New Canon 5D mark III raws
- Thread starter Warninglabel
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it's just my eyes, but the 5D3 images seems cleaner than then D3s and D4. It looks even better when i resized the 5D3 down to the D4's. When converting the RAW file from the 5D3, i get much sharper results and very high ISO's have nice grains.
Upvote
0
Astro said:
Surprised that a $6000 camera beats a $3500 camera at ISO 6400 - and not even by that much?
I think that's a damn impressive comparo, given the price points.
Upvote
0
Super clean at high ISO speeds and tack sharp to boot. Considering the disparity between the jpeg and raw sample images, maybe the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening is to blame for the underwhelming jpegs. Hopefully all the people that were freaking out can relax a bit now 
Upvote
0
I looked at the images and camera settings in the exif, and was disappointed.
The sample images are really not what should be used to see low light high iso performance. They are taken in bright light, which will reduce the noise level and give overly optomistic results, assuming that you really want low light usage. The lighting varies, but is close to ev 10.
DPR seems to be the only one who uses low light for their high iso test
They have only shown jpeg images, but the results at least are not more realistic. The DPR lighting is about ev 3.
The sample images are really not what should be used to see low light high iso performance. They are taken in bright light, which will reduce the noise level and give overly optomistic results, assuming that you really want low light usage. The lighting varies, but is close to ev 10.
DPR seems to be the only one who uses low light for their high iso test
They have only shown jpeg images, but the results at least are not more realistic. The DPR lighting is about ev 3.
Upvote
0
Relax is the right word, we are still far away from the final comparison.
I saw a thread @ DPR : side-to-side RAW 5D2vs3: facit : about 2/3 stops better than the old model:these are still early days, folks. Fun to discover it all though. But I am not expecting heaven-on-earth.
At least the issue with the sharpness is gone. The AA is NOT the softener. Good news, ay?
I saw a thread @ DPR : side-to-side RAW 5D2vs3: facit : about 2/3 stops better than the old model:these are still early days, folks. Fun to discover it all though. But I am not expecting heaven-on-earth.
At least the issue with the sharpness is gone. The AA is NOT the softener. Good news, ay?
Upvote
0
To me it looks like it there isn't much in it between the d3s and 5dmk3 at iso 3200 or 6400. other than the 5dmk3 showing much more detail. Sure the reds hold up better with the d3s, but many of the other colors look better on the 5dmk3. i didn't look at anything faster, only out of laziness, and that since i've never had the need or ability to shoot at anything faster...
Upvote
0
Drifting slightly off-topic, I have spent many interested hours this evening on that "Comparometer".
Two more interesting comparisons vs. the 5D3:
1) Pentax 645D : It only goes up to ISO1600, and at that setting it is WAY more noisy than the 5D3. On the other hand, of course, the Pentax destroys the 5D3 for resolution. (Captain Obvious!) At ISO100, the Pentax is stunning, as you'd expect.
2) Leica M9 : Perhaps not a fair comparison, since the M9 is a few years old now. It is destroyed by the 5D3 at low and high ISO. Even at ISO200, the Leica looks way noisier than the 5D3 and the Leica's reds are even more deficient than those of the Canon. Greens seem about the same; perhaps Leica wins in the blues. But it's very subjective, I suspect.
I could spend hours on that site! (Oh, I just have!)
Two more interesting comparisons vs. the 5D3:
1) Pentax 645D : It only goes up to ISO1600, and at that setting it is WAY more noisy than the 5D3. On the other hand, of course, the Pentax destroys the 5D3 for resolution. (Captain Obvious!) At ISO100, the Pentax is stunning, as you'd expect.
2) Leica M9 : Perhaps not a fair comparison, since the M9 is a few years old now. It is destroyed by the 5D3 at low and high ISO. Even at ISO200, the Leica looks way noisier than the 5D3 and the Leica's reds are even more deficient than those of the Canon. Greens seem about the same; perhaps Leica wins in the blues. But it's very subjective, I suspect.
I could spend hours on that site! (Oh, I just have!)
Upvote
0
Comparing the 5D2 RAWs to the 5D3 RAWs in ACR and Photoshop it looks like the 5D3 is two-thirds of a stop better for high ISO SNR.
Lots of dangers in the comparison though since we don't know what ACR does to them for each camera or even if the ISO stops are rated the same way or not.
We really need DxO for the SNR measurements.
But looking at these, I'd say a solid 2/3 stop advantage for 5D3 over 5D2 SNR.
At ISO 100 it seems the 5D3 won't do much for you, early reports are basically no increase in dynamic range and only modestly better banding (still likely worse than the 1Ds3 at ISO 100). The dynamic range tests were carried out using the masking region though so there is a modest chance that they might not fully tell the true story at all, although they probably do.
Based on all of this, sometimes a bit sketchy info, the 5D3 may offer no advantage over the 5D2 at low ISO but a solid 2/3rds of a stop advantage at high ISO (almost D3s-level, but the greater MP actually makes it effectively better than the D3s since you can NR more and still have the same final detail*).
(The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)
* note how despite all the talk about how high MP cams make a mess of things, the ones with higher MP don't seem to be doing so badly compared to one with lower MP
Lots of dangers in the comparison though since we don't know what ACR does to them for each camera or even if the ISO stops are rated the same way or not.
We really need DxO for the SNR measurements.
But looking at these, I'd say a solid 2/3 stop advantage for 5D3 over 5D2 SNR.
At ISO 100 it seems the 5D3 won't do much for you, early reports are basically no increase in dynamic range and only modestly better banding (still likely worse than the 1Ds3 at ISO 100). The dynamic range tests were carried out using the masking region though so there is a modest chance that they might not fully tell the true story at all, although they probably do.
Based on all of this, sometimes a bit sketchy info, the 5D3 may offer no advantage over the 5D2 at low ISO but a solid 2/3rds of a stop advantage at high ISO (almost D3s-level, but the greater MP actually makes it effectively better than the D3s since you can NR more and still have the same final detail*).
(The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)
* note how despite all the talk about how high MP cams make a mess of things, the ones with higher MP don't seem to be doing so badly compared to one with lower MP
Upvote
0
Talk it up boys. The more good stuff I see and hear about the 5DIII the more excited I get about it's arrival in the post!
Upvote
0
After installing the ACR release candidate, I downloaded the 5D ISO6400 CR2 file as well as the Nikon D4 NEF of same file with NR set to 0. While I realize all of this is premature I was actually quite surprised to see how well the 5D3 file looked after downsampling to 16 MP. There wasn't as much difference between the 2 as I had expected. Not sure this means a whole lot given the files are still beta as is the ACR release candidate but i was really expecting the D4 to be a lot better than the 5d3 and in this example it wasn't the case. I did not, however, do any post processing work on the files.
I don't think we will have long to wait. It sounds like the first shipment is on the boat, if the March 17 delivery statements for Canada are correct.
Chuck Westfall was quoted as saying that a large inventory has been stockpiled, and two production lines at different factories are kicking them out in large numbers, so we can soon compare between our old MK II and our new MK III's.
I don't think we will have long to wait. It sounds like the first shipment is on the boat, if the March 17 delivery statements for Canada are correct.
Chuck Westfall was quoted as saying that a large inventory has been stockpiled, and two production lines at different factories are kicking them out in large numbers, so we can soon compare between our old MK II and our new MK III's.
Upvote
0
B
BaconBets
Guest
The D800 is not the successor to the D700....who thinks Nikon is going to turn everything on its head later this year by announcing the D700s. I can feel it coming....and those sneaky Nikon people might just put their flagship sensor in it once again. I like Canon, but nobody can deny that the D4 is a horse.
Upvote
0
Same could be said about Canon as well. Who's to say that Canon won't actually release the rumored 5DX. High 30s - low 40s MPs.
Upvote
0
The most interesting sample photo to me is the very last one, the one with the X-Rite color checker cards and the resolution diagrams. Looking at the radial moire test bubbles...I can't really see much color moire at all. There is obviously normal monochromatic moire (simple matter of physics there)...but color moire seems largely absent (but certainly a welcome absent). There is some visible color moire in the pink and blue bubble, and maybe a little in the red bubble, but the rest seem to lack any color moire at all.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
How do you figure the D800's DR is 2.5 stops better than the 5DIII? Just curious.
Upvote
0
I downloaded the raws but my photoshop cs5 cant load them nor DPP.. what update do I need to do this? Regarding image resource, I compared apples to apples Canons 5d3 vs Canons 5d2 on same images and the 5d3 looked sharper overall in almost all the ISO ranges compared to the 5d2, which seems to differ from internet sample images. All things being the same, if this is indeed the case that the 5d3 is cleaner and sharper than the 5d2, i'm game. It's a shame they dont have a D800 to compare against so we can really comb down to brass tax and know where we stand...
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
But by comparing to other models in the IR test database, you can find relative improvement across various models of camera body.
Upvote
0
I've spent way more time pixel peeping than I care to admit, but these raw files are very promising. With some noise reduction and a quick unsharp mask, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at ISO 12,800 for images that will be printed at 5x7 or smaller. There's still plenty of detail. Heck, the jpegs look pretty good, too.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
