5D MarkIII Low ISO performance in shadows

[Marsu42]

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ?

To the op: You bought yourself the wrong camera body and should have gotten a Nikon d800 instead that improves in *exactly* these both "issues" - dynamic range and low iso performance. Lots of $$$ for gear doesn't tell you what is right for you or how to use it.

It is also correct that people somehow manage to get ok exposures even out of the 5d2/5d3 sensors .. and to answer the original question: No, this is not how it is supposed to be, expose to the right to decompress shadows while avoiding to clip highlights = max. dynamic range with min. noise.

 

[Invertalon]

Are you by chance using LR4/LR3 to process these files?

I noticed LR has the tendency to add weird noise patterns and blotches in shadow areas... That does not happen with other RAW converter software. I believe this has been discussed in detail elsewhere as well. I have noticed this forever, even with the 5D2 and 7D prior. Only happens in the darkest shadow areas. It does NOT happen with in-camera JPEG's or if I process using DPP. But I hate DPP, so I use LR4 and suck it up.

EDIT: I saw the EXIF and see you did use LR 4.1... Try processing those in DPP or something and see if it is still there and report back.

 

[SteenerMe]

Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.

 

[Alexandros]

Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.

Instead of bashing could you please keep your mouth shut. I tried to be polite before but I am losing my temper. Or t least think before you type. I don't have the right to have a dark underexposed looking image? The shadows should be clean in such situation. I didn't want criticism regarding my images or my technique I just wanted to figure out the noise issue.

 

[Marsu42]

I noticed LR has the tendency to add weird noise patterns and blotches in shadow areas...

*Autotone* in LR has the tendency to raise the shadows in underexposed or dark pictures no matter what, resulting in noise & banding in shadow areas. The op's picture is such a case with the small white flowers and the dark red (= only 1 channel) background. In these cases, you have to tune exposure down again and/or lower shadows, Lightroom cannot fix a sensor's deficiencies.

I don't think Adobe Raw Converter adds more noise than DPP - it's *raw* after all. But I'm happy if you prove me wrong and I stand corrected.

 

[Kernuak]

Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.

Instead of bashing could you please keep your mouth shut. I tried to be polite before but I am losing my temper. Or t least think before you type. I don't have the right to have a dark underexposed looking image? The shadows should be clean in such situation. I didn't want criticism regarding my images or my technique I just wanted to figure out the noise issue.

Actually, whether or not the image is underexposed is extremely pertinent (I don't know whether yours is or not). If you underexpose (either accidentally, deliberately or as a result of using HTP), then noise will be significantly higher. Each time you increase exposure by a stop in post, you double the amount of noise. It's a matter of physics, regardless of how much or little noise the sensor captures to start with. Also, as others have said, the early versions of Lightroom after a camera release have a tendency to process images sub-optimally. For example, when I first got my 7D, the images looked soft with double exposure-like effects on the transitions between very dark and very light areas (such as the black and white feathers of oystercatchers). Upgrading from LR2 to LR3 mostly resolved the issue.
In order to test whether it is a sensor issue, you need to make sure you expose correctly (I actually tend to err on the side of slight overexposure to minimise noise), with HTP switched off and processed by both LR and DPP. It is the only way you can be sure it isn't a problem with the sensor.

 

[SteenerMe]

Sure you have the right to have bad underexposed images. But then why complain about it. Maybe if you overexpose by 5 stops you can complain about the camera making everything so white and blown out. It must be a bad sensor. Not a bad photographer. Knucklehead.

 

[sparda79]

The noise seems quite bad even when the ACR settings are set to default. But since you enable HTP, I'll just wait until you upload some RAWs with HTP disabled, and ignore all the rude comments.

 

[RLPhoto]

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...
Is there something wrong with my copy or is it supposed to be like this ?

Did you turn off all ALO and HTP on your camera? It always adds extra noise in you photos as it tries to pull more details in the blacks. I never use either on my 7D and clean files.

 

[wickidwombat]

I turn off all that in camera process junk, the raws are clean, I wish You could trade in useless features for features you actually want like trade in all this waffle and in camera HDR for the ability to customise everything more

or for video guys enable some fancy shooting mode i dont know anything about but they really might like

 

[MarkWebbPhoto]

Shoot RAW to get the best results. Plus most people aren't going to be pixel peeping at your photos. They will just be seeing 1000 x 1000 pixels at the maximum on the internet. The 5D2 is clean enough up to ISO 1600 and the 5D3 is clean enough up to ISO 3200ish. If you tend to print extremely large images then that is another story.

I will say that I was hoping for this issue to be resolved with the 5D3 but when I tested one on a cloudy day at ISO 800, zoomed in, and saw all that noise I was immediately turned off. Canon really didn't make much of an improvement in high ISO but the images I have seen from the 1DX are a completely different story. I can't tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 on the 1DX. Clean as can be, I'll take two please.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?

No, you are not the only one. I guess you haven't been following the dynamic range debate lately?

Canon is known for banding (pattern noise) and now also underwhelming dynamic range. The 5D line has always had banding, and it seems that Canon doesn't know how to fix it, nor how to increase low ISO DR (at least not during the last 5 years).

Nikon on the other hand, are leaping forward with the sensor in their D800. Well, they are getting their sensors from Sony, but that doesn't really matter.

Canon needs to step up.

Please post your images showing the issue. Show your D800 images as well. I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.
Here is one from my 5D MK II, notice the severe banding at the left --- wait, thats just a window shade.

I at ISO 51200

And from my D800 at ISO 6400. Both have a ton of NR. Very grainy, and not much more detail that the 5D MK III at ISO 51200.

 

[Marsu42]

I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.

For a comparison, the d800 images should be downsized to 22mp as well - it's like the Canon aps-c 18mp vs 15mp vs 12mp sensors: While more mp might have more noise at 100% crop, downsizing them gives the newer sensor an edge. So more mp are there if you need them, but there's no real disadvantage iq-wise. But of course all reviews show that the d800 is not made for shooting at iso6400+, and wedding photogs are able to stay at iso1600/iso3200 mostly anyway.

 

[Viggo]

I find metering in almost all cameraes to be quite a bit under for MY taste. I like to overexpose both the 5d2 and 5d3 in "normal" light by at least one stop. It gives me VERY little noise with all NR turned off in Lr, and nothing when some applied.

Do your NR BEFORE sharpening and use the masking option to not sharpen the areas that aren't edges. And if you want an underexposed image, do it in post.

 

[awinphoto]

I find metering in almost all cameraes to be quite a bit under for MY taste. I like to overexpose both the 5d2 and 5d3 in "normal" light by at least one stop. It gives me VERY little noise with all NR turned off in Lr, and nothing when some applied.

Do your NR BEFORE sharpening and use the masking option to not sharpen the areas that aren't edges. And if you want an underexposed image, do it in post.

Or you can do what pro photographers have done for decades, get a cheap sekonic incident light meter, and you will get accurate metering for the rest of your days =)

 

[Dr. Benway]

Another example of 5D MKIII shadow noise.

You can see the LR metadata.

Is that shadow noise acceptable?

I will have some 8x10's printed tomorrow to see how this noise looks when printed.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe work on getting your exposure correct in camera before crying about some noise in shadows at 100% crop. If you underexpose on any camera the shadows will be filled with noise. Why not work on your skills before whining on the forum. Bah

Even with proper exposure it's still an issue. But you do have to be extra careful with exposure with non-ISO-less cams.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?

No, you are not the only one. I guess you haven't been following the dynamic range debate lately?

Canon is known for banding (pattern noise) and now also underwhelming dynamic range. The 5D line has always had banding, and it seems that Canon doesn't know how to fix it, nor how to increase low ISO DR (at least not during the last 5 years).

Nikon on the other hand, are leaping forward with the sensor in their D800. Well, they are getting their sensors from Sony, but that doesn't really matter.

Canon needs to step up.

Please post your images showing the issue. Show your D800 images as well. I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.
Here is one from my 5D MK II, notice the severe banding at the left --- wait, thats just a window shade.

I at ISO 51200

And from my D800 at ISO 6400. Both have a ton of NR. Very grainy, and not much more detail that the 5D MK III at ISO 51200.

He is talking about LOW iso only. Nobody said the 5D3 DR is worse at 6400 or 51200 or whatever.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.

For a comparison, the d800 images should be downsized to 22mp as well - it's like the Canon aps-c 18mp vs 15mp vs 12mp sensors: While more mp might have more noise at 100% crop, downsizing them gives the newer sensor an edge. So more mp are there if you need them, but there's no real disadvantage iq-wise. But of course all reviews show that the d800 is not made for shooting at iso6400+, and wedding photogs are able to stay at iso1600/iso3200 mostly anyway.

Yes, turn my 36mp body into a 22mp body in order to make it look better. Thats how DXO rationalizes the high per pixel noise into something usable. Maybe if they resized it to one pixel it would be perfect.
The point is that there is no holy grail, and all the posting being done by those who just read articles and have zero experience with either camera is not very helpful.
Obviously, my D800 can take some amazing images at ISO 100 - 400, but just like the OP notes with his 5D MK III, as soon as you get into shadows and the ISO gets up over 400, you have to be more careful with exposures, and at very high ISO's, the 5D MK III has more DR than the D800.

 

[SiliconVoid]

Most of the shadow "noise" I see people complaining about (including those in this thread) are a result of an improperly exposed shot - not a failing of the camera.

I do understand that many people today feel a modern camera should be able to take a great image (for them)... but that just isn't the case, and hopefully never will be. If you want a camera that takes average exposed images 98% of the time, zero depth of field, everything from foot to horizon in focus, etc, etc - get a p&s.