5D Mark 3 - Please help!

[Cinnamon]

Gotta say, I feel the same... Your 5D II pics do look a little better...

I upgraded from a T2i to the 5D III, and thought my 5D III jpg's looked soft.
My raws, once 'finessed' and then converted to jpg look gorgeous though... I wonder if there's some simple setting we're missing...

Hey Luke, thanks for your response. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks the 5D2 results look better! I don't want to sound like a lunatic, as if I'm pixel-peeping needlessly and imagining issues that aren't there...but at the same time, if I drop $3,500 on a camera, I want to make sure it gives the results I paid for :-)

I'm interested to hear you thought your JPGs looked soft, too - if you think that coming from a crop-sensor body like the T2i (a great camera, I got many awesome shots from mine up until I upgraded to the 5DMk2), then it makes me feel a little better that I'm not the only one noticing it (even though I upgraded from a full-frame). While I'd prefer not to have 'mushy' JPGs, it's much more reassuring to hear it's a universal thing and not an issue with mine in particular.

And yes, I'd love it if it's just a setting we're missing that we can fix. While I admit that I don't do 100% cropping regularly, I do like to have the option to crop when necessary, and it is a little disappointing to see that crops on the 5D3 don't seem to have as much detail as those on my 5D2. Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D3's high ISO performance, autofocus, etc, but it seems annoying that to have more detail in my shots I have to turn down the noise-reduction - NR was part of why I was enamored with the 5D3 to begin with!

[Cinnamon]

Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29

citation: "Conclusion - Cons

Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO"

My solution: shoot in RAW.

Thanks for posting this link, Hugo! Before buying the 5D3 I read a ton of reviews/analyses, but I guess I was selectively looking for the good stuff, because I overlooked that part even though I do think I read the DPReview analysis on the 5D3...

While I'm not crazy about mushy results, I am relieved to see it might be an issue with the 5D3 more generally, and not my copy in particular...

Shooting in RAW is something I might consider, but for my work I generally need to shoot in JPEG. I shoot for an agency that requires uploaded images be in JPEG format, so even if I do shoot RAW I'd have to go through the process of converting them, which is more time-consuming for work which needs to be uploaded relatively quickly. That being said, I might try shooting in RAW+JPEG to dual cards (now I shoot with 2 cards, but in JPEG to both with one as a backup of the other).

Thank you!

[Cinnamon]

Have you tried any of the following:

Manual Focus and AF on the same scene tripod preferred.  Take off IS when on tripod however.  Shoot RAW to get max sharpness just for this test run.  leave default settings in DPP
Swapping the 5D2 and 5D3 with same lens on tripod - same scene
doing an AFMA if you have software such as Focal or Lens Align.  It is possible the lens is not out of alignment since last used with the 5D

Because the camera is new does not mean it is without fault.  I brought out of the box a new 400mm and the AF mechanism had issues, 580 EX II flash 2 months had issues, and 7D 9 months old the AF motor had issues.  Sure you can send it back but if you have 30 days to return and are local to Canon it might be worth dropping it off (what I did), they found the issues and all is good.  Had camera back in less than 5 days.

Thanks for replying. I have not had the time to thoroughly test out the 5D2 vs the 5D3. I have taken a number of shots with the 5D3, which is why I noticed the mushiness, but I haven't taken the time necessary to properly compare the 5D2 with the same lens from the same spot with the 5D3. While I've never done a microadjustment before, it's something I might try to see if it makes a difference...but again, I wasn't concerned about issues of focus, but detail. So even in out-of-focus areas, I expected to see more detail when zooming in than I did see. I've just been really busy to do a proper controlled experiment, which is why I genuinely appreciate everyone chiming in with their thoughts based on their own experience...

Thanks for your suggestion of sending it to Canon. It seems from some other comments that it might not even be necessary, that the 5D3 simply produces JPEGs without as much detail as the 5D2?

[Cinnamon]

Even if you turn off the noise reduction the 5D Mark III add a noise reduction to the images and you lost details.

If you compare ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 images no notice, that with ISO 6400 you lost additional details.

JPG-quality is definitely better if you shoot with the 5D Mark II.

Shoot in RAW and develop the images in DPP or Photoshop CS6.

I report this to Canon four month ago and Canon is not able to optimize the image quality with a firmware update until today. It´s a shame, because we all had payed a lot of money for the 5D Mark III.

Thank you for your post! I'm glad to hear that more and more it seems like it's not my 5D3 in particular that has soft JPEGs. On the one hand, it's a relief to see I wasn't just imagining stuff when I thought my 5D2 produced more detailed JPEGs...at the same time, I'm disappointed (like you) that Canon hasn't addressed this issue yet! I hope they have a firmware release at some point in the near future to fix this...thank you once again.

[Cinnamon]

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but why are you shooting jpegs on that sweet camera?

I agree, that they should still look better than the ones on the mark ii, but still.  You paid all that money for that camera, so why don't you get the most out of it.

I will say that I initially had my sd card backup in jpegs, but when I compared the raw to the jpegs the jpegs looked terrible compared to the raws, so now I just have it backup to raw also.

Thanks for your comments. No offense taken - the reason I shoot JPEGs is because most of the professional work I do is for an agency where the photos need to be uploaded in JPEGs, and there needs to be quick turnaround time. Therefore I like to shoot and submit with the least editing possible (frequently submit results SOOC). For example, I shot the Tony Awards here in NYC and filled up so many cards with thousands of shots, through which I just selected what I thought were the best, and uploaded those. While it would have been nice to tweak each shot's settings in RAW, then convert to JPEG, I wanted to upload as quickly as possible so they'll sell (a lot of times they sell within minutes of the event). Perhaps I'm mistaken about shooting in RAW, but it seems like a very time-intensive process to edit RAW shots?

When you say "I agree, that they should still look better than the ones on the mark ii"...do you mean that the 5D3's JPEGs should generally look better than the 5D2 but that they generally don't across all 5D3's, or that my 5D3 sample images should in fact look better than the 5D2 samples I posted and therefore there might be an issue with my 5D3? I would much prefer that it's a 5D3 issue and not an issue with the copy I got, and from some of the other posts it seems like that might in fact be the case?...

Thanks again for your post, and for everyone's help. I really appreciate you all taking your time to provide your thoughts...

[keithfullermusic]

I just meant in general they should look better.  I'm on my iPad, so it's kind of difficult to compare shots.

RAWs don't take any longer to edit than jpegs if you have a decent enough computer, but if you're just giving them the shots straight out of the camera then jpegs would be the way to go.  Also, I don't know why this is, but converting raws to jpegs in something like Lightroom makes them look a whole lot better than straight in camera jpegs.

[RLPhoto]

I've turned off all NR, ALO, and HTP to get the best JPG's from my MK3. I'd rather tweak the RAW's but those settings have gotten me the best results from my MK3.

[mdm041]

I have a MkIII but have never shot jpeg so I don't know. 

I can say that shooting raw and then importing into LR4 and creating a user preset to automatically do a few basic touchups is just as quick as saving them as jpegs and with LR you have the library feature to help find you pictures later.  You can then set up a quick export(Publishing) option that allows you to create the jpegs with just a few clicks.  Honestly, my workflow is actually faster now that I shoot raw in LR than before when I just shoot JPEG.

[Bosman]

Even if you turn off the noise reduction the 5D Mark III add a noise reduction to the images and you lost details.

If you compare ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 images no notice, that with ISO 6400 you lost additional details.

JPG-quality is definitely better if you shoot with the 5D Mark II.

Shoot in RAW and develop the images in DPP or Photoshop CS6.

I report this to Canon four month ago and Canon is not able to optimize the image quality with a firmware update until today. It´s a shame, because we all had payed a lot of money for the 5D Mark III.

Im sorry i dont agree.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8669.msg157477#msg157477
I will happily use in camera standard noise reduction because it looks better than what other software does in my opinion, if it doesn't in fact then the payoff is i don't work on that aspect later. My jpegs look stunning. I shoot all jpeg for sports and the 5dm3 is now my go to because of early morn low light and color is amazing. With the 70-200L II is shockingly good!

[Cinnamon]

I just meant in general they should look better.  I'm on my iPad, so it's kind of difficult to compare shots.

RAWs don't take any longer to edit than jpegs if you have a decent enough computer, but if you're just giving them the shots straight out of the camera then jpegs would be the way to go.  Also, I don't know why this is, but converting raws to jpegs in something like Lightroom makes them look a whole lot better than straight in camera jpegs.

Thanks for the tips, Keith. I might experiment with developing a RAW workflow in Lightroom, at least to try it out for shots I keep for personal use. Thanks for the help!

[Cinnamon]

I've turned off all NR, ALO, and HTP to get the best JPG's from my MK3. I'd rather tweak the RAW's but those settings have gotten me the best results from my MK3.

Thanks for the suggestions! Even with NR turned off, does the 5D3 handle high-ISO noise well? I'd imagine it wouldn't be as well as with NR turned on, but I wonder if it still is usable even with NR turned off...

Thanks for your tips about Auto Lighting Optimizer and Highlight Tone Priority, too. I might tweak those settings and see what happens. I appreciate you taking the time to give such useful advice.

[Cinnamon]

I have a MkIII but have never shot jpeg so I don't know. 

I can say that shooting raw and then importing into LR4 and creating a user preset to automatically do a few basic touchups is just as quick as saving them as jpegs and with LR you have the library feature to help find you pictures later.  You can then set up a quick export(Publishing) option that allows you to create the jpegs with just a few clicks.  Honestly, my workflow is actually faster now that I shoot raw in LR than before when I just shoot JPEG.

That's really cool to know that it's actually faster for you now, mdm041. I really should look into it then and develop a suitable workflow to efficiently process RAWs through Lightroom. It sounds very promising - I hope I'll have similar results!

[Cinnamon]

Even if you turn off the noise reduction the 5D Mark III add a noise reduction to the images and you lost details.

If you compare ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 images no notice, that with ISO 6400 you lost additional details.

JPG-quality is definitely better if you shoot with the 5D Mark II.

Shoot in RAW and develop the images in DPP or Photoshop CS6.

I report this to Canon four month ago and Canon is not able to optimize the image quality with a firmware update until today. It´s a shame, because we all had payed a lot of money for the 5D Mark III.

Im sorry i dont agree.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8669.msg157477#msg157477
I will happily use in camera standard noise reduction because it looks better than what other software does in my opinion, if it doesn't in fact then the payoff is i don't work on that aspect later. My jpegs look stunning. I shoot all jpeg for sports and the 5dm3 is now my go to because of early morn low light and color is amazing. With the 70-200L II is shockingly good!

Thanks for your comment, Bosman! Looking at that thread you linked to, it does look like in-camera NR is useful. Looking at that letters on that Monster can, it does look a little soft though??

Did you by any chance look at the gallery of sample shots I posted? I know they're not the best (took them so I can upload them to CR, not to highlight my photographic ability lol), but do you think the image detail quality is comparable to your 5D3 results? We both use the 70-200L II, but since you describe your JPEGs as "stunning" I was wondering if you thought they were of better detail when zoomed in than the samples I provided? I will definitely look into RAW shooting per everyone else's suggestions, but ideally if I could get great JPEGs SOOC that would be preferable. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how my 5D3 samples hold up when compared to your own...

Thanks again!

[Bosman]

Even if you turn off the noise reduction the 5D Mark III add a noise reduction to the images and you lost details.

If you compare ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 images no notice, that with ISO 6400 you lost additional details.

JPG-quality is definitely better if you shoot with the 5D Mark II.

Shoot in RAW and develop the images in DPP or Photoshop CS6.

I report this to Canon four month ago and Canon is not able to optimize the image quality with a firmware update until today. It´s a shame, because we all had payed a lot of money for the 5D Mark III.

Im sorry i dont agree.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8669.msg157477#msg157477
I will happily use in camera standard noise reduction because it looks better than what other software does in my opinion, if it doesn't in fact then the payoff is i don't work on that aspect later. My jpegs look stunning. I shoot all jpeg for sports and the 5dm3 is now my go to because of early morn low light and color is amazing. With the 70-200L II is shockingly good!

Thanks for your comment, Bosman! Looking at that thread you linked to, it does look like in-camera NR is useful. Looking at that letters on that Monster can, it does look a little soft though??

Did you by any chance look at the gallery of sample shots I posted? I know they're not the best (took them so I can upload them to CR, not to highlight my photographic ability lol), but do you think the image detail quality is comparable to your 5D3 results? We both use the 70-200L II, but since you describe your JPEGs as "stunning" I was wondering if you thought they were of better detail when zoomed in than the samples I provided? I will definitely look into RAW shooting per everyone else's suggestions, but ideally if I could get great JPEGs SOOC that would be preferable. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how my 5D3 samples hold up when compared to your own...

Thanks again!

Honestly they are 2 diff hand hold shots done quick to see what the images look like. The letter "E","G" look sharper than the no noise reduction image in my opinion but then whatever, its friggen iso 25,600 and the image color is barely diminished. I think plus at least now if it were sharpened it would look amazing anyway. I looked at the post u made, a couple just have some haze or flare going on. Else I am not sure what you hope me to see.

[Kernuak]

Regardless of whether it's better to shoot with or without noise reduction (first thing I do is switch it off), to get an idea of whether there is a problem, shoot some low ISO shots on a tripod, with it switched off. That will be the only way you can be sure whether or not there is a problem.