Is the 5D Mark III Sharp??

[JohnX]

Hello all, I've been lurking behind the scene ever since the launch of the Mark III and there has been numerous threads about how soft the 5d mark III is. This almost deterred me from purchasing the camera, however, since I sold my old Xsi in anticipation of purchasing this camera I was camera-less and had to take the chance. I can say for sure that I couldn't be any happier with its performance. Below is a sample of how sharp the camera can be with the kit lens.

100% Crop

 

[tasteofjace]

Looks great! Yeah, I'm not sure what all the nay saying is all about?? Maybe the expectations for this camera were too high?? Much like any sequel to a good movie.

I'm very happy with mine, that's for sure!

 

[dunkers]

I thought the only complaints about the images being soft was when it was processed using DPP, which is due to a bug/glitch.

 

[JohnX]

Possible, however, I perceived it as being soft in general from the various threads I've read. This camera is phenomenal in every way. Now I can't ever blame the camera for my lack of photography skills.

 

[wickidwombat]

is that the jpg out of camera or a converted RAW?

I think the 5Dmk2 set a pretty high bar to be honest but it looks like you AF is working properly
what AF settings were you using by the way?

 

[tasteofjace]

I thought the only complaints about the images being soft was when it was processed using DPP, which is due to a bug/glitch.

There's about a bazillion remarks on here that refer the camera just being naturally soft aside from the perceived DPP bug.

I think many of the issues are definitely user error. I know I was having issues at first, and it was definitely my own fault. I'm getting it all dialed in now!

 

[JohnX]

is that the jpg out of camera or a converted RAW?

I think the 5Dmk2 set a pretty high bar to be honest but it looks like you AF is working properly
what AF settings were you using by the way?

This photo was off of JPEG since Aperture does not natively support CR2s from the mark III yet. I was using the AF point expansion a little left of the eye at f/5.6 1/400s and at 105mm.

 

[wickidwombat]

cool, I think you will be amazed at how much better the raw of that shot looks anyway
do you have a fast aperture lens? a nifty fifty or know someone who does so you can try it out very wide open?
thats where i am finding mine goes all haywire at relatively narrow apertures its ok but go wide and everything goes to hell. and i'm not even pushing the lenses right down to f1.4 (which they preform perfectly at on all my other cameras) even stopped down to f2 or f2.8 they are miss focusing bigtime.

Believe me i'm not taking the camera back because of a few bad shots. I have spent a massive amount of time troubleshooting this and I am certain the problem lies in the AF on my copy (however it seems lots of people are getting good results, I just suggest you check it thoroughly while you are still in a window you can return it if you do find problems a $100 50mm f1.8 will show up any wide aperture focusing issues if they are there.

 

[wickidwombat]

If you shoot raw then the camera is neither sharp nor soft.

A lens can be soft if its focus alignment does not match up with the camera (see discussions on micro-focus adjust).

A JPEG can be soft if the conversion algorithm is not up to scratch.

That's it.

There's no such thing as a sharp or soft DSLR.

I would disagree about raw not being sharp
you can clearly see if its sharper or not when you open the raw file
the camera applys too much smudging to its jpg rendering IMO
And you dont think i have micro adjusted this thing to hell and back?
I even posted the raws up here

 

[Tcapp]

If you shoot raw then the camera is neither sharp nor soft.

A lens can be soft if its focus alignment does not match up with the camera (see discussions on micro-focus adjust).

A JPEG can be soft if the conversion algorithm is not up to scratch.

That's it.

There's no such thing as a sharp or soft DSLR.

Not sure that's entirely true... If you remove the AA filter, the camera will be sharper. It doesn't make the lens sharper, the camera gets sharper.

 

[Louis]

that is soft to me at 100%

 

[wockawocka]

All that matters is that the image is in focus.

Sharpness is something else and is very irrelevant for all uses except forums like this!

On facebook, do you zoom to 100%? Printed, do you Zoom to 100%?

 

[AUGS]

cool, I think you will be amazed at how much better the raw of that shot looks anyway
do you have a fast aperture lens? a nifty fifty or know someone who does so you can try it out very wide open?
thats where i am finding mine goes all haywire at relatively narrow apertures its ok but go wide and everything goes to hell. and i'm not even pushing the lenses right down to f1.4 (which they preform perfectly at on all my other cameras) even stopped down to f2 or f2.8 they are miss focusing bigtime.
Believe me i'm not taking the camera back because of a few bad shots. I have spent a massive amount of time troubleshooting this and I am certain the problem lies in the AF on my copy (however it seems lots of people are getting good results, I just suggest you check it thoroughly while you are still in a window you can return it if you do find problems a $100 50mm f1.8 will show up any wide aperture focusing issues if they are there.

Hey Wickid, firstly, I appreciate all the testing you have done and reported back here. When I tried to reproduce your work, it confirmed to me that I had a good (or better) copy.
I just checked mine using the 50/f1.8 at 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 16.0 and found all focused really quickly and sharp on an ISO12233 chart. I used single point focus on the centre of the chart, tripod, remote release and mirror lockup to make sure I didn't disrupt the focus or create camera shake myself.
Now as you can see, this is VERY controlled conditions, and I haven't tried it in real world conditions at lower than f5.6 (and that was sharp), but this gives me great confidence going forward.

 

[psolberg]

I don't think it is any less sharp or sharper than the original. at just 22MP, it isn't going to blow anyone's socks off. the video on the other hand is so soft that I've seen it referred to as waxy.

 

[Tijn]

If a raw image is "soft" then it is because of the software/lens, not the camera.

Saying that, you're denying that the sensor and camera have any role in achieving sharpness, provided the image is properly (physically) focused.
You're implying that two different types of 18Mpx sensors will always achieve the same sharpness in RAW. This overlooks things like readout noise, pixel area coverage (think gapless microlenses), in-camera AA filters, sensor well leakage, and perhaps even the in-camera RAW creation process itself. These things can definately influence things like image sharpness, behind the lens and before further processing software comes into play.

 

[risc32]

I happen to of taken very similar photos of my dog the other day with my mk3. i used my 70-200 2.8, not sure right now about the exact values, but the focus was spot on. I think it's pretty good when you can make out your house in the reflection of an eye. When i get to my computer i'll try and post one.

 

[JohnX]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s

100% Crop

 

[kirillica]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s

100% Crop

No visible noise on ISO 2000? Looks great.

BTW, have you calibrated your lens with camera? It's a common Canon issue: each new stuff should be calibrated to be sure focus is 100% correct.

 

[JohnX]

How far was the image from the front of the lens?
What was the depth of field for that shot in mm?

In short, the image looks accurately focused but the image has very shallow depth meaning that even a few mm in front or behind of the focal point will be out of focus. Thus it may not have focused on what you thought it was focused on.

Not exactly sure how far the image was from the lens but at shot 105MM I would guess 5-10ft? I checked the focus point and it was the correct subject and not a front/back focusing situation as your question may have alluded towards.

 

[JohnX]

Here's another sample hand held in dim light

Lens: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
ISO: 2000
Focal Length: 105mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter: 1/40s

100% Crop

No visible noise on ISO 2000? Looks great.

BTW, have you calibrated your lens with camera? It's a common Canon issue: each new stuff should be calibrated to be sure focus is 100% correct.

I did do a calibration on my lens, however, I don't know if I did it right as this is the first camera I've ever owned with micro adjust.