New Canon 5D mark III raws

[Warninglabel]

Just saw this over @ DPREVIEW

I know a lot of people looking for them to compare

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

They don't look to bad

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

Links not working for me...

 

[Warninglabel]

Just fixed it

 

[munsoned]

well they look pretty good.. please god produce sharp images out in the field and not just in studio!!

 

[Warninglabel]

Yes they do

 

[MaGiL]

looks very good.....

 

[wickidwombat]

are you guys able to open the CR2 files?
the jpgs look like they are getting hammered by in camera NR which could be done alot cleaner using something like topaz denoise where you have independent control over shadow midtone and highly Nr as well as individual channels.

 

[Arkarch]

are you guys able to open the CR2 files?

Canon's ZoomBrowser should be able to open them. It opened a few CR2's from another article the other day. Wont be able to try myself until later.

 

[Drizzt321]

I thought Canon wouldn't let you post pre-pro RAW files? Or at least, that's what I've seen other sites/people say as to why they couldn't upload the RAW for people.

 

[Warninglabel]

Well it's a good thing somebody posted some RAWs because I was getting worried. but now I'm starting to get happier about my purchase

 

[erfon]

the release candidate of the new adobe camera raw supports the Mark III, you can download it right here: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

you should be able to open the cr2's in lightroom or photoshop after installing.

i'm downloading the raw files right now (taking foooorever!) and am going to try to open them)

UPDATE: it works great in photoshop, lightroom doesn't work with camera raw release candidate though. i can open any of the Mark III RAW files now in photoshop though.

 

[smithy]

Looks good - ISO 6400 on the 5dIII looks similar to ISO 400 on my 40D...

 

[Astro]

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.

of course they are different beast... im just saying im suprised.
i seldom go above iso 3200.

 

[Fleetie]

I shoot JPG, and the "Comparometer" shows that the 5D3 at ISO12800 is just SLIGHTLY *LESS* noisy than the 7D at ISO1600. There's not much in it though.

So that's a stonking THREE STOPS of improvement!

I can't wait to get my hands on the 5D3 !

 

[erfon]

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat. I doubt we'll even see the Mark III competing with the D3S. Those camera's are low light beasts.

I'd be happy with solid 6400 performance and thrilled with solid 12800 performance.

 

[Astro]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat.

yep.. i have too keep that in mind.

 

[Canon-F1]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat. I doubt we'll even see the Mark III competing with the D3S. Those camera's are low light beasts.

well i have to admit the D4 examples look good.

you don´t have to go high as ISO 6400 even ISO 800 shows more details in the D4 pictures then in the 5D MK3 pictures.... at least in the reds... they are smeared into oblivion.

im really curious to see what the 1D X and D800 can achive.

 

[altenae]

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.

of course they are different beast... im just saying im suprised.
i seldom go above iso 3200.

It's only the red.
The green looks the same in detail.

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.

 

[Fleetie]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat.

yep.. i have too keep that in mind.

Hmm, I just compared them both (D4 vs. 5D3) at ISO12800 using the colourful still-life scene.

The 5D3 appears slightly less noisy than the D4, and thanks to its higher resolution, you can read then writing at the centre of the white "wheel calculator" easily with the 5D3, but not with the D4.

Have I compared the wrong things?

In SOME parts of the scene, the 5D3 image looks as though more NR has been applied than in the D4 image, but ultimately, the 5D3 image does show more fine detail IMHO.

 

[Canon-F1]

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.

don´t they keep lighting constant?
i mean... what sense would the test make if not?