# 5d3 not soft anymore?



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2012)

Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?

Because I still think the 5d3 shots are softer than the 5d2, to the point like it feels like I should have glasses on to make them properly sharp..

They have detail and the images (other than sharpness) is just wonderful. But it feels like all my lenses have been downgraded.

And NO it's not a microadjustment issue or "the new complex af system". It's the sensor I guess...


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Apr 28, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?
> 
> Because I still think the 5d3 shots are softer than the 5d2, to the point like it feels like I should have glasses on to make them properly sharp..
> 
> ...



I'm having the same problems. Did you get your camera as soon as it was released. I posted a similar post that I was disappointed with the images coming out soft and took in several suggestions about the new AF and AFMA and still no avail. I was one of the first people in my country to get me hands on one so I'm starting to think maybe I just got a lemon.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Where did all the people go that thought the 5d3 was soft? Did the problem go away? Or did the people who thought so?
> ...



I don't think your camera is faulty, neither is mine, but there is something off with the new sensor. 

I also think the noise was way less on the 5d2 in the 100-400 range. I had NO noise on the 5d2 and now I have to use NR at 100 iso.. And yes, I have turned nr off when checking for detail and sharpness.

I am kind of dissapointed in the 5d3. It is a HUGE and FANTASTIC upgrade in nearly all aspects, absolutely everything excpet IQ is waaay better than any previous Canon. But the noisy shadows at 100-800 iso's compared to the 5d2 and the softness is very strange and very annoying. How can Canon seriously make a camera with 1 mp more and much softer images? I feel like I could have gotten by with cheaper lenses, because a good portion of the difference up to the one's I have have evened out.

Shouldn't be like that..

Here's an example done with LV and flash:







5d3 is the soft one..


----------



## peederj (Apr 29, 2012)

Looks like the bottom image has purple fringing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2012)

Canon has touted the reduced video moiré of the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII. IMO, the technically easiest way for them to accomplish that reduction is a stronger AA filter. A stronger AA filter means softer still images. 

@DarkKnightNine, in your post, you described 'soft' images wide open that were sharp when you stopped down - that's a different phenomenon than general 'softness' independent of aperture. I still think AFMA is the answer to at least part of your problem. Viggo's testing using Live View takes AFMA out of the loop since that only corrects phase detect AF (and is unnecessary with contrast detect AF). I'm not sure the issue Viggo reports is a 'lemon' - it may very well be a conscious decision on Canon's part to reduce moiré via a stronger AA filter, in which case, as the software engineers say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."


----------



## mrmarks (Apr 29, 2012)

A common problem with shooters complaining of soft images is the AI servo 1st and 2nd image priority setting. Set it to Focus priority always!


----------



## fotoworx (Apr 29, 2012)

I borrowed a friends 5d3 for a few days because he's been bothered by the IQ. I've shot lots and compared images taken with it and my 5d2 and the 5d3 look softer and gives some images a plasticky look. 

The owner still has his 5d2 and his thoughts are the same. 

Every shot taken by the 5d3 needs to have to be put through high pass filter in photoshop to make them look as sharp as the 5d2 taken SOOC.


----------



## mrmarks (Apr 29, 2012)

fotoworx said:


> I borrowed a friends 5d3 for a few days because he's been bothered by the IQ. I've shot lots and compared images taken with it and my 5d2 and the 5d3 look softer and gives some images a plasticky look.
> 
> The owner still has his 5d2 and his thoughts are the same.
> 
> Every shot taken by the 5d3 needs to have to be put through high pass filter in photoshop to make them look as sharp as the 5d2 taken SOOC.



Post your sample shots and your setup details


----------



## cpsico (Apr 29, 2012)

That is the scary part of being an early adopter, you get sucked in as a paying beta tester until all the bugs are worked out. The 5DII had its early issues and once refined it was a wonderful machine if not fast.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 29, 2012)

Mine are basically the same at low iso's, but, I AFMA all my lenses as the first step to using the camera.

Its a fairly common thing for new camera owners to feel their new camera is not as sharp, so I took it slow, AFMA my lenses, take simple images with a fast shutter and prove to myself that the camera produces sharp images. Then, if I later get a few that are not sharp, I know that the autofocus or the operator needs a little more practice.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 29, 2012)

If i had a mk2 i would post up a sampler like viggo did. I've also got some little white boxes! but alas. Well, i could throw up a mk3-vs-mk1, or a few others but i'm not sure how that would help anyone. I see what you are saying Viggo. DarkKnightnine's problems seem different to me. His EXIF data was wiped so i can only speculate, it's hard to find anything there really in critical focus, and since i don't know the shutter speed,f-stop focal length i would guessing. But since he has top gear stuff, and i'm feeling that he knows what he's doing, there wouldn't be much to learn there anyway. I have a close friend who does lots of band/concert photography. He's got a 30d,40d, sigma 30mm, my canon 100f2,and a canon 50f1.8. he gets it done.


----------



## peederj (Apr 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has touted the reduced video moiré of the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII. IMO, the technically easiest way for them to accomplish that reduction is a stronger AA filter. A stronger AA filter means softer still images.
> 
> @DarkKnightNine, in your post, you described 'soft' images wide open that were sharp when you stopped down - that's a different phenomenon than general 'softness' independent of aperture. I still think AFMA is the answer to at least part of your problem. Viggo's testing using Live View takes AFMA out of the loop since that only corrects phase detect AF (and is unnecessary with contrast detect AF). I'm not sure the issue Viggo reports is a 'lemon' - it may very well be a conscious decision on Canon's part to reduce moiré via a stronger AA filter, in which case, as the software engineers say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."



Nah the moire problem on the 5D2 came at the stage of reducing resolution from 21MP to 2MP. It did it by line skipping, now they have a slightly less brutal approach in the use of binning, but that's long after the optical stage. That's all a digital processing issue that will not affect stills performance whatsoever.

The guy who advocated removing the OLPF from the 5D3 for video without even showing us test chart results to justify such violence was malignantly stupid.

I suspect the RAW converters haven't been debugged fully for the 5D3 yet, or the in-camera CA correction, or some other issue that is software-related and will be addressable. I don't think the 5D3 is less sharp than the 5D2 hardware-wise.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

Thanks guys, I appriciate the serious answers most of you give. I know how to use this camera, and I feel I never get that same crazy good sharpness I did from the mk2. Sure all my images are properly focused now, not 4 out of ten at best. But the one's that did stick on the 5d2 always put a huge smile on my face, but now it is absolutely lacking, and I don't really feel they're sharp even if I do pull harder in the sharpening in Lr.

I certainly hope this will be adressed by someone that has something to say in this business.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Apr 29, 2012)

Sorry if this is a silly question on this thread.
But i have a few questions on why images appear soft.
1) Are the photos shows RAW converted to JPG or SOOC Jpg?
2) If it's SOOC Jpg, could CA lens correction be the culprit
3) If SOOC Jpg, is the NR turned on and cause the softness?

Somehow i feel the more technology they put into a camera to improve the high ISO, they sacrifice the sharpness….it's kinda like how a more powerful car will never be as efficient as a family sedan?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> Sorry if this is a silly question on this thread.
> But i have a few questions on why images appear soft.
> 1) Are the photos shows RAW converted to JPG or SOOC Jpg?
> 2) If it's SOOC Jpg, could CA lens correction be the culprit
> ...



They are shot in raw, and converted using the same sharpening settings in Lr.


----------



## RJSY (Apr 29, 2012)

hello, 

been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way

my 2 cents....


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

RJSY said:


> hello,
> 
> been reading your posts, and noticed that all of you seem to be using LR as your raw converter. Why not give DPP a try???? I have LR myself but images from the mkIII just seem to come out better if converted to jpeg via DPP than with LR.... I don't exactly know why but it just seems that way
> 
> my 2 cents....



Thanks, I'll sure give it try, I was hoping Lr would be better with the RC2, but it wasn't... 

Edit: Tried DPP, but that software makes me want to kill somebody and I feel like I have no control, so skipped it... Hmm, also tried DxO, but same there. I guess I am waaay to used to Lr to ever use anything so much less useable...


----------



## jaayres20 (Apr 29, 2012)

I had a 5D2 for over 3 years and now I own two 5D3s and I find the 5D3s to be very sharp. When I use my 50mm 1.2 at f/2 it is too sharp for close portraits. I always find myself taking the clarity down a little in LR to make them softer. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the same. My two cameras were in the first or second round of shipping. I got them in the end of March and early April. I have never sat down and done an official test but after several photo shoots and 4000+ pictures at a wedding I am very satisfied. And the best part is having so many of them in focus!


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

Viggo said:


> RJSY said:
> 
> 
> > hello,
> ...



Please do try the updated DPP. This is very serious and many may use your findings to base future decisions.

You don't have to use DPP in a sophisticated way. Just use it to compare in 100% the same photo shot with a 5D2 and 5D3 (and use LV to focus). Your previous photo could be a perfect example.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > RJSY said:
> ...



I was kind of hoping someone else who have used DPP and Lr before to do this, I have no idea to know how to even make the images comparable. I tried this and that, but maaan does Canon have something to learn about usabillity of their raw-converter. I feel like I'm in a maze with no exit.....

Here's just imported and sharpened with the same settings, I have never seen Lr sharpen the image like DPP did, it is amazing! Wth??

But something tells me my DPP isn't the updated one, as it did an even worse job with the 5d3 file.. I'll see if I have to update, and try yet again..


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

Viggo said:


> But something tells me my DPP isn't the updated one, as it did an even worse job with the 5d3 file.. I'll see if I have to update, and try yet again..



DPP level: 3.11.26.0


----------



## RJSY (Apr 29, 2012)

@ viggo your DPP has to be 3.11.26 version and this does not come with the camera. it has to be downloaded. if you are using the DPP that came with the camera then images will come out soft. I do hope you give it a try and see the difference between using LR and DPP with MKIII


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

You can try:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii#DriversAndSoftware

Then you select: 

1. Operating System
2. OS Version
3. Software

Then you can download the dpp updater...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

Yeah, I just hadn't taken it out of the box before as I never intended to use it.

But here's the updated shots:







Wow, Adobe needs to get their act together.....


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

Thank you VERY MUCH for your comparison photos. Now, these seem pretty much equal to me. As you said, now it's Adobe's turn...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2012)

tron said:


> Thank you VERY MUCH for your comparison photos. Now, these seem pretty much equal to me. As you said, now it's Adobe's turn...




No, problem, it was thanks to the tip of trying DPP from RJSY in the firstplace that made me even try it. And it seemed that it might not be the camera an AA filter and all the other suggestions after all. Now, this test isn't 100% conclusive, but it looks to be in the right direction.

I've stated this very early on when thedigitalpicture dude said there was a softness issue with the DPP software, that could it be that Adobe uses, at least some part, of the DPP to make their raw-supprto for the 5d3? So if DPP was soft, then Lr will be as well? Or is this very far fetched? Why do Adobe have the same issue?


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

Viggo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you VERY MUCH for your comparison photos. Now, these seem pretty much equal to me. As you said, now it's Adobe's turn...
> ...



Interesting thought! Until we see an updated camera raw engine so as to compare the same 5D2 and 5d3 photos with the same settings I guess we cannot be sure 100%.


----------



## FrutigerSans (Apr 30, 2012)

Woah… Viggo thanks for the test.. This really seems to indicate that Adobe’s LR processing is the one at fault. Lets hope that 4.1 final will fix this! I’ll definitely keep an eye on this thread


----------



## dafrank (Apr 30, 2012)

*My opinion*

I just got my 5D Mark III last week on Thursday. Took me a while to shoot some preliminary tests. 

I've always been that rare professional that preferred DPP to Lightroom, mostly because I've had an image database program running in my studio since 1996, so that a big chunk of Lightroom is superfluous for me and, as to the actual heart of the program, the raw converter, I've found DPP to be at least as good, if not better at producing good 16 bit Tiffs, my file of choice, at least the one I start out with. Although Lightroom has more refined tools than DPP, the basic conversion is not always as good and the program itself is 10 times biiger with what seems to be unnecessary bloatware included. So, when testing my new cam, I wanted to use DPP, not Lightroom. I wrote Bryan Carnathan at the Digital Picture to ask him his opinion of the new version, 3.11.26.0, and whether it "solved" his softness issues with the 5D3 output. He very kindly mailed me back, saying that, yes it did. So, I used my updated copy of DPP to convert my tests. I also, just because I wanted to see what it could do, used the Digital Lens Optimizer on each file, found under the Lens tab in the tools pallette. I'm not sure how much more this Optimizer does than what is now automatically done in-camera in the 5D3, but I used it anyway, and didn't yet bother to compare results with it and without it.

My conclusion is a subjective comparison of these raw conversions with what I am used to getting with my now gone- but-not-forgotten 1Ds Mark III, not the 5D2. From what I know, the low ISO results from the 1Ds3 were, if anything, better than those from the 5D2.

Here are my observations. The 5D3 focusing system is better than that of my 1Ds3. It nailed static subjects (didn't yet try action) more precisely and with the 2 L lenses I tested, (24-70 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/2.8 v2), with no lens calibration. My tests were shot at f/4.0 and f/7.1, depending on the depth of field I needed. The files showed a small but significant gain in low ISO (shot at 200 ISO) DR. The exposure meter in Eval mode semed to give me uniformly better exposures without needing to "outsmart" it quite so often. The shutter release actually felt a little better and the seemed very slightly better dampened - a very unexpected result. The images were mostly quite sharp looking, but since my exposures today seemed to yield very narrow but nicely shaped "waves" that filled the center of the graph space but did not extend all the way to the shadow or highlight sides on the horizontal axis, they seemed to lack some contrast; this was, rather than some fault of the camera, rather the result of my exposure choices, (mostly) the existing light values, the default tone curve in DPP and the slightly better DR of the camera. In Photoshop, when I applied some very minor curves and then very minor low amount-higher radius-zero threshold unsharp mask to the image, the histograms spread out as far to the left and right as was appropriate and the image popped like a bubble gum ballon, without any visible artifacts. Most, if not all, of this could also have been accomplished in DPP or Lightroom, if you didn't happen to have Photoshop. Overall, the resulting files looked at least as sharp as any result I could have had with my old 1Ds3, and they have just a little bit more detail in them as well. Finally, the defringing and other functions in the Digital Lens Optimizer seemed to work so well that I can honestly say that it brought "new life" and a whiole new look to my sometimes chromatically challenged 16-35 f/2.8. It couldn't turn it into a Nikon 14-24, but it made it look a heck of a lot better.

I'll not be posting these, but I think I may have given you all a pretty good description of my own personal subjective findings. They're not scientificly rigorous, but they are backed up by my experience of over 16 years spent photographing, scanning and retouching digital files for very very high end commercial clients.

Regards,
David


----------



## RJSY (Apr 30, 2012)

@ viggo... glad that you did give DPP a try. And by the looks of it you now seem somewhat happy with the results.

Actually I too was not very happy with the mkIII because of it's "softness" I learned that there was a problem with DPP so I turned to LR 4.1RC. I found LR to be a great raw converter with all the parameters you are able to adjust to get that perfect picture. But I was somewhat underwhelmed by the outcome of the pictures i took with the mkiii when processed with LR. I was thinking " is this it????" ...... But then I waited patiently for DPP to be "corrected" and sure enough when it came out, tried it and I instantly saw a world of difference in the conversion process... I guess you saw it too.....

maybe darknightnine could also give DPP a try and hopefully it will also somewhat "solve" his soft mkiii problem


----------



## te4o (Apr 30, 2012)

Tested today:
Mk II vs Mk III sharpness: Carl Zeiss ZE 100 and 50 MP @ f 4, Av, 1/45-50, LV focusing + shot, 2sec delay release, ISO 100, RAW, Neutral PS, no sharpening during RAW import into Aperture, same export setting for JPEG.

Can't find any difference. Initially I shot only once and imported both files onto my MBP. Looked at them and noticed a slight advantage to the 5D2. Then, I decided to do five additional shots for each with refocusing and average the findings - imported them into my MacPro and looked on the big screen - no difference. The initial impression was mis focusing.


----------



## te4o (Apr 30, 2012)

The full scene in case someone asks


----------



## te4o (Apr 30, 2012)

The 50 MP


----------



## te4o (Apr 30, 2012)

Mark III and 50MP


----------



## te4o (Apr 30, 2012)

The MarkIII went 1/45 at f/4 and the MarkII went 1/50 but came brighter, don't know why. 
Both exposures changed 2/3 stops between LV metering and standard metering. Don't know why. This was a surprise to me, I went to Manual at 1/60 for both and f/4 and between VF and LV metering there was 2/3 stop EV difference.
The 500 ruble note is low value paper - disintegrated while untaping. The Aussie behaved best.

My Manual shots are unfortunately at home now. Results are unequivocal for me: the debate "softer or not softer" should end here. Both Marks are nearly if not the same to me.


----------



## JR (Apr 30, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, I just hadn't taken it out of the box before as I never intended to use it.
> 
> But here's the updated shots:
> 
> ...



Thanks viggo for your post and findings. You give me hope! Actually you made my day! I had the same feeling of softness in the mkiii i tried to the point where i returned it. Back then i thought LR would solve the problem but my image too were still soft with it! While i returned my unit to patiently wait for the 1dx, i had not tried the new version of dpp because i thought adobe lr 4.1 was the 'correct' representation for this camera.

Tonight i will download the new version of dpp and reprocessed all the raw from the mkiii i save to see if i get the same result as you guys. This makes me hopeful! Boy it is weird how adobe could have been so off with the converter for this camera...how could that be?

Jacques


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 30, 2012)

JR said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I just hadn't taken it out of the box before as I never intended to use it.
> ...



Adobe has always had to play catch up with almost every new canon/nikon camera ever released... Canon doesn't like to play nice and give developers like adobe insights on how to prep, so adobe has to wait until they can get their grubby hands on something to go off of. Canon 5d mark 2, we had to nearly wait a full month before adobe had any support what-so-ever for the camera after first launch... no beta, no release candidate, nothing. To my knowledge, this is the first big release where they at least had something out there to play around with.


----------



## JR (Apr 30, 2012)

I did not know that! I was assuming they knew what they were doing but obviously i was wrong in this case. Just because they support it does not mean it works! Just did not make sense that canon would release a camera like the mkiii with soft image compared to the mkii. Cant wait to reprocess all my raw with the new version of dpp. There is hope after all! ;D


----------



## se7en (Apr 30, 2012)

I mentioned this a month ago.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4906.msg96941#msg96941


----------



## JR (May 1, 2012)

Well i was able to reprocess all my raw file from the mkiii using the latest dpp instead of LR 4.1 and this was indeed the source of the softness issue i was experiencing. The image all became razor sharp using dpp, some of them even more so then my mkii! The only down side for me for now is i still prefer the workflow from lightroom compared to dpp so i really hope adobe will update their raw converter.

Even the shots i thought were sharp from the mkiii before were improved using the latest dpp... Thanks viggo...


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

I'm really starting to believe LR blows chunks. Here we have soft images clearly due to LR and in the other thread we have abysmal shadow recovery for 5D3 at the FM site yet I recover similar shadows in 5D2 shots using Capture One 6 and see none of the artifacts and get very pleasing results.


----------



## Viggo (May 1, 2012)

JR said:


> Well i was able to reprocess all my raw file from the mkiii using the latest dpp instead of LR 4.1 and this was indeed the source of the softness issue i was experiencing. The image all became razor sharp using dpp, some of them even more so then my mkii! The only down side for me for now is i still prefer the workflow from lightroom compared to dpp so i really hope adobe will update their raw converter.
> 
> Even the shots i thought were sharp from the mkiii before were improved using the latest dpp... Thanks viggo...



You're very welcome! And it wasn't all my idea, but it's great to get it out there so other people becoome aware of such things!

Let's hope Adobe really does their stuff, and fast.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 1, 2012)

This is pretty enlightening! 

Question--has anyone done a similar DPP to LR comparison to 7D images? I know that there have been a myriad of discussions on softness with the 7D and I'm curious if those come down to the software as well.


----------



## Viggo (May 1, 2012)

skitron said:


> I'm really starting to believe LR blows chunks. Here we have soft images clearly due to LR and in the other thread we have abysmal shadow recovery for 5D3 at the FM site yet I recover similar shadows in 5D2 shots using Capture One 6 and see none of the artifacts and get very pleasing results.



Hmm, that's interesting about the shadows.. Are you able to do a shadow recovery with a 5d2 file with both Capture One and Lr? 

Maybe this is the reason Adobe cut the price in half? They want to sell CS6....


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

I just took a picture outside of my home, using spot metering photographing the bright rocks out in the sun compared with the harsh shadow of a covered walk way. I opened it in DPP (just updated) and saved it as a TIFF. I then took it into photoshop and did a "highlight/shadow" adjustment. With Shadows boosted to 100% like this I am getting an almost perfectly clean shadow. I will try to post pictures later. I even went in later and dodges the hell out of the darkest area(the only part that had banding noticeable 100%) and I could extend it even more.

I think you might be suprised if you try this.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

Let me blow your mind a little.







AND......







obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.


----------



## VirtualRain (May 1, 2012)

Matt, very very interesting!... When you say you "duplicated the background" in CS5.5... what do you mean by that?


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

excuse me, I made a duplicate layer to begin. I know that really doesn't matter but i just wanted to include every step in case someone wanted to get their panties in a bundle over it.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

Here is a LR4.1 RC version.(100% crop)


----------



## Kernuak (May 1, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> This is pretty enlightening!
> 
> Question--has anyone done a similar DPP to LR comparison to 7D images? I know that there have been a myriad of discussions on softness with the 7D and I'm curious if those come down to the software as well.


I know from experience that there were issues with LR2 and the 7D. While subsequent software updates within LR3 improved it, I'm not convinced that it has been fixed entirely. The other issue was with the contrast areas between lights and darks, such as the black and white feathers on an oystercatcher. Tha said, I haven't done any formal comparisons, as there are other advantages with LR. I tend to look at the overall picture (if you'll excuse the pun), rather than a single factor.


----------



## wshinji (May 2, 2012)

Unfortunately everything to me seems to be SOFT lol, maybe its just me.

Im really eager to see results from people who use LR4 RC2 which states on top that it uses Adobe Camera Raw 7.1 (98% sure) which is a different revision to LR4 RC1 which may make a difference.

I did bring up my RAWs in DPP but I still think its soft so maybe its just me, better wait till more people can test. 

Would be also great to Compare to the 1DX which was announced like last year LOL maybe it will come out before 2013


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

wshinji said:


> Unfortunately everything to me seems to be SOFT lol, maybe its just me.
> 
> Im really eager to see results from people who use LR4 RC2 which states on top that it uses Adobe Camera Raw 7.1 (98% sure) which is a different revision to LR4 RC1 which may make a difference.
> 
> ...



Did you update your DPP software to the new version that corrects the softness? it definitely make a huge difference!


----------



## JR (May 2, 2012)

So this is impressive. You are suggesting that using LR would not bring this result right? I saw you next post but since the crop was different then the file you did with dpp and PS was not sure...


----------



## Northstar (May 2, 2012)

between the softness issue and now this.....THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS REALLY FRUSTRATING!!

I'm thinking of downloading Aperture...anybody know of the folks at Apple have got it right??


----------



## wshinji (May 2, 2012)

Is there a best way to convert the RAW file with the latest DDP to a different non destructive format and then use LR4 to complete the workflow? keeping the sharpness...

maybe there is way or similar...?


----------



## sparda79 (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> Let me blow your mind a little.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the Lightroom/ACR conversion, did you use Photoshop's highlight/shadow adjustment too or just Lightroom/ACR's exposure slider?


----------



## RJSY (May 2, 2012)

wshinji said:


> Is there a best way to convert the RAW file with the latest DDP to a different non destructive format and then use LR4 to complete the workflow? keeping the sharpness...
> 
> maybe there is way or similar...?



you have to use the latest 3.11.26 version of DPP.

You can use DPP to initially convert the RAW images to 16bit TIFF files then use LR to finish up. Ive tried this and it manages to "keep the sharpness".


----------



## RJSY (May 2, 2012)

here is a sample of raw MKIII picture converted with DPP.

First image is the whole picture next would be a crop of the of the first image.

Sharpnessin DPP was at 2 and exposure was bumped up .50


----------



## Aglet (May 2, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Adobe has always had to play catch up with almost every new canon/nikon camera ever released... Canon doesn't like to play nice and give developers like adobe insights on how to prep, so adobe has to wait until they can get their grubby hands on something to go off of. Canon 5d mark 2, we had to nearly wait a full month before adobe had any support what-so-ever for the camera after first launch... no beta, no release candidate, nothing. To my knowledge, this is the first big release where they at least had something out there to play around with.



I'd actually read/heard somewhere that Canon makes their raw converter's de-mosaicing engine available to developers like Adobe. They just choose to not use it. Likely their own in-house version intergrates better with the rest of their ACR-based applications.

For those who poo-poo DPP you're missing out. No, it's not the zippiest thing but it's really easy to use and provides excellent output that you can further PP in other graphics apps. It's batch-output is really simple to use too. DPP is best thought of as a developing lab for the raw file film. I used to use DxO to max out the detail from some of my shots but recently ran into some problems with the way they did CA correction - it desaturated genuinely colorful fine foliage detail to gray!
I went back and tried the same shot on an updated version of DPP and holy cow! Way more sharpness and none of the CA-correction issues that DxO (6 & 7) had with the same file. DxO now sits in the seldom-used corner of my computer. DPP and LR handle the majority of the processing with PS and DxO only brought out under special circumstances. DPP for the intial conversion and rating, LR for tweaks like gradients and hilite/shadow and NR as needed as it exceeds DPP in those areas. Fortunately DPP and Adobe can at least work on the same file (TIFF) types together. DxO is too limited so can't pass files back and forth as readily. (no DNG!!?)


----------



## JR (May 2, 2012)

RJSY said:


> here is a sample of raw MKIII picture converted with DPP.
> 
> First image is the whole picture next would be a crop of the of the first image.
> 
> Sharpnessin DPP was at 2 and exposure was bumped up .50



Did you tr the same picture in Lightroom to see the difference?


----------



## wshinji (May 3, 2012)

I have no clue if I did this correctly....

I opened the same .CR2 raw file in both LR4 RC2 and DPP. File of course taken with a 5D3. Both zoomed in at 100% and just compared the 2 images side by size.

Exactly the same raw file but they look different when opened in each application. From sharpness and color!


----------



## RJSY (May 3, 2012)

@wshinji...... yes, the difference in the way LR and DPP "process" the raw files is evident upon opening the file..... unbelievable huh????.....


----------



## AndreeOnline (May 3, 2012)

While the difference seems huge in your comparison, I wouldn't read too much into it.

You could make any number of changes in Lightroom and then save that as 'default' for your mkIII. You can even make per ISO default settings.

We must assume that the DPP default has already been tweaked to some extent to be a good fit for mkIII. 

There is also the question of picture styles: what was used as the "default" in your Lightroom shot?

Now, what WOULD concern me is: after having hand developed both images in each software, optimizing them, if there's STILL a big difference in detail/sharpness... that would be an issue.


----------



## wshinji (May 3, 2012)

The difference is pretty big and in my situation what concerns me the most is that I didnt have any issues or worries with my 7D from the moment i Purchased it till this day.

5D3 is giving me trouble in the sense that i'm not completely happy. Still boils back down to me still wishing I have a camera like the 7D with upgraded features but $3600 later im still feeling empty.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 3, 2012)

The DPP file already bumped the sharpness to 4 based on the picture style you had selected when shooting.


----------



## cps_user (May 3, 2012)

indeed. After import, Lr files are rather 'flat'.


----------



## wshinji (May 3, 2012)

Picture style when the image was shot on the day was set to Landscape thats why DPP says its +4 sharpness...

I made no changes in either LR4 or DPP, just opened RAW file in each and put them side by side.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 3, 2012)

That simply means that DPP has already made some adjustments to the base file to match the picture style.
LR does not do that by default or at least I don't remember since I think I set up mine to open the flat, zeroed files.
The point being is that from what I tested, the base file looks pretty much the same in both LR and DPP. 
What's left to determine though is whether DPPs NR and sharpening algorithms are better than LR. I haven't done any extensive tests on that yet but from quickly mucking around I did see that DPP does somewhat of a better job in lifting the shadows and eliminating color noise.


----------



## JR (May 3, 2012)

wshinji said:


> I have no clue if I did this correctly....
> 
> I opened the same .CR2 raw file in both LR4 RC2 and DPP. File of course taken with a 5D3. Both zoomed in at 100% and just compared the 2 images side by size.
> 
> Exactly the same raw file but they look different when opened in each application. From sharpness and color!



I did a similar test yesterday and came to similar but disturbing conclusion. I first did the raw comparison like you did and knowing the initial raw treatment can be different i tried to play with the LR file to see if i could make it as sharp as the dpp file after the fact. I could never match the sharpness look and feel of the dpp version. I then decided to create a tiff file from both system after optimizing the setting like i always do and trying to get the most out of the picture.

Again the tiff from dpp was much sharper!?!? Wtf!?!?

Sorry i dont have sample here to post but i did notice this difference seem to be even greater at higher iso. While i think Lr is much better at NR then dpp, maybe that process on high iso file bring some form of softness as well, in comparison to the NR process from the dpp software.

Even leaving the files flat, shooting in neutral picture style and applying no adjustment to the files, the conclusion was that the dpp was sharaper, just like wshinji file here...

I even downloaded the RC version 2 update for lr4 and i get the same result...

??? ??? ???


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Thanks guys, I appriciate the serious answers most of you give. I know how to use this camera, and I feel I never get that same crazy good sharpness I did from the mk2. Sure all my images are properly focused now, not 4 out of ten at best. But the one's that did stick on the 5d2 always put a huge smile on my face, but now it is absolutely lacking, and I don't really feel they're sharp even if I do pull harder in the sharpening in Lr.
> 
> I certainly hope this will be adressed by someone that has something to say in this business.



Viggo: LR sharpening is one of the weaker tools for sharpening. Even CS5 is better, but the one I like most is Topaz Detail. It can really sharpen, not just create halos or squiggly lines like LR/CS.


----------



## Viggo (May 5, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guys, I appriciate the serious answers most of you give. I know how to use this camera, and I feel I never get that same crazy good sharpness I did from the mk2. Sure all my images are properly focused now, not 4 out of ten at best. But the one's that did stick on the 5d2 always put a huge smile on my face, but now it is absolutely lacking, and I don't really feel they're sharp even if I do pull harder in the sharpening in Lr.
> ...



Not familliar with that, is that a plug-in for Lr and/or CS or a stand alone? I need all my tool sin one program. Lr has been great up until now.

Anyone care to guess when Adobe fixes the Lr/5d3 issues? Will it be a week or three months? (My raws are stacking up ;D


----------



## K-amps (May 6, 2012)

Viggo said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I use Topaz detail as a CS5 plug in.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## K-amps (May 6, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Thanks!



30 day trial here: http://www.topazlabs.com/detail/


----------

