April 20, 2014, 06:11:25 AM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality  (Read 15484 times)

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4090
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2012, 07:09:52 PM »
Budget aside, The 5DIII is a lot more camera and well worth the extra $$$.

I had to laugh here, because "budget aside" and "worth the extra $$$" don't really fit together :-p ... you can only tell if the 5d3 is "worth it" if you *do* include one's budget and the return of invest for a pro. For me trying to go pro, nearly double clearly isn't though I would of course exchange a 5d2 for a 5d3 for free.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2012, 07:09:52 PM »

canon816

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2012, 09:25:57 PM »
Budget aside, The 5DIII is a lot more camera and well worth the extra $$$.

I had to laugh here, because "budget aside" and "worth the extra $$$" don't really fit together :-p ... you can only tell if the 5d3 is "worth it" if you *do* include one's budget and the return of invest for a pro. For me trying to go pro, nearly double clearly isn't though I would of course exchange a 5d2 for a 5d3 for free.

Depends on your profession.  Wildlife shooter or sports... 5DIII would be well worth the extra $$.   Wedding.... Probably no big deal.  Real Estate Photography like me... 5DII is the perfect tool for the job.

Sorry for the contradiction.  Trying to state that the 5DIII is a lot more camera then the 5DII.  By far.  They are worlds apart with customization, AF ability and much more.  I own a II and have used a III and if I had the money and was shopping... I know where I would put it.  ;)

Philco

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2012, 10:30:46 PM »
The color to me is better straight out of the camera on the 5DIII, which to me factors into image quality, and also saves me more time editing high volume events (definitely a nice return on the investment.) My keeper rate in difficult focusing situations has gone way up too, so I find I have more to choose from after the shoot as well. Even the flash system is more useable and reliable with the 600 RT's, which also contributes to overall image quality. With ISO set under 800, you probably can get files to look nearly identical, but you have to have a quality capture to start with, which I feel like I can count on getting with the 5DIII in ways that I never did with any other Canon to date. From ISO 1600+, it's definitely got more room to move.

SambalOelek

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2012, 02:36:42 AM »

Looks like there is quite a lot of Chroma NR being applied to this picture. ISO 6400 with absolutely no NR looks very messy, but it does clean up quite nicely, like in this picture.


Here is the shot as it was taken, no profile correction, no strong contrast curve, and no edit to her eyes. Just like the last time I posted it there is NO noise reduction at all. This was shot in RAW with the faithful picture style.

ISO 6400 only looks poor with the 5DIII if you are under exposing. In this case I slowed the shutter to 1/50th, and had the image properly exposed in camera at ISO 6400. Under exposing at any ISO and then using Lightroom to make up for it will make any file look like junk.

The worst of noise lives where images are improperly exposed. I've only shot with the Mark II momentarily so I can't speak to how it performs, but my T3i behaved just exactly the same. Of course it can't shoot at 6400 and get a usable file in any sort of light.... but I am able to make usable files at 3200 with it.

Kev

I don't use Adobe's raw converter myself, but the XMP of your file shows
ColorNoiseReduction="25"
ColorNoiseReductionDetail="50"

25 is the default Color noise reduction applied to RAW files in Lightroom. If you reduce this value to zero, you should see some pretty colors :)

Hope you'll update your posts with the result. I'd be interested to see how much noise is actually present.
1D X, 1D IV, 5D III, 6D, 7D, M. Assorted lenses.

kevl

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2012, 06:56:38 AM »
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.

 

SambalOelek

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2012, 07:59:49 AM »
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.

In that case, would you mind publishing the RAW file or sending it to me privately? I've seen correctly exposed ISO 400 files with more visible chroma noise.
1D X, 1D IV, 5D III, 6D, 7D, M. Assorted lenses.

kevl

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2012, 02:37:00 PM »
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.


In that case, would you mind publishing the RAW file or sending it to me privately? I've seen correctly exposed ISO 400 files with more visible chroma noise.


OK I uploaded it to MediaFire.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5ay71skgmod5tm9 

The image does impress for the noise level, if not the subject & comp, but I can't see how I could have inadvertently added noise reduction to it...

This CR2 RAW file was copied directly from the harddrive and not exported from Lightroom.

Kev

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2012, 02:37:00 PM »

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2012, 06:39:33 PM »
Thanks for posting kevi... for giggles I downloaded your file and opened into photoshop with the latest ACR....  ACR automatically sets color noise at 25 and detail at 50 standard...  you can drop 25 to 0, but surprisingly, the "color noise" that sambai was referring to, really doesn't change that much if any from 0 to 25... there is plenty of noise, but it's fine noise that only goes away when the luminance slider is played with, and that doesn't fully disappear until it's around the 50 mark..  But it is leaps and bounds above what we had to play with before... and this is even taking into account that ACR is STILL buggy with 5d3 files and have been proven so time and time again.  Once adobe gets that straightened, it will be even more consistent and will render files even better.  So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

kevl

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2012, 09:04:28 PM »
Thanks for posting kevi... for giggles I downloaded your file and opened into photoshop with the latest ACR....  ACR automatically sets color noise at 25 and detail at 50 standard...  you can drop 25 to 0, but surprisingly, the "color noise" that sambai was referring to, really doesn't change that much if any from 0 to 25... there is plenty of noise, but it's fine noise that only goes away when the luminance slider is played with, and that doesn't fully disappear until it's around the 50 mark..  But it is leaps and bounds above what we had to play with before... and this is even taking into account that ACR is STILL buggy with 5d3 files and have been proven so time and time again.  Once adobe gets that straightened, it will be even more consistent and will render files even better.  So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

Thanks for the explanation! :)

filo64

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2012, 07:10:54 AM »
So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

If you are referring to what Sambal Oelek said about the cat at ISO 6400, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I got you wrong. I'll try to post three 100% crops: one without any NR, one with the default 25 chroma NR, and one with 69 (!) luminance NR without chroma NR, which makes the chroma noise easily distinguishable form the luma noise.

SambalOelek

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2012, 07:41:10 AM »
So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

If you are referring to what Sambal Oelek said about the cat at ISO 6400, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I got you wrong. I'll try to post three 100% crops: one without any NR, one with the default 25 chroma NR, and one with 69 (!) luminance NR without chroma NR, which makes the chroma noise easily distinguishable form the luma noise.

What I was expecting was to see a lot more color noise (chrominance noise or chroma noise for short), similar to filo64's result. Luminance noise is already visible in the jpg (the "graininess" of the OOF areas), so i figured that at least some chroma NR was being applied by the RAW converter.

Thanks to kevl for uploading the file.
1D X, 1D IV, 5D III, 6D, 7D, M. Assorted lenses.

kevl

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2012, 07:50:10 AM »
So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

If you are referring to what Sambal Oelek said about the cat at ISO 6400, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I got you wrong. I'll try to post three 100% crops: one without any NR, one with the default 25 chroma NR, and one with 69 (!) luminance NR without chroma NR, which makes the chroma noise easily distinguishable form the luma noise.

What I was expecting was to see a lot more color noise (chrominance noise or chroma noise for short), similar to filo64's result. Luminance noise is already visible in the jpg (the "graininess" of the OOF areas), so i figured that at least some chroma NR was being applied by the RAW converter.

Thanks to kevl for uploading the file.

Thanks for posting this!

Kev

kevl

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2012, 07:55:59 AM »
One thing I think we can all agree on:

The 5D Mark III is capable of amazing performance by creating usable files at ISOs which we often finding ourselves needing to use: 1600-6400. Of course I would clean up a file shot at 6400 before I printed it.

I can shoot a band in a night club and shoot night city street photos at 6400, and that's what I needed the 5D3 to be able to do. I don't "think" I'll "need" higher ISOs than that but time will tell. If higher ones clean up well then I may use them, but I don't "need" them.

The thread isn't really about this, but what would people say is the highest ISO the 5D3 can use to produce a usable print? Any examples?

Thanks for everyone that pushed about the cat image - I really appreciate all that I've learned because of it.

Kev

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2012, 07:55:59 AM »