So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!

[JR]

I have been playing with the 5DmkII for two days now shooting lots of pictures and man am I frustrated! WHile high ISO is better, I stuggled with the following:

1- ISO 100-400 is not better than my 5DmkII and actually at ISO 400 where a lot of my picture are taking with a flash I actually see more noise - ok I know the official RAW converter are not out yet so I was ready to live it until final software come out BUT:

2- Beleive or not over 50-70% of my shots are either soft or have way less details then my mkII ever had! Either I have a bad unit or I am really dumb! Or both!

I tried every AF mode and even in single point or spot AF the camera is not in focus compared to my mkII...so as frustrating as this is, I decided I was not going to spend more time trying to make this work, not for the price tag I paid! SO I am returning the unit tomorrow. I really hope I got a bad unit!

Anyone else has gotten some reservation with their new toys or am I the only one dis-appointed?

P.S.: I hope the 1DX is better then this!

 

[nikkito]

Sorry to hear that

 

[JR]

Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!

 

[AnselA]

Sounds like you need to return it.

 

[Fleetie]

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!

 

[wickidwombat]

Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!

I'm very keen to hear how you new unit goes because so far I'm concerned about the IQ of the images too
I'll probably wait unti proper raw converters are out before i look at taking it back
I think canon need to get a firmware update out STAT that fixes the horrid in camera jpeg processing too
I think i'd be happier with jpegs out of a rebel than this thing puts out

 

[Fleetie]

I did turn sharpness down on my 5D3 from the default setting, because the dark border problem was offensive at pixel level.

Having done that, I think I'm happy with it.

 

[tasteofjace]

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!

Hey FLEETIE

Can you post one of your shots? A JPEG version and possibly a link to the RAW as well? I'd love to see one!

I'm also loving my 5DMKIII - Images are looking sharp and very low noise

 

[JR]

Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!

I'm very keen to hear how you new unit goes because so far I'm concerned about the IQ of the images too
I'll probably wait unti proper raw converters are out before i look at taking it back
I think canon need to get a firmware update out STAT that fixes the horrid in camera jpeg processing too
I think i'd be happier with jpegs out of a rebel than this thing puts out

For sure I will wait for proper converter to be out indeed!

 

[Fleetie]

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!

Hey FLEETIE

Can you post one of your shots? A JPEG version and possibly a link to the RAW as well? I'd love to see one!

I'm also loving my 5DMKIII - Images are looking sharp and very low noise

Maximum attachment size allowed is 4096kB (4MB), so I can't. The JPGs are 7 to 12MB.

I don't have any fancy web accounts that'll store files that size.

If you really want, give me your email address and I'll mail you a JPG straight out of camera.

 

[Bosman]

Sorry to hear that...I think you got a dud because my experience is that all my lenses look dead on sharp and in focus even in low light. Sometimes a sensor can be out of its proper alignment making all the lenses work improperly, that may be the issue...Dude, that sux.

 

[Blaze]

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!

Hey FLEETIE

Can you post one of your shots? A JPEG version and possibly a link to the RAW as well? I'd love to see one!

I'm also loving my 5DMKIII - Images are looking sharp and very low noise

Maximum attachment size allowed is 4096kB (4MB), so I can't. The JPGs are 7 to 12MB.

I don't have any fancy web accounts that'll store files that size.

If you really want, give me your email address and I'll mail you a JPG straight out of camera.

You don't need any fancy web accounts. Just use something like minus.com.
(Note that unlike say imgur.com, minus.com leaves the metadata intact.)


Example:
Here's a direct link to an 8.61 MB JPG: http://i.minus.com/ibmN49uCtD9Jov.jpg
Here's a link to download the original 25.76 MB CR2: http://minus.com/m1FHpveLO/

 

[jlev23]

mine is very sharp as well, even with the sharpening turned to zero and the kit 24-105mm.
maybe your lighting is bad? or your auto focus setting is not properly set for what content you are shooting.
or you have a bad unit, bring it back and try another, maybe try it before you leave the store, most places return in 30 days, but make sure you are not shooting with out of the box settings, customize to what you are doing, its really a pro camera this time.

 

[bchernicoff]

I don't think the in-camera JPEGs are very good at this point either. I never shot JPEG on my Mk II, so I don't really know big the RAW vs. JPEG difference was in detail in good light, but with the Mk III the JPEGs loose a lot of detail compared to RAW images process with Adobe ACR 6.7 RC1 / DNG convertor. I think that Canon has a RAW processing problem in both the DPP software and the camera firmware. The Adobe processed RAWs show the detail is there. I've been looking at this a lot and would be glad to take a look at one of your RAW files compared to mine. You can sign up for a free dropbox.com account and upload it to your Public folder to share. You can do it all through their website if you don't want to install their software. My gmail address is the same as my username here.

 

[RunAndGun]

I received mine Friday(3/23) and used it Saturday with my 70-200mm f/2.8 v2 and I have to say that the new focus system is NICE. I actually had a lot of fun shooting people running around(it was a "mud run") because the focus WORKED. I was outside, so after the sun came out from behind the clouds I was shooting at ISO 100 and everything looked pretty darn good when I got back home. I will say there IS something wrong with DPP(which I normally LOVE). My MKII images have always looked great with DPP, but the MKIII images on the new DPP don't seem as sharp or vibrant(I do shoot RAW). BUT when I look at them with Image Browser(full screen and even 100%), they look MUCH better, like MKII images used to on DPP.

Hopefully you just got a bum steer and they will replace it. It's no fun when you're the one that get's the bad apple, but it happens. Nothing man made is ever 100% perfect and sometimes we forget just how complicated and precise these machines are, because most of the time they do "just work" when grab them and use them.

 

[smirkypants]

I vote for micro focus adjustment. Just give it a try. One of my Canons front focuses by about an inch with all lenses at about 50mm. It's easy to fix but it is annoying knowing that it's not perfect out of the box.

 

[Fleetie]

Here's a pixel-level zoom of a straight-out-of-camera JPEG I took this afternoon. (If it works on here!)

 

[Fleetie]

Closer in...

 

[bchernicoff]

Uh, those seem to be magnified way beyond 100%

 

[Fleetie]

Yes, they are WAY beyond 100%.

The idea was to make it clear what was happening at individual pixel level.