5D3 owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!

ilumo wrote in post #14146588
Doesn't look like the typical vertical banding to me. Hmmm. I wonder if it's something else.

It could be. I just took some shots at ISO 12800, and underexposed as much as I could, but was unable to reproduce. There may have been something with the lighting at the bar, or something else going on. Personally, I'm not worried, because 99% of my shooting is at ISO 1600 and lower.

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #14146616
Second that, maybe the LED's or lights in the background threw the sensor off or something?

True... there was LED lighting from all directions. Could be. I've tried to reproduce that phenomena, but am unable to now. So it probably was something specific to the environment at the bar.

Ventured out into the rain today to test the 5D 3 and its weather sealing:

the first is heavily cropped but the rest aren't

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Feudal1 wrote in post #14146558
Good catch - I hadn't even noticed that when I was looking through these. I went back and looked at the series of shots that I took in this sequence, and all have the vertical lines in that area. I suspect it's the combination of the image being severely underexposed, taken at such a high ISO (12800), and the colors themselves. I looked at other shot sequences where the lighting was better with shots that weren't as underexposed, and there were no vertical lines like these. So ISO 12800 is nice, but it does seem like it's subject to vertical banding in certain situations if your way underexposed. I would usually never shoot with such a high ISO, but the lighting in the bar was pretty awful, almost non-existent.

Were you in one-shot AF or AI Servo?

davidc502 wrote in post #14146685
Just in case someone here hasn't seen thedigitalpicture's work around for DPP softness when post processing RAW files from the 5dmk3 - here is the link. Apparently there are to work arounds as he explains. http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …I-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

It appears according to thedigitalpicture.com that Canon is aware of the problem and is working for a solution. I apologize if I'm just posting something that has already been posted many times.

Also, something else to add from my previous post. The ISO comparisons are hard to make out on the digitalpicture's review, but it appears to only be a half stop better ISO performance over the mk2. Of course the ISO shots from the mk3 are very soft, but we should know a lot more after the RAW problem is solved, and those results are re-posted to the web. I for one really appreciate thedigitalpicture as it proves to be a really good resource.

Cheers,

David

dsteve wrote in post #14145025
I've been holding my tongue, too, because I haven't been convinced that the problem has not been me. I've been using DPP to this point, thinking, wow, this is awful.

I had downloaded DNG Converter 6.7 but hadn't bothered with it until I saw your comment. I guess I just wasn't reading the comments about DPP closely. HUGE difference in detail, but also more noise (using PS 5)

So, I decided to compare DPP and DNG/PS5 default settings. PS5 has more aggressive sharpening, for one, and DPP seems to have more NR by default. Setting all options to 0 on both programs let to complete crap in both. Still more noise in PS5 than DPP, particularly what PS calls "color NR" (chroma, I think). But PS5 has far more detail.

I'm not about to spend a lot of time trying to get DPP to match PS5 defaults, or try to get both to match some other better reference, but it's possible that a lot of the suckiness of DPP on 5d3 images is the default settings.

Now I have to figure out this whole micro focus thing. I hadn't used it on the 7D (didn't seem to need it) and didn't have in on previous cameras (30D, 10D, D30), I think.

This is good to hear. Im glad im not alone. Im NOT glad that a camera I just paid $4600 doesn't have a Raw converter worth 2 ___s.

Yes DPP in my experience has always been a blurry mess, by trying to hide noise and banding. DPP would hide low ISO banding of my 7D by destroying the green channel resulting in a 'smooth' mess. I was happy to deal with the little bit more noise in LR3 because it retained so much more detail.

I guess Canon has left me out to dry unless I want to pony up more $ for CS5+... thanks Canon.

I don't understand why people are surprised at the lack of RAW converters for a brand new camera. Isn't this always how it is? I have a MkIII on the way, and I knew full well that I'd have limited RAW options for at least a month. This shouldn't be surprising. As an early adopter, you owe it to yourself to look into this before you fork over that much money, IMO.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14146727
Were you in one-shot AF or AI Servo?

AI Servo. Do you suppose that would make a difference?

Saxi wrote in post #14146394
It seems your copy is way out of focus. The subject is very blurry.

Saxi, unless you are around high school age then shame on you :P

That cropped shot of the surfer is really good, has nice rule of third composition.

ilumo wrote in post #14142900
this is probably why people are using ACR instead of DPP, no? I just can't wait for LR4 to support 5d3 raws. I hate DPP.

I hate it too. It kind of sucks the excitement out of the pictures that this camera takes! The DLO feature is freaking cool though!

I'm loving the colours of the 5DIII, Canon has some magic going there!

Neil

DuBarry wrote in post #14142688
It seems there may be hope for the softness (though I prefer smoothness)

But for those of you who cannot 'see' the smoothness check out the-digital-picture they are actually corresponding with Canon to resolve the issue (that some can while others do not see)


http://www.the-digital-picture.com …I-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

''Canon has been contacted and will be working with me to resolve this issue, but it will likely take some time. Shoot your 5D III images in RAW + JPG and waiting until this problem is solved before processing the RAW files in DPP. Or use another RAW conversion application.'' as quoted from DP

perhaps it will be easier to see

The sample CR2 files people have posted that I've converted in ACR 6.7 RC look plenty sharp, as do a lot of the samples posted here. DPP must be in need of a very quick but critical update to get the best out of the 5DIII. If I had the money and wanted a full frame camera, the 5DIII certainly looks like a winner.

Feudal1 wrote in post #14146774
AI Servo. Do you suppose that would make a difference?

Possibly. There were issues on the 5D with interference from the AF motor in some lenses causing banding. Could be something similar. Just a wild guess though. The lines look very similar to AI Servo induced banding, but let's hope that's not the case.

speedf7 wrote in post #14143836
I've heard that the 24-105 F4L looks even better on this body than on any previous body, is this true? I'm just wondering since i dont have the 24-105 F4L if i should just order the camera with the lens in the kit since i would be saving 300 bucks over buying the lens seperately.

I've been shooting my 24-105L with my 7D for years, on the 5DMKIII it is really like a whole new lens! I'm very happy! This is IMO in addition to the FF factor...

bzollinger wrote in post #14147315
I've been shooting my 24-105L with my 7D for years, on the 5DMKIII it is really like a whole new lens! I'm very happy! This is IMO in addition to the FF factor...

Agreed. Its a far better lens on this camera.