when it's with the customer :-p

[Viggo]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

If Canon can't fix this in firmware and they did this on purpose to get better video they need a SERIOUS asskicking, and that EVERYBODY return their mk3's to the dealer. Send them a message....

I'm hopefully downgrading to the 5d3 tomorrow, I will be keeping it though, and hope for Canon to get it right with a new firmware. But Canon needs to earn everybody's trust again, because lately they've been screwing up WAY too much....

[gene_can_sing]

The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.

James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.

Here's the article. I believe it applies to both stills and video

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

A second article on the fix

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/