5Dm3 Grainy Images?

[epiieq1]

Hey All,
I've updated my 5dm3 to the latest firmware and it feels like the images are not as crisp as they once were.  Here's an image that I recently took with a 5Dm3 running the latest firmware, a 70-200f4L at ISO200, and in natural light.  When I zoom in to this one vs. one I had taken about 4 weeks ago, it's very clear that one is worse than the other.  I'm not sure if it's firmware, or the difference in Lightroom 4.1 RCs (RC1 v. RC2).  Any thoughts, or am I just being too picky?

[Z]

That's noisy as hell with banding in the shadows. Has this image been pushed? And by that I mean... by a couple of stops.

[Sycotek]

I've returned 2 so far for the same issue

ironically doing jpeg to raw conversion in-body yields the same results.

iso 100 in my first two had banding in the shadows.

second body iso 400 you can see the noise even on the rear lcd.

this ones going back today - not sure if im going to bother with a 4th body

[SuzC]

I have updated to Lightroom 4.1 and am having the same issue with both my MkII and MkIII cameras. I haven't undated the firmware for the Mk III yet, so it's probably safe to say it's a LR 4 issue. It's pronounced in the blacks

[Astro]

well if it´s LR or not should be easy to check.. use DPP on the images.

[bp]

No, you're not being too picky - that's not just grain, that's a crap ton of grain, noise and banding - far more than you should be seeing at ISO 200 (unless you've pushed this file beyond it's limits - was the exposure pushed much in post?).  As others have said, you might run the same shot through DPP and see if results are any different. 

You also said that a shot you'd taken 4 weeks ago wasn't this bad.  If you still have that original RAW file, what about running that one through LR again now, and see if you get the same thing (different results from the first processing)

[spinworkxroy]

It seems like LR4.1 is really having conversion issues.
Aperture doesn't seem to have such problems BUT LR has better Noise and Len correction data which Aperture doesn't
Also, Adobe isn't going to update the Camera Raw anymore so i don't think there's any chance there's going to be a better LR4.1 RAW conversion.
I've not tried DPP…
 I guess there really isn't 1 software that is best…i guess i'll have to live with the conversion issues of LR4 since i use it alot..

[Kernuak]

With the sun as bright as it is, I would expect the lit areas to be blown out if the subject was properly exposed, it's pretty harsh lighting. It's also unusual to be able to get a shutterspeed of 1/2000th second in such deep shadows. That suggests to me it's been pushed, possibly as much as 3 stops. In fact, I just experimented, as it's quite harsh lighting outside at the moment and only half an hour later than the time in the EXIF. If I use the same camera settings (ISO 200, 1/2000th sec, f/4) on my 5D MkII, the shadows are four stops underexposed.

[wickidwombat]

my new one is sharp and clean

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6933.15

see down in this thread for a 100% crop from it

[hoghavemercy]

3 cameras all the same issue???

[awinphoto]

3 cameras all the same issue???

Naw... this picture has had lots of shadow recovery and noise will be unavoidable...  It's the nature of the beast.

[CanonCollector]

This image had a lot of shadow recovery given the range of light yet the kid was perfectly exposed. It was post processed to this point - perhaps a little too far. Cute kid!

[SteenerMe]

Use a flash. Process less. You can only push an image so far.

[dirtcastle]

If all three bodies have the same problem, it's almost certainly a software-related issue.

I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit.

If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?

[awinphoto]

If all three bodies have the same problem, it's almost certainly a software-related issue.

I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit.

If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?

The image was recovered too much in post processing... nothing wrong with the camera or software...  it's perfectly natural...