All 5D III samples soft...why?

I do not understand why the 22mp 5D III samples, from every single source (and there are a lot of them now), are soft and lacking fine per-pixel detail at any ISO. Is it all just bad processing?

And what about all the higher ISO (1600 and up) photos where fine detail looks to be smeared, e.g. hair that looks like watercolor paintings?

I hope that the real thing does not have such poor per-pixel sharpness...otherwise why not just make the resolution 10mp like the amount of detail it seems to be resolving, thus avoiding all the wasted space taken up by 22mp files?

Deep breathe. Let's wait to see some real RAW pics before we jump to any conclusions.

Name one time in history Canon's sample pics weren't soft, please.

No one knows enuff on this camera or its images.
Remember the AF problems of the 1D MK III or the black spots on the 5D MK II ?
Any new release is questionable and expensive.
Nothing to do with MP's .
Time will tell ... But the gearheads bend over backwards to preorder.
Shame, Shame, Shame.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Not all of the sample images available are direct from Canon now, lots more came out just today too.

When they start shipping and we see real world samples, the IQ issues (watercolor details, soft per pixel, banding) noted so far had better not exist...otherwise I'm moving to a camera brand that doesn't have those problems.

Good Greif! Get over it already! The 5d II has amazing image quality. Stunning. I cannot imagine that the 5d III would be anything short of spectacular!

http://ricehigh.blogsp​ot.com …ull-samples-at-canon.html

take a look at some of these samples from the 5DIII

Palladium wrote in post #14037816
http://ricehigh.blogsp​ot.com …ull-samples-at-canon.html

take a look at some of these samples from the 5DIII

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!

form wrote in post #14037516
I do not understand why the 22mp 5D III samples, from every single source (and there are a lot of them now), are soft and lacking fine per-pixel detail at any ISO. Is it all just bad processing?

Probably taken by camera technicians to save money

yalemba wrote in post #14038327
Probably taken by camera technicians to save money

Interns.

Now that the first RAW test samples are showing up, the IQ looks quite nice. I'll be the first to say "Neener neener neener....I told you all that the Canon jpeg based sample images suck and in no way represent this camera"

It happens every time. People never learn.

Palladium wrote in post #14037816
http://ricehigh.blogsp​ot.com …ull-samples-at-canon.html

take a look at some of these samples from the 5DIII

Maybe I'm missing something in those but that certainly doesn't come across as $3500 IQ ... Many of those samples looked smeared ....

JPEG's... With way too heavy NR applied.

Look at RAW files:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1157634

These are MUCH better, and removed any doubt about IQ I had. I mean, I would use ISO 25,600 or 51,200 without a doubt.

Palladium wrote in post #14037816
http://ricehigh.blogsp​ot.com …ull-samples-at-canon.html

take a look at some of these samples from the 5DIII

Saw these on the Canon site.. at 100% some are not all that impressive. The portrait of the girl by the rocks is either a misfocus or just soft. Again, it is far too early to tell what's real or not, but I'm not sure these are the definitive images to judge from. I'd like to see some higher ISO shots and look into the shadow areas. A good number of these were shot with a lower ISO (if I remember they EXIF info on the Canon site).

Jay S.

Jay_S wrote in post #14039254
Saw these on the Canon site.. at 100% some are not all that impressive. The portrait of the girl by the rocks is either a misfocus or just soft. Again, it is far too early to tell what's real or not, but I'm not sure these are the definitive images to judge from. I'd like to see some higher ISO shots and look into the shadow areas. A good number of these were shot with a lower ISO (if I remember they EXIF info on the Canon site).

Jay S.

I agree. I'm pleased with the DR and colors but like said before, they're a bit smudged. Is this due to leaving NR on when shot in jpeg?

A lot of us were pleased with the RAW high ISO test shots so I'm sure we'll be tickled once we get our filthy paws on real world RAW low ISO images. Time will tell....

Its too early to make up my mind.