5D Mark 3 - Please help!

[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.

 

[Kernuak]

5D3 Samples: LINK http://www.glenargov.com/Other/5D3-Test/24800438_Zw5jbH#!i=2029849496&k=73Mshxf

Looks a bit too mushy for a full-frame sensor. Though, I don't think it's a reason to return it. It's still a great camera and I don't think you can get better results from a Canon right now.

There also appears to be quite a bit of moisture in the air on that one, so pointing at a high level, with a telephoto lens will compress all the particles, diffracting the light and therefore softening the image. The most comparable image on the MkII had much less moisture in the air (yet still lacked detail) and was at ISO 100 instead of ISO 400. The image of the alsation I looked at had plenty of detail, despite being at ISO 1000.

 

[Richard Lane]

There are also some soft shots in the 5D2 gallery as well; namely the turtles, the dog lying down in the woods in front of the tree, the dog in the sun with it's mouth open, the bird on the branch, the Dog with the santa hat on.

I think the 2 best shots in the 5D2 gallery are the first building and helicopter, but after that it's a toss up.

Not including the hazy shot in the 5D3 gallery, I like the dragon fly shot, the buildings with the trees, the dog with his tongue hanging out, the cars.

Besides the first building shot from the 5D2, "I prefer the colors and contrast of the 5D3", specifically; the green grass behind the dog, dragon fly, yellow bike cart, blue sky white clouds and green trees)

It's too difficult to compare different cameras, with different lenses, in different lighting. Heck, just 2 hours will make all the difference in the world when it comes to lighting, and thats with using the same equipment.

If you need the features of the 5D3, then I would go for it, if you don't then I think you might as well keep your 5d2.

Rich

 

[HighDefJunkies]

Most people and reviews tell you to turn off all NR settings, LO, etc. I've seen thousands of jpg pics SOOC (including my own) and they are very sharp.
Your images posted are not the best examples. I honestly don't think it's the camera. Perhaps you might have have to MA your lens/lenses.
What picture style mode are you shooting in? I tend to bump up the sharpness a little bit more if i shoot jpgs, (though I mainly shoot in RAW) definitley makes a difference.

 

[wickidwombat]

why not just shoot in raw and have 1develop preset in lightroom then batch process it all .it will give much better results than the crap in camera processing and requires little effort

 

[Bosman]

why not just shoot in raw and have 1develop preset in lightroom then batch process it all .it will give much better results than the crap in camera processing and requires little effort

sorry wickid, i dont always shoot raw but one thing i'll say is Canons noise red in camera is far far far from crap.