Is the 5D Mark III Sharp??

[psolberg]

I don't think it is any less sharp or sharper than the original. at just 22MP, it isn't going to blow anyone's socks off. the video on the other hand is so soft that I've seen it referred to as waxy.

[Tijn]

If a raw image is "soft" then it is because of the software/lens, not the camera.

Saying that, you're denying that the sensor and camera have any role in achieving sharpness, provided the image is properly (physically) focused.
You're implying that two different types of 18Mpx sensors will always achieve the same sharpness in RAW. This overlooks things like readout noise, pixel area coverage (think gapless microlenses), in-camera AA filters, sensor well leakage, and perhaps even the in-camera RAW creation process itself. These things can definately influence things like image sharpness, behind the lens and before further processing software comes into play.

[risc32]

I happen to of taken very similar photos of my dog the other day with my mk3. i used my 70-200 2.8, not sure right now about the exact values, but the focus was spot on. I think it's pretty good when you can make out your house in the reflection of an eye. When i get to my computer i'll try and post one.

[JohnX]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s



100% Crop

[dilbert]

If a raw image is "soft" then it is because of the software/lens, not the camera.

Saying that, you're denying that the sensor and camera have any role in achieving sharpness, provided the image is properly (physically) focused.
You're implying that two different types of 18Mpx sensors will always achieve the same sharpness in RAW. This overlooks things like readout noise, pixel area coverage (think gapless microlenses), in-camera AA filters, sensor well leakage, and perhaps even the in-camera RAW creation process itself. These things can definately influence things like image sharpness, behind the lens and before further processing software comes into play.

Readout noise does not affect sharpness, it affects the SNR.

The area covered by the microlens/pixel will not affect sharpness, it will affect light gathering ability.

Sensor well leakage only happens when a pixel has too much light in it.

[dilbert]

How far was the image from the front of the lens?
What was the depth of field for that shot in mm?

In short, the image looks accurately focused but the image has very shallow depth meaning that even a few mm in front or behind of the focal point will be out of focus. Thus it may not have focused on what you thought it was focused on.

[kirillica]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s



100% Crop

No visible noise on ISO 2000? Looks great.

BTW, have you calibrated your lens with camera? It's a common Canon issue: each new stuff should be calibrated to be sure focus is 100% correct.

[JohnX]

How far was the image from the front of the lens?
What was the depth of field for that shot in mm?

In short, the image looks accurately focused but the image has very shallow depth meaning that even a few mm in front or behind of the focal point will be out of focus. Thus it may not have focused on what you thought it was focused on.

Not exactly sure how far the image was from the lens but at shot 105MM I would guess 5-10ft? I checked the focus point and it was the correct subject and not a front/back focusing situation as your question may have alluded towards.

[JohnX]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s



100% Crop

No visible noise on ISO 2000? Looks great.

BTW, have you calibrated your lens with camera? It's a common Canon issue: each new stuff should be calibrated to be sure focus is 100% correct.

I did do a calibration on my lens, however, I don't know if I did it right as this is the first camera I've ever owned with micro adjust. 

[neuroanatomist]

There's no such thing as a sharp or soft DSLR.

Really?  Then why is Nikon selling both a D800 and a D800E?  Isn't one of those sharper than the other?  By extension, doesn't it stand to reason that the properties of the anti-aliasing filter determine the 'sharpness' of the dSLR, and that's one of the design decisions that a manufacturer makes? 

Canon has stated that the 5DIII offers improved video characteristics, in particular they mention a reduction in moiré.  I'd argue that the easiest way to reduce video moiré is to use a 'stronger' AA filter.  One of the trade-offs in doing so is reduced sharpness.

Worth noting is the person who took apart his 5DIII and removed the AA filter, in particular the statement, "It does seem like a particularly strong optical low pass filter on this camera... OLPF, AA, anti-aliasing filter, call it what you will – it seems Canon put too strong a one in the 5D Mark III! Yes it crushes moire but the trade off is less resolution not just in video mode, but also for stills."  You can see examples on the linked page.

[Tijn]

Readout noise does not affect sharpness, it affects the SNR.

SNR is a relevant factor to sharpness, taking that to mean (fine) contrast resolving power. Readout noise can reduce the SNR and thereby the resolving power of the signal. Which does in the extremes affect sharpness (though probably not on ISO 100 images taken in controlled studio conditions. But you were saying that there was no influence on sharpness whatsoever, and that's just wrong.)

The area covered by the microlens/pixel will not affect sharpness, it will affect light gathering ability.

I was thinking about that. I was not entirely sure. However, I figured that it'd have an effect in more smoothly rendering small detail, when the pixel is a full square rather than when it is a tiny hole covered with non-light-gathering gaps in between (to take an extreme example). Obviously, light gathering ability is the major difference, and a sharpness increase will be tiny. But I'm tending to think that there will be SOME effect.
Compare a grid of small circles (the circles being light sensitive, the area in between the circles not) and a grid of squares (100% coverage pixels) and compare their resolving power. The grid of small circles will miss some light (coverage), which will in most situations also include contrast differences (which equals detail). Cropping out contrast differences can't have a positive effect on sharpness, I'd think.

Sensor well leakage only happens when a pixel has too much light in it.

I thought its effects became more significant as the wells filled up (perhaps exponentially so), but that it is still present below the threshold of a completely "full" well. If you're correct, then it indeed has no impact on sharpness or contrast resolving ability.

Whether the above are or are not possible factors, that still leaves the AA filter as well, of course.

[dilbert]

Readout noise does not affect sharpness, it affects the SNR.

SNR is a relevant factor to sharpness, taking that to mean (fine) contrast resolving power. Readout noise can reduce the SNR and thereby the resolving power of the signal. Which does in the extremes affect sharpness (though probably not on ISO 100 images taken in controlled studio conditions. But you were saying that there was no influence on sharpness whatsoever, and that's just wrong.)

To a point, many images can be both noisy and sharp.

The area covered by the microlens/pixel will not affect sharpness, it will affect light gathering ability.

I was thinking about that. I was not entirely sure. However, I figured that it'd have an effect in more smoothly rendering small detail, when the pixel is a full square rather than when it is a tiny hole covered with non-light-gathering gaps in between (to take an extreme example). Obviously, light gathering ability is the major difference, and a sharpness increase will be tiny. But I'm tending to think that there will be SOME effect.

You're confusing resolution with softness due to lack of focus.

If what you were saying was true then every digital camera that did not have gapless microlenses was by the above definition "soft".

I had a 2MP digital camera many years ago that most definitely had gaps between pixels and when focused properly, it was not soft.

[bycostello]

not a big surprise though...  i'm sure canon test them before they ship them!

[wickidwombat]

There's no such thing as a sharp or soft DSLR.

Really?  Then why is Nikon selling both a D800 and a D800E?  Isn't one of those sharper than the other?  By extension, doesn't it stand to reason that the properties of the anti-aliasing filter determine the 'sharpness' of the dSLR, and that's one of the design decisions that a manufacturer makes? 

Canon has stated that the 5DIII offers improved video characteristics, in particular they mention a reduction in moiré.  I'd argue that the easiest way to reduce video moiré is to use a 'stronger' AA filter.  One of the trade-offs in doing so is reduced sharpness.

Worth noting is the person who took apart his 5DIII and removed the AA filter, in particular the statement, "It does seem like a particularly strong optical low pass filter on this camera... OLPF, AA, anti-aliasing filter, call it what you will – it seems Canon put too strong a one in the 5D Mark III! Yes it crushes moire but the trade off is less resolution not just in video mode, but also for stills."  You can see examples on the linked page.

funny you mention that!
I was painstakingly analysing my $50 note shots of 5D3 vs 5D2 again at 200% and you can distinctly see moire pop up in the 5D2 shots (which also happen to appear to be sharper than the 5D3 to me at this magnification)
the 5D3 shot dont seem to have the moire issue.
Although all this is observed at 200% magnification it really has a miniscule impact on the overall image.
Disclaimer : I dont go through puiles of pictures at 200% for fun, just trying to get to the bottom of my twightlight zone AF issues i'm having

[Bridge]

What´s wrong with my replies? I tried twice to reply to this topic including two jpg-files, one of them showing, that the 5D III is sharp, but nothing appears here?

What is my mistake?