OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

nicksan wrote in post #14053146
Right. I provide side-by-sides just so folks who aren't able to do the conversions themselves can see and also to debunk the whole 1.5 to 2 stop improvement thing (I figured that would be appealing to you since I was debunking the 5D3 IQ myth :lol and you offer us a double blindfold survey on which camera is which.

OK then.

Can you think of a better method than a double-blind study? That's the scientific gold standard.

Anyway, I chose ten photos - six from the 5D2, four from the 5D3 - and set them to 24x36" in Photoshop (no interpolation - just by setting the number of DPI). In addition, a Leica M9 photo taken with the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 and an iPhone photo cropped to a 3:2 aspect ratio were added as controls, for 12 photos in total. All were taken at ISO 100. No sharpening, no NR. I then took 4x6" crops from the point of focus of each of these photos, took them down to the local camera shop and had them express printed on glossy paper. All the prints were done using the same machine. Another keen photographer, who shoots Leica and Nikon, hasn't seen the 5D3 samples and didn't know which shot was from which camera, put them in a random order and conducted the test.

The question put to those taking the test was:

These twelve photos were taken using two different cameras - Camera A and Camera B. Camera A produces a sharper and more detailed image than Camera B. Please write 'A' next to the number corresponding to each photo you think was taken with camera A, and 'B' next to the number corresponding to each photo you think was taken with camera B.

17 non-photographers (people not owning an interchangeable-lens camera of any kind) took part.

I'm still waiting for her to tally the results.

Um...OK...knock yourself out with all that.

Me? I look at the 5D3 images and think "Hmm...looks good so far. Let's see some more samples". But maybe I'm just a little too lazy eh?

nicksan wrote in post #14053999
Um...OK...knock yourself out with all that.

No-one asked you to comment. You're obviously a fanboy who will remain convinced that the 5D3 resolves more detail than the 5D2 regardless of what evidence is produced.

I'd bet the results will either be that they resolve equal detail, or that the 5D2 resolves more (this is all at ISO 100).

Shadowblade wrote in post #14054011
No-one asked you to comment. You're obviously a fanboy who will remain convinced that the 5D3 resolves more detail than the 5D2 regardless of what evidence is produced.

I'd bet the results will either be that they resolve equal detail, or that the 5D2 resolves more (this is all at ISO 100).

So I am an "Old time wedding photographer" and now a "fanboy" eh? That's cool man. If that makes you feel better, call me anything.

I seem to recall trying really hard to debunk the 1.5 to 2 stop high ISO advantage of the 5D3 and also stated that the IQ doesn't seem to have improved all that much, if at all. I'll just venture a guess here, but I am pretty sure that's something a "fanboy" wouldn't do.

But whatever man. Keep on keeping on with your double blindfolded testing and all that. Not sure what that will accomplish other that feed your belief that the 5D3 is an inferior camera to the 5D2. I think there's a lot of people in here that are just sick and tired of having to read your negativity about the camera.

WE GET IT. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, LET'S MOVE ON.

Sheesh...

Drozz119 wrote in post #14051570
Full Pics

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

Crop

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

I have been rather pessimistic about this camera ever since the announcement, but this is just too much. That picture can't be right.

My guess is that the 5D3-shot was taken with a beta unit.. ?

Tonyz wrote in post #14054058
I've been rather pessimistic I've been about this camera since the announcement, but this is just too much. That picture can't be right.

My guess is that the 5D3-shot was taken with a beta unit.

The 5D3 shot seems to be back focusing. Check my post. The green fabric on her dress has lots of details and is in good focus. Her eyes/face look soft. Impossible to tell whether this was a lens issue, a technique issue, or an AF issue. Also looks like the 5D2 shot might have some sharpening applied? Not sure...maybe...maybe not. Plus different shooting conditions and different subject makes it nearly impossible to judge.

Jay_S wrote in post #14053937
Actually, my 7D is closer to the 5Dii than the 5Diii in that side by side crop.. I'm still not convinced we've seen the best of the 5Diii images, but have to admit that I'm a little surprised by the sampling we are seeing.

Jay S.

I'm really surprised! I understand the canon samples being soft(the 5d2 samples were soft too). But, imaging resource is all about controlled lighting and sharpness in all their other tests/samples. I can't believe Canon would drop the ball on the 5d3 considering how great the 5d2 IQ is.. At least I hope!

nicksan wrote in post #14053969
Here's the one with the little kid.

Resized shot:
Link

Crop of the face:
Link

Crop of the hand and fabric:
Link

Crop of the face with a little amount of high pass sharpening applied:

| Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Again, remember that sharpening was zeroed out in ACR and none was applied in PS CS5.

It just doesn't make sense how soft these are. With that framing and f stop.. You should see each eyelash and be able to count each pore. I shoot a lot of studio..and it makes the skin/face PP so much easier when there's detail in the skin/eyes.

Really a survey? I would take the results more seriously if any of us ACTUALLY had a 5D MK III in which you can control all the variables! This is a damn joke

ilumo wrote in post #14051804
which is why i pointed out that the JPEGS that drozz posted contradict the results of the more "controlled" environment of the "comparometer" JPEGs.

I would trust the results of the more controlled environment...

Also, look at the lighting of the jpegs from drozz. the 5d2 lighting was much better. the 5d3 was quite dark with a lot of shadows (cue in banding jokes )

Actually, the lighting is very similar in character, although the intensity is different.

Look at the reflections in the models' eyes. Both have a large light source to camera left and a reflector to camera right.

vipergts831 wrote in post #14054077
Really a survey? I would take the results more seriously if any of us ACTUALLY had a 5D MK III in which you can control all the variables! This is a damn joke

Which won't be available for another month. And, by the time you buy it and test it, it's too late if the fine-detail resolution turns out to be inferior. Not saying that the overall IQ is worse, mind you - we don't know about DR, high ISO noise, colour depth, etc. - just that the fine detail resolution appears to be worse.

You work on the evidence you have.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14052435
I think a lot of people need to cool down. Does it really seem likely that Canon spent three years developing a camera that is worse that the predecessor? I'm not saying it's impossible that they made a mistake in some way, but I find it interesting that everyone seems poised to declare the 5D3 a disaster as quickly as possible, based on the scantiest of information.

This pattern is, not surprisingly, familiar. Every time Canon releases a new higher end body we see the same hand wringing over this & that. Most of the worry has ultimately proven to be unfounded.

I can even think of some situations that have taken years to completely crystalize.

Remember the 1D3 AF debacle with Rob Galbraith? This is probably one of the few times the early concerns had some real merit. Even so, Rob's needs were very specific and condemned a camera with an AF system that is actually very good for some uses.

I've had a 1D3 and I have a 1D4. When the 1D4 came along, everyone praised the new AF module. 'So much better than the 1D3" they all said.

Well....the 1D4 is better at tracking action than the 1D3. Canon listened and fixed Rob's ****. But the 1D4 sucks in low light focus compared to the 1D3. And it was a long time after the release of the 1D4 that people started to realize this.

The 50D garnered an undeserved reputation for high ISO noise at its launch. Today the conventional wisdom is that it is no worse than the 40D in print. But man, the screaming at the time of launch was unbelievable.

I don't really have a problem with people getting excited about a new body after the announcement and making a lot of silly posts, but you really need to keep some perspective. Even the 'definitive' 3rd party reviews will only be worth so much, and right now we don't even have those.

AMEN to that!

Shadowblade wrote in post #14054094
Which won't be available for another month. And, by the time you buy it and test it, it's too late if the fine-detail resolution turns out to be inferior. Not saying that the overall IQ is worse, mind you - we don't know about DR, high ISO noise, colour depth, etc. - just that the fine detail resolution appears to be worse.

You work on the evidence you have.

This is why a return period exists! Purchase the camera and test it out. Running any kind of survey off images you yourself did not take makes no sense. I understand all these "samples" out there but in the end the only ones I will trust will come from the 5D MK III which ships to me. Until then the basis of any of these disputes or study's are highly questionable.

I've seen a lot of things here on POTN but this is the first time I've ever seen a thread where certain parties flat-out want Canon to fail...

I honestly do not understand why some are expending so much energy on something they obviously hate.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14054130
I've seen a lot of things here on POTN but this is the first time I've ever seen a thread where certain parties flat-out want Canon to fail...

I honestly do not understand why some are expending so much energy on something they obviously hate.

Agreed!

I find the actual discussion of the camera much more interesting and informative (speculation or not…by posters like shadowblade and nicksan) than the one-liners and platitudes from the cheerleader crowd. In the end, those kinds of comments contain the least value, and offer almost no insight or intrigue save for a tedious meta nature.