Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?

[drjlo]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Good to know. I must sigh because I have my 5DIII and have been trying to decide whether to send it back or not. I do not have 5DII on hand to compare so must rely on others who have both. I am finding that I am *still* using the spot focus most despite all the AF points of MkIII, and if MkII actually may be at least as clean or better at low ISO, I may need to just get a MkII instead. High ISO is great, but honestly, I always try to keep my ISO at or below 1600-3200 max anyway by introducing good lighting.

 

[albertocanetta]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Good to know. I must sigh because I have my 5DIII and have been trying to decide whether to send it back or not. I do not have 5DII on hand to compare so must rely on others who have both. I am finding that I am *still* using the spot focus most despite all the AF points of MkIII, and if MkII actually may be at least as clean or better at low ISO, I may need to just get a MkII instead. High ISO is great, but honestly, I always try to keep my ISO at or below 1600-3200 max anyway by introducing good lighting.

If you want I send you some files...About the iso, since the file is so soft, it is obvious that you haven' t so much noise... I just bought the MK3 because the autofocus, but I can't accept to have a worse file than the MK2. I really hope to have a damaged body but it seems that it is not only me to have this problem...

 

[marekjoz]

I have been very happy with the focus on my two 5d3 bodies. I've shot two weddings with them now.

This shot was hand held using 24-105 and a 12mm extension tube.

Chris - are you glad with the quality of pics with the use of extension tube?

I'm not Chris, but extension tubes are just hollow tubes with no lens or glass elements in the tube, so IQ will not suffer like it does with teleconverters, which do have lots of extra lens elements. Extension tube will only change the focal length closer for more magnification but now one can't focus near infinity.

Thanks for explanation though I know the difference and the way ETs work. Since I don't own my ET and never experimented with one, I'm just curious in impressions of people who did. I don't own true macro lenses and am aware of IQ degradation without it. All I did was stacking lenses 24-105 and 70-200 with 17-40 (front to front with 17-40 dettached from body) to achieve macro effect and was not amazed with IQ at all, although magnification was really big

 

[Martin]

The photo above taken with 5D3 looks like out of focus for me. IMHO it is not possible that there is such a difference. Unbelievable. I will rather wait for more opinions/tests before my purchase/switch. Hope that is back or front focus only, or software problem, however if you are a pro you are probable aware of this so...sensor placed badly...or really such a soft images-can't be. look at "compact disc player" sing- it's too soft in comparison to 5D2, the difference is very significant.

 

[albertocanetta]

The focus is made in live view.
If the sensor were placed in wrong way, I had the problem only in one part of the photo instead of the all area.

Yes, I'm very surprised too, and I made several tests, but with the same result...

 

[JR]

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.

Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got. It was noticably softer then my mkII. I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did. Ultimately I returned my unit. :-[

 

[albertocanetta]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

 

[Marsu42]

Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got. It was noticably softer then my mkII. I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did. Ultimately I returned my unit. :-[

This is hilarious - I just cannot believe Canon screwed up that badly. And please don't return your 5d3s and keep selling 5d2s: I want to get one used ... so let's hope that maybe the mk3 has been released to early and the issues will disappear in later bodies or firmware updates - afaik it's called "banana ware" since it ripens when it's with the customer

 

[Viggo]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

If Canon can't fix this in firmware and they did this on purpose to get better video they need a SERIOUS asskicking, and that EVERYBODY return their mk3's to the dealer. Send them a message....

I'm hopefully downgrading to the 5d3 tomorrow, I will be keeping it though, and hope for Canon to get it right with a new firmware. But Canon needs to earn everybody's trust again, because lately they've been screwing up WAY too much....

 

[gene_can_sing]

The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.

James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.

Here's the article. I believe it applies to both stills and video

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

A second article on the fix

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/

 

[albertocanetta]

Yes...I can believe it.
But I will not open the mk3!!!!
I'll just return to the shop until something happens...

 

[altenae]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

If Canon can't fix this in firmware and they did this on purpose to get better video they need a SERIOUS asskicking, and that EVERYBODY return their mk3's to the dealer. Send them a message....

I'm hopefully downgrading to the 5d3 tomorrow, I will be keeping it though, and hope for Canon to get it right with a new firmware. But Canon needs to earn everybody's trust again, because lately they've been screwing up WAY too much....

screwing up way to much ????????!

 

[Policar]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

Have you tried comparing results between raw and jpeg? I've found jpegs to be okay from the 5DIII. It's pretty bright outside maybe I will give this a try...

 

[7enderbender]

The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.

James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.

Here's the article. I believe it applies to both stills and video

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

A second article on the fix

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/

Wow. That's bold. But this is kind of what Nikon now offers as one of the D800 options, right? To me so far all cameras without that filter have looked better. I would think it's one of the reasons why the Leica M9 looks better?

 

[Tracy Pinto]

I'm not sure I would risk disassembling my new camera for that kind of tiny improvement. The images it produces are already outstanding.

 

[drjlo]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

If Canon compromised stills for video, they did not do a good job on the video part, either.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

 

[Kernuak]

Two points.
The article that appeared on the CPN Europe site actually stated that the filter has been reduced in strength. Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment.
When the 7D first came out, Adobe RAW produced very soft images which improved once it had been refined with a couple of updates. I wouldn't make too many critical comparisons at the moment with what using what is little more than beta versions of software. The difference when the 7D came out, there wasn't the same issue with DPP.

 

[Viggo]

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...

If Canon can't fix this in firmware and they did this on purpose to get better video they need a SERIOUS asskicking, and that EVERYBODY return their mk3's to the dealer. Send them a message....

I'm hopefully downgrading to the 5d3 tomorrow, I will be keeping it though, and hope for Canon to get it right with a new firmware. But Canon needs to earn everybody's trust again, because lately they've been screwing up WAY too much....

screwing up way to much ????????!

YES! I mentioned it before, but the S100 had an off center lens making the first batch useless. The G1x has useless AF and VF and costs way too much. The 60d lacking AFMA. The 1d X that never comes out along with the 300, 400, 500, 600, 200-400, 24-70 II. The WHOLE 5d3 shabang with tons of issues, listed in another topic by me, and also including that it now has NO user interchangable focusing screens

And even the short lived 1d4 that didn't get either the double crosstype af point AND spot-af (with all lenses) like the dirtcheap 7d got not long after.

And further back , the 1d mkIII with it's incredibly usless AF-system.

At the same time, I never hear of any issues like this over at the enemy's camp and they're putting out products that work and that people can trust when using it, and also trust that the cash they pay aren't wasted. They don't need to make excuses for nikon. You have no idea what it feels like to buy a 1d mkIII and get what I got. They tried to cover it up and releasing firmware, but then FINALLY admitting it sucked and tried TWO hardware fixes, but it still wasn't any good. And now with all of the 5d3 issues, the worst is the soft images, due the fact that they care more about video, than still pictures, because that can't be fixed in firmware.

I could go on if you like?

 

[Alker]

Yes I like that...

In all the years me and a lot of other photographers were able to make TOP quality images with Canon equipment.

I have had it will all the complains about Canon.
Sell everything and buy another brand and see what happens then.

 

[CNfuzzy]

I received my 5DIII a couple of days ago, and haven't done extensive testing with it yet, but I plan on doing some studio shots tonight. I did notice in some of my high ISO comparisons that the 5DII seemed sharper in some instances. And yes, I was shooting RAW and used the LR ACR 6.7RC to do the conversion.

Then, while looking again at the DPReview comparison, looking at the RAW versions of that studio image they shot I'm noticing the same thing ( but I don't know what method they used ).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

My MK3 is sharper than my MK2. Attached 300% crops - same lens - it was microadjusted on both cameras.