5D Mark III ISO 100 RAW's - NEW

[wockawocka]

The images are soft but only because a Zoom Lens was used and the focus point wasn't on the eyes.

An 85L stopped down to F/11, which is what should of been used, would give completely different results.

 

[e-d0uble]

I'm not a huge fan of these particular samples either as they do look a tad mushy (I'm really tired of the word "soft") for f/7.1 ISO100 and (apparent) flash. Camera raw does apply a "25" for sharpening by default and they still don't look too hot. Bumping this value in Camera raw, editing in photoshop and applying high-pass, unsharp mask, or even smart sharpening seems to help as well but I almost never need to do this with my 5DII raws.

I also got a good chuckle as well, as I noticed that the shooter used "AI Focus", which I never had good luck with on any Canon body. Straight out of camera raws from my 5dII usually look nice and sharp nearly all the time. I'm certainly not canceling my 5dIII pre-order or "switching to Nikon" due to these but they aren't fabulous. I'll also state for the record that I'm by no means a professional photographer or expert post-processor.

 

[simonxu11]

It is soft.

 

[Canihaspicture]

It is soft.

... They make a pill for that.

 

[simonxu11]

It is soft.

... They make a pill for that.

How do you know that?? ??? ???

 

[1982chris911]

Well what you miss here and I guess everyone does so far is that these pictures where taken with a 24-105mm f4.0 L which per se isn't the best lens for portrait work and is known to have issues in mid and outer parts of the image.

Secondly you can clearly see that the focus pane was not on the face when you look at the tissue of the dress.

Third it does not say if the lens was in tripod mode (IS off) or shot handheld (IS on or off). In at least two cases (if shot handheld no matter if IS was used or not) at 1/125sec the image could look like this and the issue would be in no way related to the camera...

To really evaluate the cams performance in regards of sharpness an image taken with a 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 300mm f2.8 IS II at a value 1/1600 sec would be far more interesting.

Just my 2 cents ...

 

[aprotosimaki]

Dear Martin,

Long time lurker here. I was not planning on registering but I simply could not take any more of your little show. I have been taking notice of your consistent behavior throughout several topics and just decided to skim through your posts and oh, boy... You began, months before 5DM3 was released, complaining about this and that, how you used to be a Nikon-guy a year ago and were seriously contemplating going back, and you go on to complain about leaked 5D specs, and when 5D comes out, you complain a little bit more, followed by further complaints about sample images. Each time with a definitive statement on how that is it and you are certainly switching back to Nikon. "I know it is going to be expensive but I have to do it". OHHH-KAY! We are bloody idiots on the verge of jumping ship and you are that guy who will give the final nudge, eh? And if that's not it, that's even worse... Like if you do not have a hidden agenda and are simply somewhat neurotic. Because people are taking your comments seriously and responding to your monological rants.

Please, let it go.

I agree with you. It is painful to say the least.