Is the IQ from the 5d3 really as bad as everyone is saying?

[olivander]

All I can say is nope. I shoot high iso, my images definitely look sharper.

[TrumpetPower!]

Thanks everyone, I had heard so many people with negative comments about this camera that I just thought I would take a pic with what people also say is a bad set up, a 70 200 with a 2 X converter and see the response. I am pretty happy with the camera but was beginning to wonder if I was going crazy, nice to have some reassurance, so Trumpet Power, its not for sale yet, sorry

Ah, well. Can't blame a bloke for trying, though, eh?

On a more serious note, I think it's worth keeping in mind that, in general, quality complaints about pro-level gear (which any single-digit camera and any L lens is) are almost guaranteed to be at the quibbling level. Yes, there are differences, and yes those differences may cost you the job with certain clients / customers. But forgetting to use mirror lockup, or a shutter speed of 1/500 when you should have been at 1/1000, or focus missed by a quarter inch, or any of another host of very-easy-to-make very minor mistrakes can have even more of a detrimental effect on image quality than the difference between the old and new teleconverters. In other words, unless your technique is already perfect, I generally wouldn't sweat it.

Now, the difference between a Rebel with a no-name 70-300 and a 5DIII with a 400 f/2.8 is something that pretty much anybody can tell the difference between...but pretty much nobody but the person manhandling the gear is going to be able to tell which 400 f/2.8 was used, let alone which version teleconverter was or wasn't also used. And the only way the photographer is going to know or care is because of how much the beast weighs and how fast it focusses. (Whether or not it has IS might make more a difference, but IS is less important for the types of situations you generally use that sort of thing than you might expect.)

Cheers,

b&

[Warninglabel]

I think the IQ is great, sometimes my 7D shots out shine it, but only in sport shooting. but if the light is prefect it's amazing.

[Wilmark]

I believe that what has this debate so pumped up is the price that early adopters paid (in the context of what the D800 came in at) and the claim, that it performed about two stops better in low light (which was at the expense of detail in jpg mode with no improvement in IQ in RAW). Many Canon loyalists feel screwed by Canon (including me). One hopes that canon is listening. That said, its a great camera that produces very pleasing results.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I wouldn't put it that way, the low ISO dynamic range, compared to many competing cameras, is that bad as they say, but otherwise it is good, only the D800 has more MP, at high ISO it does about as well as the rest of the best the D800 and D4. It doesn't have the 36MP reach/max detail of the D800 and it has far less low ISO DR (which is a shame IMO) and the color array filter makes it a bit more color blind (this latter aspect hasn't really been studied to see what real world effects or not it produces other than the chroma SNR won't improve as much compared to the 5D2 as the luminance SNR during natural outdoor lighting temps, indoors it has about same color as all the rest though) but otherwise every other DSLR made is basically the same or lower MP count, all but less than a handful have worse SNR.

So the IQ is mostly very good (about tied for best luminance SNR, about tied for best MP other than for one DSLR, not quite the best but pretty high up there chroma SNR, about tied for the best in terms of lack of high iso banding) other than it has sadly fallen way behind the best in terms of maximum dynamic range, even a stop or more behind the best non-exmor sensors (and the low iso banding is still worse than on some and it's a bit more color blind, but the latter it's very tricky to figure out what it means real world, it would need lots of complex testing).

So no the IQ is not as bad as everyone says, or more accurately everyone isn't saying it is bad, what some are saying, myself certainly include  , is that the dynamic range at lower ISOs is fairly out of date and a bit disappointing. For the shots where that doesn't matter it's right up at or near the top though (ignoring metamerism index).

Overall no, for dynamic range yes (Canon really does need to get caring about the latter and realize they are getting trounced there and that they have long fallen off their king's perch).

[wickidwombat]

here is a 100% crop of an unedited raw file (screenshot) IQ is pretty good
i posted this elsewhere but it's quite relevent to this thread
(note the first copy of this camera I had was no where near this good though)

[scottkinfw]

I agree!

my new 5DII is very lonely, and that is the ONLY reason I will offer $175!
Nice pic.  Don't forget that the TC will decrease iq somewhat, and even still, very nice.

I am really just starting my journey with ff, and it is a huge difference from my 50D, though light, composition, etc. is still the same.  Give yourself time, and don't forget to read the manual.

sek

The 5DIII is a hideous, horrendous camera, and that picture you took only proves it. It's so bad that you might as well sell it without bothering to use it any more -- and, its awfulness is such that you shouldn't even expect to find a buyer for $100. I'll do you a favor and take it off your hands for $150.

Cheers,

b&

[EvilTed]

Dude, do you seriously have to ask people on a forum and cannot judge for yourself?

BTW, want to buy some snake oil?

ET

[scottkinfw]

So I went out this weekend with my 5DIII (shutter actuated total of 9 times) with un-calibrated lenses.  Here are a couple of pics converted to jpg.  Only minimal LR4 work done on them (minimal sharpening, some color, and minimal noise reduction).  Next step, lens calibration, and some really great pics.

looks good, contrast is to low, lens flare or picture style set to neutral? Any how IQ is great. It just needs a little more color saturation and contrast

[scottkinfw]

Here is another.  Both with 70-200 2.8 II
Lens was not calibrated.  Manipulation in LR 4 was minimal.
Next step, calibrate lenses with FoCal software.

[wickidwombat]

dont take this the wrong way (its meant to be constructive criticism) but my main comment is that copyright notice makes me want to throw up
personally i dont put watermarks on my stuff, i'm not that paranoid, but if you must at least make it classy not like its come out of ms word.

looks like the images are pretty sharp though

[pwp]

There are things I don't like about the 5D3 but what's the point in dwelling on the negatives after you've dropped the Visa card on it, unboxed it, thrown away the packaging and got to work? Nothing is perfect, even 1-Series or Nikons. It's a little bloated, big & heavy especially with the grip, and has sub-1-Series ergonomics but hey, it's half the price.

Senior to the negatives for me are two standouts...the AF (would be even better without the occasionally crippling black AF points) and the IQ. The files are fantastic. Maybe people having less than ideal outcomes are running older or lower grade glass that is being punished by the sensor. Hell, it's not an 80MP Phase One IQ180 but it's going to most things for you.

I have been consistently amazed by the amount of detail tucked away in the highlights. The technique of "exposing to the right" was written for this camera. The highlight slider in LR4 just accentuates this quality. Generally files are sharp, great colour and an appreciably more robust dynamic range, thus more amenable to no-nonsense global changes in PP than I have been used to with the 1D4.

PW

[samthefish]

I'd have to agree with the amount of detail in the highlights.  In this shot of an owl at the zoo the midday sun was blasting down on the upper quarter of this owls face.  Look at what I recovered with one slider in lightroom:

I could never do this with my 7d.

Also I've noticed my 5D has much higher IQ when used with teleconverters than 7d but perhaps that just because it's using the whole lens.

[CanonCollector]

The EXIF info was gone...why?

[KeithR]

I could never do this with my 7d.

Of course you could! I do it all the time with my 7D.

This to this is absolutely typical - a very brightly lit (check the shutter speed in the Exif), pure white bird on a dark BG, and the 7D copes perfectly well.

(This is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS + 1.4x TC, wide open, handheld, incidentally).