Chuck Westfall avoids answering question about 5D3 RAW ISO noise.

Arash Hazeghi have conducted an interview with Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's technical adviser regarding the EOS 5D Mark III.

One of Chuck's answers is a little bit strange and perhaps even worrying. When asked about improvements in RAW ISO noise, he sidesteps the question / avoids to answer it.

"AH: Canon has indicated two stops improvement in high ISO performance relative to the 5D Mark II. We understand this figure refers to in-camera JPEG files with noise reduction. Approximately how much of an improvement in high ISO performance or low ISO dynamic range is expected in RAW (CR2) files when using the latest Canon DPP software?

CW: These figures are not being disclosed, but of course they will be lower than the noise reduction achieved with in-camera JPEGs and EOS Movies."

The full interview can be found here: http://www.arihazeghip​hotography.com/AH_CW_i​nterview/

Possible translation? : "I can't disclose it because we know it's not nearly as great as our customers are expecting, and we don't want this issue to blow up and affect sales."

I am thinking that if Canon had any significant improvement in RAW noise, dont you think that Chuck would have bragged about it? I mean like he did with the 2 stop jpeg improvement.

Who cares about jpeg improvement?

Ivann wrote in post #14076446
Who cares about jpeg improvement? I mean really?

You'd be surprised.

Better sell everything and buy Nikon.

Looked improved to me playing directly with raw files myself... I don't need him or Canon to tell me what I see myself. There is improvement, and that is what matters.

Ivann wrote in post #14076446
Arash Hazeghi have conducted an interview with Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's technical adviser regarding the EOS 5D Mark III.

One of Chuck's answers is a little bit strange and perhaps even worrying. When asked about improvements in RAW ISO noise, he sidesteps the question / avoids to answer it.

Possible translation? : "I can't disclose it because we know it's not nearly as great as our customers are expecting, and we don't want this issue to blow up and affect sales."

I am thinking that if Canon had any significant improvement in RAW noise, dont you think that Chuck would have bragged about it? I mean like he did with the 2 stop jpeg improvement.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty freakin' hilarious. It makes you wonder what the criteria are to market noise improvement. 2 stops? 1 stop? 0.5 stop?! Or is it not even 0.5 stop better?

Ivann wrote in post #14076446
Who cares about jpeg improvement?

Someone who makes their living using "green box" mode, i.e. Christa Meola.

Yeah that was indeed a strange answer.

Butt little does it matter. Only a few more days before we get to see if the improvements are good or crap. The 5D3 will soon be in the hands of our favorite reviewers.

In reference to 6 FPS, did you notice that Chuck mentioned photo journalists and entry level sports photographers? What format do they shoot in? Jpeg. That way they can submit it to their editors as quickly as possible. That could be a possible explanation why the jpegs on the 5DIII have been improved so dramatically, but RAW hardly comes up.

Perhaps this is an indication of who the camera was designed for.

So he is allowed to answer questions about jpeg iso improvement but not raw iso improvement?

Why?

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #14076558
In reference to 6 FPS, did you notice that Chuck mentioned photo journalists and entry level sports photographers? What format do they shoot in? Jpeg. That way they can submit it to their editors as quickly as possible. That could be a possible explanation why the jpegs on the 5DIII have been improved so dramatically, but RAW hardly comes up.

Perhaps this is an indication of who the camera was designed for.

^ Add that to this: (from the interview)

"Staying in the 22 megapixel range allowed us to achieve a maximum continuous shooting speed of 6 frames per second. This is the fastest continuous shooting speed in the 20+ megapixel full-frame sensor DSLR category, and it expands the potential customer base for the EOS 5D Mark III by making it more attractive to photojournalists and entry-level sports photographers."


Go figure. .. And If Canon did forsake improvement elsewhere in order to accommodate higher continuous shooting speeds, that's very disturbing. It is kinda like saying "we could have made it better, but had to dumb it down to shoot faster".

So there are now 2 highly possible reasons to why the 5D3 is 22MP: Video optimisation and sports.

AH: A 22-Mpixel sensor is great. However, there are photographers who can benefit from even a higher resolution sensor, such as wildlife photographers who cannot physically get closer to their subject and can benefit from flexibility in cropping. Does Canon intend to develop a higher resolution full-frame sensor in near future?



CW: no comment on Canon’s future plans or products.


Thats my favorite one! In essence, he's saying just buy the damn thing .... and then buy the next new one..... and the next one

I much prefer the fake Chuck, this one is so predictable.

Tonyz wrote in post #14076562
So he is allowed to answer questions about jpeg iso improvement but not raw iso improvement?

Why?

Who knows?

Maybe it is because people are expecting or demanding 2 stop RAW ISO improvement (as they should).

I think that even 1 stop improvement would be pretty decent advertisement, but since CW responds to the question very very politically, I believe DR of 5D3 is probably on par with 5D2. It's so obvious that I'm not even looking forward for any tests or in-depth reviews.

Such a shame.

I hope reviews will prove me wrong.

From everything I've seen, I'm guessing that the 5D3 has 0.5 stop improvement in raw ISO.

If my guess is correct, then there is no wonder that our dear Chucky didn't answer the question.

I don't think it as "panic mode" yet. if it's 2-stops in Jpeg...why? I can't see a 2 -stop noise improvement in jpeg, without similar improvement in RAW. They had said in previous interviews, that AA filters make up very little of the increased high ISO improvements. If this is to believed, AA filtering is less-aggressive(or not strengthened) and ISO noise improvements are truly sensor-improvements. Too bad that every body has to one of the 1st to order/try, before we get hands' on reviews.

As far as i'm concerned.. if you can't wait a little bit to see peer-reviewed testing.. you ran a gamble... and you are to blame, if you gambled and lost.