5d3 not soft anymore?

[Viggo]

Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?

Because I still think the 5d3 shots are softer than the 5d2, to the point like it feels like I should have glasses on to make them properly sharp..

They have detail and the images (other than sharpness) is just wonderful. But it feels like all my lenses have been downgraded.

And NO it's not a microadjustment issue or "the new complex af system". It's the sensor I guess...

 

[DarkKnightNine]

Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?

Because I still think the 5d3 shots are softer than the 5d2, to the point like it feels like I should have glasses on to make them properly sharp..

They have detail and the images (other than sharpness) is just wonderful. But it feels like all my lenses have been downgraded.

And NO it's not a microadjustment issue or "the new complex af system". It's the sensor I guess...

I'm having the same problems. Did you get your camera as soon as it was released. I posted a similar post that I was disappointed with the images coming out soft and took in several suggestions about the new AF and AFMA and still no avail. I was one of the first people in my country to get me hands on one so I'm starting to think maybe I just got a lemon.

 

[Viggo]

Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?

Because I still think the 5d3 shots are softer than the 5d2, to the point like it feels like I should have glasses on to make them properly sharp..

They have detail and the images (other than sharpness) is just wonderful. But it feels like all my lenses have been downgraded.

And NO it's not a microadjustment issue or "the new complex af system". It's the sensor I guess...

I'm having the same problems. Did you get your camera as soon as it was released. I posted a similar post that I was disappointed with the images coming out soft and took in several suggestions about the new AF and AFMA and still no avail. I was one of the first people in my country to get me hands on one so I'm starting to think maybe I just got a lemon.

I don't think your camera is faulty, neither is mine, but there is something off with the new sensor.

I also think the noise was way less on the 5d2 in the 100-400 range. I had NO noise on the 5d2 and now I have to use NR at 100 iso.. And yes, I have turned nr off when checking for detail and sharpness.

I am kind of dissapointed in the 5d3. It is a HUGE and FANTASTIC upgrade in nearly all aspects, absolutely everything excpet IQ is waaay better than any previous Canon. But the noisy shadows at 100-800 iso's compared to the 5d2 and the softness is very strange and very annoying. How can Canon seriously make a camera with 1 mp more and much softer images? I feel like I could have gotten by with cheaper lenses, because a good portion of the difference up to the one's I have have evened out.

Shouldn't be like that..

Here's an example done with LV and flash:

5d3 is the soft one..

 

[peederj]

Looks like the bottom image has purple fringing.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has touted the reduced video moiré of the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII. IMO, the technically easiest way for them to accomplish that reduction is a stronger AA filter. A stronger AA filter means softer still images.

@DarkKnightNine, in your post, you described 'soft' images wide open that were sharp when you stopped down - that's a different phenomenon than general 'softness' independent of aperture. I still think AFMA is the answer to at least part of your problem. Viggo's testing using Live View takes AFMA out of the loop since that only corrects phase detect AF (and is unnecessary with contrast detect AF). I'm not sure the issue Viggo reports is a 'lemon' - it may very well be a conscious decision on Canon's part to reduce moiré via a stronger AA filter, in which case, as the software engineers say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

 

[mrmarks]

A common problem with shooters complaining of soft images is the AI servo 1st and 2nd image priority setting. Set it to Focus priority always!

 

[fotoworx]

I borrowed a friends 5d3 for a few days because he's been bothered by the IQ. I've shot lots and compared images taken with it and my 5d2 and the 5d3 look softer and gives some images a plasticky look.

The owner still has his 5d2 and his thoughts are the same.

Every shot taken by the 5d3 needs to have to be put through high pass filter in photoshop to make them look as sharp as the 5d2 taken SOOC.

 

[mrmarks]

I borrowed a friends 5d3 for a few days because he's been bothered by the IQ. I've shot lots and compared images taken with it and my 5d2 and the 5d3 look softer and gives some images a plasticky look.

The owner still has his 5d2 and his thoughts are the same.

Every shot taken by the 5d3 needs to have to be put through high pass filter in photoshop to make them look as sharp as the 5d2 taken SOOC.

Post your sample shots and your setup details

 

[cpsico]

That is the scary part of being an early adopter, you get sucked in as a paying beta tester until all the bugs are worked out. The 5DII had its early issues and once refined it was a wonderful machine if not fast.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Mine are basically the same at low iso's, but, I AFMA all my lenses as the first step to using the camera.

Its a fairly common thing for new camera owners to feel their new camera is not as sharp, so I took it slow, AFMA my lenses, take simple images with a fast shutter and prove to myself that the camera produces sharp images. Then, if I later get a few that are not sharp, I know that the autofocus or the operator needs a little more practice.

 

[risc32]

If i had a mk2 i would post up a sampler like viggo did. I've also got some little white boxes! but alas. Well, i could throw up a mk3-vs-mk1, or a few others but i'm not sure how that would help anyone. I see what you are saying Viggo. DarkKnightnine's problems seem different to me. His EXIF data was wiped so i can only speculate, it's hard to find anything there really in critical focus, and since i don't know the shutter speed,f-stop focal length i would guessing. But since he has top gear stuff, and i'm feeling that he knows what he's doing, there wouldn't be much to learn there anyway. I have a close friend who does lots of band/concert photography. He's got a 30d,40d, sigma 30mm, my canon 100f2,and a canon 50f1.8. he gets it done.

 

[peederj]

Canon has touted the reduced video moiré of the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII. IMO, the technically easiest way for them to accomplish that reduction is a stronger AA filter. A stronger AA filter means softer still images.

@DarkKnightNine, in your post, you described 'soft' images wide open that were sharp when you stopped down - that's a different phenomenon than general 'softness' independent of aperture. I still think AFMA is the answer to at least part of your problem. Viggo's testing using Live View takes AFMA out of the loop since that only corrects phase detect AF (and is unnecessary with contrast detect AF). I'm not sure the issue Viggo reports is a 'lemon' - it may very well be a conscious decision on Canon's part to reduce moiré via a stronger AA filter, in which case, as the software engineers say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

Nah the moire problem on the 5D2 came at the stage of reducing resolution from 21MP to 2MP. It did it by line skipping, now they have a slightly less brutal approach in the use of binning, but that's long after the optical stage. That's all a digital processing issue that will not affect stills performance whatsoever.

The guy who advocated removing the OLPF from the 5D3 for video without even showing us test chart results to justify such violence was malignantly stupid.

I suspect the RAW converters haven't been debugged fully for the 5D3 yet, or the in-camera CA correction, or some other issue that is software-related and will be addressable. I don't think the 5D3 is less sharp than the 5D2 hardware-wise.

 

[Viggo]

Thanks guys, I appriciate the serious answers most of you give. I know how to use this camera, and I feel I never get that same crazy good sharpness I did from the mk2. Sure all my images are properly focused now, not 4 out of ten at best. But the one's that did stick on the 5d2 always put a huge smile on my face, but now it is absolutely lacking, and I don't really feel they're sharp even if I do pull harder in the sharpening in Lr.

I certainly hope this will be adressed by someone that has something to say in this business.

 

[spinworkxroy]

Sorry if this is a silly question on this thread.
But i have a few questions on why images appear soft.
1) Are the photos shows RAW converted to JPG or SOOC Jpg?
2) If it's SOOC Jpg, could CA lens correction be the culprit
3) If SOOC Jpg, is the NR turned on and cause the softness?

Somehow i feel the more technology they put into a camera to improve the high ISO, they sacrifice the sharpness….it's kinda like how a more powerful car will never be as efficient as a family sedan?

 

[Viggo]

Sorry if this is a silly question on this thread.
But i have a few questions on why images appear soft.
1) Are the photos shows RAW converted to JPG or SOOC Jpg?
2) If it's SOOC Jpg, could CA lens correction be the culprit
3) If SOOC Jpg, is the NR turned on and cause the softness?

Somehow i feel the more technology they put into a camera to improve the high ISO, they sacrifice the sharpness….it's kinda like how a more powerful car will never be as efficient as a family sedan?

They are shot in raw, and converted using the same sharpening settings in Lr.

 

[RJSY]

hello,

been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way

my 2 cents....

 

[Viggo]

hello,

been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way

my 2 cents....

Thanks, I'll sure give it try, I was hoping Lr would be better with the RC2, but it wasn't...

Edit: Tried DPP, but that software makes me want to kill somebody and I feel like I have no control, so skipped it... Hmm, also tried DxO, but same there. I guess I am waaay to used to Lr to ever use anything so much less useable...

 

[jaayres20]

I had a 5D2 for over 3 years and now I own two 5D3s and I find the 5D3s to be very sharp. When I use my 50mm 1.2 at f/2 it is too sharp for close portraits. I always find myself taking the clarity down a little in LR to make them softer. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the same. My two cameras were in the first or second round of shipping. I got them in the end of March and early April. I have never sat down and done an official test but after several photo shoots and 4000+ pictures at a wedding I am very satisfied. And the best part is having so many of them in focus!

 

[tron]

hello,

been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way

my 2 cents....

Thanks, I'll sure give it try, I was hoping Lr would be better with the RC2, but it wasn't...

Edit: Tried DPP, but that software makes me want to kill somebody and I feel like I have no control, so skipped it... Hmm, also tried DxO, but same there. I guess I am waaay to used to Lr to ever use anything so much less useable...

Please do try the updated DPP. This is very serious and many may use your findings to base future decisions.

You don't have to use DPP in a sophisticated way. Just use it to compare in 100% the same photo shot with a 5D2 and 5D3 (and use LV to focus). Your previous photo could be a perfect example.

 

[Viggo]

hello,

been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way

my 2 cents....

Thanks, I'll sure give it try, I was hoping Lr would be better with the RC2, but it wasn't...

Edit: Tried DPP, but that software makes me want to kill somebody and I feel like I have no control, so skipped it... Hmm, also tried DxO, but same there. I guess I am waaay to used to Lr to ever use anything so much less useable...

Please do try the updated DPP. This is very serious and many may use your findings to base future decisions.

You don't have to use DPP in a sophisticated way. Just use it to compare in 100% the same photo shot with a 5D2 and 5D3 (and use LV to focus). Your previous photo could be a perfect example.

I was kind of hoping someone else who have used DPP and Lr before to do this, I have no idea to know how to even make the images comparable. I tried this and that, but maaan does Canon have something to learn about usabillity of their raw-converter. I feel like I'm in a maze with no exit.....

Here's just imported and sharpened with the same settings, I have never seen Lr sharpen the image like DPP did, it is amazing! Wth??

But something tells me my DPP isn't the updated one, as it did an even worse job with the 5d3 file.. I'll see if I have to update, and try yet again..