# New Canon 5D mark III raws



## Warninglabel (Mar 6, 2012)

Just saw this over @ DPREVIEW

I know a lot of people looking for them to compare 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

They don't look to bad


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 6, 2012)

Links not working for me...


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 6, 2012)

Just fixed it


----------



## munsoned (Mar 6, 2012)

well they look pretty good.. please god produce sharp images out in the field and not just in studio!!


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 6, 2012)

Yes they do


----------



## MaGiL (Mar 6, 2012)

looks very good.....


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 6, 2012)

are you guys able to open the CR2 files?
the jpgs look like they are getting hammered by in camera NR which could be done alot cleaner using something like topaz denoise where you have independent control over shadow midtone and highly Nr as well as individual channels.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> are you guys able to open the CR2 files?



Canon's ZoomBrowser should be able to open them. It opened a few CR2's from another article the other day. Wont be able to try myself until later.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 6, 2012)

I thought Canon wouldn't let you post pre-pro RAW files? Or at least, that's what I've seen other sites/people say as to why they couldn't upload the RAW for people.


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 7, 2012)

Well it's a good thing somebody posted some RAWs because I was getting worried. but now I'm starting to get happier about my purchase


----------



## erfon (Mar 7, 2012)

the release candidate of the new adobe camera raw supports the Mark III, you can download it right here: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

you should be able to open the cr2's in lightroom or photoshop after installing. 

i'm downloading the raw files right now (taking foooorever!) and am going to try to open them)

UPDATE: it works great in photoshop, lightroom doesn't work with camera raw release candidate though. i can open any of the Mark III RAW files now in photoshop though.


----------



## smithy (Mar 7, 2012)

Looks good - ISO 6400 on the 5dIII looks similar to ISO 400 on my 40D...


----------



## Astro (Mar 7, 2012)

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.







of course they are different beast... im just saying im suprised.
i seldom go above iso 3200.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 7, 2012)

I shoot JPG, and the "Comparometer" shows that the 5D3 at ISO12800 is just SLIGHTLY **LESS** noisy than the 7D at ISO1600. There's not much in it though.

So that's a stonking THREE STOPS of improvement!

I can't wait to get my hands on the 5D3 !


----------



## erfon (Mar 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
> compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.
> 
> but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.



yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat. I doubt we'll even see the Mark III competing with the D3S. Those camera's are low light beasts. 

I'd be happy with solid 6400 performance and thrilled with solid 12800 performance.


----------



## Astro (Mar 7, 2012)

erfon said:


> yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat.




yep.. i have too keep that in mind.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 7, 2012)

erfon said:


> yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat. I doubt we'll even see the Mark III competing with the D3S. Those camera's are low light beasts.



well i have to admit the D4 examples look good. 

you don´t have to go high as ISO 6400 even ISO 800 shows more details in the D4 pictures then in the 5D MK3 pictures.... at least in the reds... they are smeared into oblivion.

im really curious to see what the 1D X and D800 can achive.


----------



## altenae (Mar 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
> compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.
> 
> but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.
> ...



It's only the red. 
The green looks the same in detail. 

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> erfon said:
> 
> 
> > yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4. The D4 will be impossible to beat.
> ...



Hmm, I just compared them both (D4 vs. 5D3) at ISO12800 using the colourful still-life scene.

The 5D3 appears slightly less noisy than the D4, and thanks to its higher resolution, you can read then writing at the centre of the white "wheel calculator" easily with the 5D3, but not with the D4.

Have I compared the wrong things?

In SOME parts of the scene, the 5D3 image looks as though more NR has been applied than in the D4 image, but ultimately, the 5D3 image does show more fine detail IMHO.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 7, 2012)

altenae said:


> Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.



don´t they keep lighting constant?
i mean... what sense would the test make if not?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> In SOME parts of the scene, the 5D3 image looks as though more NR has been applied than in the D4 image, but ultimately, the 5D3 image does show more fine detail IMHO.



yep it´s the red parts that made me wonder.

otherwise it is ok ...i say...


----------



## altenae (Mar 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes they try. 
But on other places I see more detail in de 5d mk iii samples. 
Maybe the red was aligned slightly different ?

Why has the green more detail as the red ??


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 7, 2012)

altenae said:


> Why has the green more detail as the red ??



i think that´s no wonder.
it is because of the bayern pattern. it has 2x more green sensitiv photosites then blue and red.


----------



## callaesthetics (Mar 7, 2012)

Maybe it's just my eyes, but the 5D3 images seems cleaner than then D3s and D4. It looks even better when i resized the 5D3 down to the D4's. When converting the RAW file from the 5D3, i get much sharper results and very high ISO's have nice grains.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
> compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.
> 
> but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.
> ...



Surprised that a $6000 camera beats a $3500 camera at ISO 6400 - and not even by that much? 

I think that's a damn impressive comparo, given the price points.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 7, 2012)

Super clean at high ISO speeds and tack sharp to boot. Considering the disparity between the jpeg and raw sample images, maybe the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening is to blame for the underwhelming jpegs. Hopefully all the people that were freaking out can relax a bit now


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 7, 2012)

I looked at the images and camera settings in the exif, and was disappointed.

The sample images are really not what should be used to see low light high iso performance. They are taken in bright light, which will reduce the noise level and give overly optomistic results, assuming that you really want low light usage. The lighting varies, but is close to ev 10.

DPR seems to be the only one who uses low light for their high iso test 
They have only shown jpeg images, but the results at least are not more realistic. The DPR lighting is about ev 3.


----------



## te4o (Mar 7, 2012)

Relax is the right word, we are still far away from the final comparison. 
I saw a thread @ DPR : side-to-side RAW 5D2vs3: facit : about 2/3 stops better than the old model:these are still early days, folks. Fun to discover it all though. But I am not expecting heaven-on-earth. 

At least the issue with the sharpness is gone. The AA is NOT the softener. Good news, ay?


----------



## risc32 (Mar 7, 2012)

To me it looks like it there isn't much in it between the d3s and 5dmk3 at iso 3200 or 6400. other than the 5dmk3 showing much more detail. Sure the reds hold up better with the d3s, but many of the other colors look better on the 5dmk3. i didn't look at anything faster, only out of laziness, and that since i've never had the need or ability to shoot at anything faster...


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 7, 2012)

Drifting slightly off-topic, I have spent many interested hours this evening on that "Comparometer".

Two more interesting comparisons vs. the 5D3:

1) Pentax 645D : It only goes up to ISO1600, and at that setting it is WAY more noisy than the 5D3. On the other hand, of course, the Pentax destroys the 5D3 for resolution. (Captain Obvious!) At ISO100, the Pentax is stunning, as you'd expect.

2) Leica M9 : *Perhaps not a fair comparison*, since the M9 is a few years old now. It is destroyed by the 5D3 at low and high ISO. Even at ISO200, the Leica looks way noisier than the 5D3 and the Leica's reds are even more deficient than those of the Canon. Greens seem about the same; perhaps Leica wins in the blues. But it's very subjective, I suspect.

I could spend hours on that site! (Oh, I just have!)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

Comparing the 5D2 RAWs to the 5D3 RAWs in ACR and Photoshop it looks like the 5D3 is two-thirds of a stop better for high ISO SNR.

Lots of dangers in the comparison though since we don't know what ACR does to them for each camera or even if the ISO stops are rated the same way or not.

We really need DxO for the SNR measurements.

But looking at these, I'd say a solid 2/3 stop advantage for 5D3 over 5D2 SNR.

At ISO 100 it seems the 5D3 won't do much for you, early reports are basically no increase in dynamic range and only modestly better banding (still likely worse than the 1Ds3 at ISO 100). The dynamic range tests were carried out using the masking region though so there is a modest chance that they might not fully tell the true story at all, although they probably do.

Based on all of this, sometimes a bit sketchy info, the 5D3 may offer no advantage over the 5D2 at low ISO but a solid 2/3rds of a stop advantage at high ISO (almost D3s-level, but the greater MP actually makes it effectively better than the D3s since you can NR more and still have the same final detail*). 

(The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)


* note how despite all the talk about how high MP cams make a mess of things, the ones with higher MP don't seem to be doing so badly compared to one with lower MP


----------



## melbournite (Mar 7, 2012)

Talk it up boys. The more good stuff I see and hear about the 5DIII the more excited I get about it's arrival in the post!


----------



## jdavis37 (Mar 7, 2012)

After installing the ACR release candidate, I downloaded the 5D ISO6400 CR2 file as well as the Nikon D4 NEF of same file with NR set to 0. While I realize all of this is premature I was actually quite surprised to see how well the 5D3 file looked after downsampling to 16 MP. There wasn't as much difference between the 2 as I had expected. Not sure this means a whole lot given the files are still beta as is the ACR release candidate but i was really expecting the D4 to be a lot better than the 5d3 and in this example it wasn't the case. I did not, however, do any post processing work on the files.

I don't think we will have long to wait. It sounds like the first shipment is on the boat, if the March 17 delivery statements for Canada are correct. 

Chuck Westfall was quoted as saying that a large inventory has been stockpiled, and two production lines at different factories are kicking them out in large numbers, so we can soon compare between our old MK II and our new MK III's.


----------



## BaconBets (Mar 7, 2012)

The D800 is not the successor to the D700....who thinks Nikon is going to turn everything on its head later this year by announcing the D700s. I can feel it coming....and those sneaky Nikon people might just put their flagship sensor in it once again. I like Canon, but nobody can deny that the D4 is a horse.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 7, 2012)

Same could be said about Canon as well. Who's to say that Canon won't actually release the rumored 5DX. High 30s - low 40s MPs.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

The most interesting sample photo to me is the very last one, the one with the X-Rite color checker cards and the resolution diagrams. Looking at the radial moire test bubbles...I can't really see much color moire at all. There is obviously normal monochromatic moire (simple matter of physics there)...but color moire seems largely absent (but certainly a welcome absent). There is some visible color moire in the pink and blue bubble, and maybe a little in the red bubble, but the rest seem to lack any color moire at all.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> (The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)



How do you figure the D800's DR is 2.5 stops better than the 5DIII? Just curious.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 7, 2012)

I downloaded the raws but my photoshop cs5 cant load them nor DPP.. what update do I need to do this? Regarding image resource, I compared apples to apples Canons 5d3 vs Canons 5d2 on same images and the 5d3 looked sharper overall in almost all the ISO ranges compared to the 5d2, which seems to differ from internet sample images. All things being the same, if this is indeed the case that the 5d3 is cleaner and sharper than the 5d2, i'm game. It's a shame they dont have a D800 to compare against so we can really comb down to brass tax and know where we stand...


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 7, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I looked at the images and camera settings in the exif, and was disappointed.
> 
> The sample images are really not what should be used to see low light high iso performance. They are taken in bright light, which will reduce the noise level and give overly optomistic results, assuming that you really want low light usage. The lighting varies, but is close to ev 10.



But by comparing to other models in the IR test database, you can find relative improvement across various models of camera body.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 7, 2012)

I've spent way more time pixel peeping than I care to admit, but these raw files are very promising. With some noise reduction and a quick unsharp mask, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at ISO 12,800 for images that will be printed at 5x7 or smaller. There's still plenty of detail. Heck, the jpegs look pretty good, too.


----------



## ippikiokami (Mar 7, 2012)

Played with the 25600 raw a little bit in Topaz Denoise and all I can say is Sweet Baby Jesus this generation of cameras is amazing.

If the AF is as accurate as it should be it's a major upgrade from my 5d II (which i'm happily keeping btw. It didn't all the sudden start taking crap pictures). I was going to bite the bullet and grab a 1DX but I might skip a 1 series generation this time around


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > (The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)
> ...



He can't. Theoretically, the maximum possible DR would be 14 stops with a full 14-bit image sensor and image processing pipeline (think about the nature of a bit...every successive bit has twice the significance...or value-holding power...as the previous; a doubling; in other words, every bit is one EV, or one stop, difference in dynamic range.) The 5D II achieved about 11.86 stops of DR, and the D7000 (Nikon's highest DR camera) achieved about 13.87 stops of DR (based on DXO data, which measures DR from the point where a single photon strikes the sensor to the point where the first pixel is fully saturated). Assuming the 5D III has not improved at all on the DR front, the maximum difference in DR would be about 2.01 stops. I think most of us are pretty solidly confident that Canon has resolved their read noise issues, and are probably getting much closer to that 13.9 stops of maximum DR that Sony Exmor sensors are getting...so the difference is probably less than a stop, (personally I _hope_ and believe it will be in the realm of 0.25 or less stops), of DR difference between any one of the 1D X, 5D III, D800, D4 and D7000.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > (The D800 would offer 50% more MP and perhaps a solid 2.5 stops better dynamic range at ISO 100 and perhaps between 1/3 stop worse to 1 stop better performance at high ISO. Based on that, the D800 most likely does have an all around better sensor, although it is not set in stone yet.*)
> ...



Because someone measured the ISO100 read noise of the 5D3 (using masked area of the image, granted that is not ideal) and measured essentially the same exact read noise as for the 5D2 and because the D800 uses and Exmor sensor, most of which have had a good 2-2.5 stops on the 5D2 (and the difference is even greater since they are also free of pattern banding which bothers the eye more).

We will see, but things, unfortunately, seem to be pointing this way. I hope it won't be the case, but....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I downloaded the raws but my photoshop cs5 cant load them nor DPP.. what update do I need to do this? Regarding image resource, I compared apples to apples Canons 5d3 vs Canons 5d2 on same images and the 5d3 looked sharper overall in almost all the ISO ranges compared to the 5d2, which seems to differ from internet sample images. All things being the same, if this is indeed the case that the 5d3 is cleaner and sharper than the 5d2, i'm game. It's a shame they dont have a D800 to compare against so we can really comb down to brass tax and know where we stand...



If you search around on google you can find the link for ACR 6.7RC.

Yeah the comparator on IR gives a very false impression since you are comparing 5D2 and 5D3 images that were each processed with extremely different settings and different converter version, the huge sharpness advantage goes away look a images processed with the same settings.


----------



## SRHelicity (Mar 7, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Same could be said about Canon as well. Who's to say that Canon won't actually release the rumored 5DX. High 30s - low 40s MPs.



My problem is that, if the 22 MP 5D3 is $3500, there's no way a high MP 5DX would be anything less than $4000. Sure, maybe they'll use a less sophisticated AF and metering system, but I can't find any way for Canon to compete with the D800 in terms of price if the 5D X comes to pass. I mean, do you think Canon would price a 30-40 MP FF camera BELOW the price of the 5D Mk III? I don't.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Oops I used my non-normalized 11.25 value for the 5D2 and mixed it with the 8MP normalized value for the D7000. So yeah with the 11.8 then you are at 2 stops difference. But don't forget that the D7000 is superbly free of any fixed pattern noise while the 5D2 was among the worst of Canon's efforts in that regard so the usable difference has got to be at least another 1/2 stop more. So you still talking a good 2.5 stops better in a real-world usable sense. 

Perhaps the D800 won't quite match the D7000 and perhaps the main sensor area will measure a bit better for the 5D3 and it will come out closer than 2 stops. I hope the 5D3 does better than the first result hinted at because it was kind of disappointing and not what I had hoped for.


----------



## Orion (Mar 7, 2012)

I am at a loss for words when comparing the 5DmkIII to the D4. . . . @ 6400iso and 12800 iso I viewd full res at the base of the goblin beer bottle, and the 5DmkIII kicks arse. I find it hard to believe though. . . . I wasn;t expecting so much noise from the D4 and sharper image from teh mkIII just from that section of the image. . . .


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think most of us are pretty solidly confident that Canon has resolved their read noise issues, and are probably getting much closer to that 13.9 stops of maximum DR that Sony Exmor sensors are getting...so the difference is probably less than a stop, (personally I _hope_ and believe it will be in the realm of 0.25 or less stops), of DR difference between any one of the 1D X, 5D III, D800, D4 and D7000.



I had hoped that but earlier today someone on DPR measured 6.02 ADU for the 5D3 at ISO 100 while my 5D2 measures 6.09 ADU. So nothing there. Basically the exact same. I just hope the 5D3 is one of the few bodies where the masked area performs much differently from the main area. But it seems more like it will be 11.8 going to 12.05 versus 11.8 going to 13.5 or 13.8 and with the 5D3 having more fixed pattern noise the usable differences ending up over 2 stops worse. I haven't measured it yet myself, I just hope the other guy messed it up (he is usually not one to miss this stuff up though) or that the masked area just doesn't work well for measuring this body. If we are really lucky ISO 100 will have been rated 1/2 stop off compared to the 5D2 and then we can gain an extra 1/2 stop back and 12.05 goes to 12.55 but that is probably not going to be the case. Anyway it seems unlikely the 5D3 will be able to measure better than 12.6 and it might be 11.9 again. The D800 would probably be 13.5-13.9 plus have less fixed pattern noise, so whatever it has will have an extra bonus of further usability.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 7, 2012)

SRHelicity said:


> My problem is that, if the 22 MP 5D3 is $3500, there's no way a high MP 5DX would be anything less than $4000. Sure, maybe they'll use a less sophisticated AF and metering system, but I can't find any way for Canon to compete with the D800 in terms of price if the 5D X comes to pass. I mean, do you think Canon would price a 30-40 MP FF camera BELOW the price of the 5D Mk III? I don't.



Maybe, maybe not. Depends at least partially on development and production costs. If they scale an existing sensor (like the 7D's) to 36X24 (45MP-ish) and use less expensive AF and processing, it's possible they could produce a high pixel count camera for less than the 5D3 (entirely new sensor I believe).


----------



## mrmarks (Mar 7, 2012)

Is there any noise banding in the 5D3?


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think most of us are pretty solidly confident that Canon has resolved their read noise issues, and are probably getting much closer to that 13.9 stops of maximum DR that Sony Exmor sensors are getting...so the difference is probably less than a stop, (personally I _hope_ and believe it will be in the realm of 0.25 or less stops), of DR difference between any one of the 1D X, 5D III, D800, D4 and D7000.
> ...



Who did that measurement? If your talking someone on the forums, thats not what I'm referring to. If it was an official step wedge test based on JPEG output (which are usually what official DPR DR tests are based on), those tests are generally worthless (JPEG compression obliterates DR.) The DXO tests are very accurate, and measure the sensor hardware at a lower level than a JPEG step wedge test does. From a *headroom* standpoint, i.e. the ability to recover highlights or shadows, DXO's tests are more accurate (as demonstrated by the many videos on the net showing unbelievable shadow recovery with the D7000, where you can see before your eyes the recovery of 4-6 stops of what appears to be solid black in under exposed photos.)



> So nothing there. Basically the exact same. I just hope the 5D3 is one of the few bodies where the masked area performs much differently from the main area. But it seems more like it will be 11.8 going to 12.05 versus 11.8 going to 13.5 or 13.8 and with the 5D3 having more fixed pattern noise the usable differences ending up over 2 stops worse. I haven't measured it yet myself, I just hope the other guy messed it up (he is usually not one to miss this stuff up though) or that the masked area just doesn't work well for measuring this body. If we are really lucky ISO 100 will have been rated 1/2 stop off compared to the 5D2 and then we can gain an extra 1/2 stop back and 12.05 goes to 12.55 but that is probably not going to be the case. Anyway it seems unlikely the 5D3 will be able to measure better than 12.6 and it might be 11.9 again. The D800 would probably be 13.5-13.9 plus have less fixed pattern noise, so whatever it has will have an extra bonus of further usability.



Where in the world are you getting that the 5D III has _MORE_ fixed pattern noise? So far, in all my poking around with the samples available on the net, the 5D III has no visible fixed pattern noise at all as far as I can tell, right down into the deep shadows. You got a link somewhere that shows the 5D III having WORSE fixed pattern noise than the 5D II (which was pretty bad even for its time, at 27.8 electrons worth.)


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 7, 2012)

SRHelicity said:


> My problem is that, if the 22 MP 5D3 is $3500, there's no way a high MP 5DX would be anything less than $4000. Sure, maybe they'll use a less sophisticated AF and metering system, but I can't find any way for Canon to compete with the D800 in terms of price if the 5D X comes to pass. I mean, do you think Canon would price a 30-40 MP FF camera BELOW the price of the 5D Mk III? I don't.



It really depends on the market they're going after. Remember, the 5D3 is 22MP, with 6fps and an insane AF system with killer ISOs at $3499. A 5D body with lower fps, say 3-4 frames per second, a 30+ MP sensor, less advanced AF system and ISOs comparable to the d800 could certainly be priced in the $2799-$2999 range to compete directly with Nikon's 36MP beast.

Remember, it's not just megapixels a body is packing, but other features as well that photographers look for. High MP shooters don't always need high burst and high ISOs, so perhaps the 5D3 is not for them. A 5DX could satisfy that market at $2,899 while leaving the 5D2 intact at $2,199.

Time will tell.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> Is there any noise banding in the 5D3?



It seems like the horizontal banding is mostly gone low and high iso but vertical is still here. It doesn't appear to show up much at high iso (although we don't have any really dark samples yet) but is still in low ISO shadows to some degree or another, it seems to be more than the 1Ds3 has.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Not a wedge test. Measuring the masked off black area of an ISO 100 RAW, finding the std dev in raw levels, then taking the max raw level - the raw black point and then dividing it by the read noise and then taking the log2 of that to get dynamic range in stops. JS provided the raw read of 6.02 ADU. It's the same thing DxO does and same thing I did in my tests of the 40D,20D,50D,7D,5D2,1D3.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> Where in the world are you getting that the 5D III has _MORE_ fixed pattern noise? So far, in all my poking around with the samples available on the net, the 5D III has no visible fixed pattern noise at all as far as I can tell, right down into the deep shadows. You got a link somewhere that shows the 5D III having WORSE fixed pattern noise than the 5D II (which was pretty bad even for its time, at 27.8 electrons worth.)



No, not worse than the 5D2 but worse, at low ISO, than the 1Ds3 and the D7000, D3x, almost certainly the D800, etc. It seems to be a little bit better than the 5D2 but it appears to still be there worse than any of Canon's best efforts, most likely, and almost 100% sure worse than any of Sony/Nikon's best efforts.

It seems like it won't be a problem at high iso though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Dude, I've owned Canon SLRs since the EOS 650.... just saying. But be my guest and spend your every waking 4 hour period re-smiting me, if it makes you feel better, I couldn't care less.

If someone can provide a 1/8000the exposure with the body cap on in a dark room and a frame with all the channels totally blown out, both at ISO 100 then we can get a better measurement. This DR measurement is easy. When it I do it with my 5D2 I get virtually the same result DxO reports.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Well anything up to and including ISO 3200 appears to be relatively free of noise.
> 
> At least to my eyes, ISO 3200 on the 5D Mark III is about equivalent to ISO 400 on the 5D Mark II, so a 3 stop improvement based on what I'm seeing.
> 
> ...



Yes, you are comparing images that were rendering with a different converter using entirely different settings.
You need to download the RAW files and look at them in Photoshop yourself using the same settings.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



To date, from ISO 100 to ISO 25600 test images, both JPEG and RAW, not one SOUL outside of you has mentioned any amount of banding noise visible in ANY image from the 5D III (most of which are from pre-production models even!) From the noise levels at ISO 6400, even at 25600, the 5D III, with black and shadow levels cranked up as high as they can go in Photoshop, the only thing visible even in the darkest blacks is clean, random noise. I cranked up EV on every ISO 100 image I could get my hands on, and I have seen nothing but a few speckles of random noise in the darkest shadows. You would need to produce an actual sample image that clearly demonstrates banding noise before I'd even consider that you are not purely fabricating the details our producing (i.e. 6.02 ADU.) You would also need to produce a link to whatever forum thread or article on DPR that you are referring to that supposedly measured the 5D III's read noise, because I'm highly skeptical anyone has had a chance to do any accurate measurements with the proper gear and care to produce anything remotely resembling a valid result.

Additionally, if you are trying to replicate DXO tests on your own with Photoshop/ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, or any other mainstream RAW editor, your not working with accurate data. Outside of DCRAW, every RAW processor applies a tone curve (picture style/image style/etc.) to the RAW image data before rendering to screen or file. You aren't looking at the unmodified RAW image data, even if you use a "neutral" tone curve...since even neutral is non-linear. You need to use the right kind of image processing software, as well as specially designed test targets, to test the full DR capable by a digital sensor. DXO not only uses a very specialized system to measure noise and DR (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/Noise-dynamic-range), they use the same system to measure every camera, so comparisons are accurate.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Not a wedge test. Measuring the masked off black area of an ISO 100 RAW, finding the std dev in raw levels, then taking the max raw level - the raw black point and then dividing it by the read noise and then taking the log2 of that to get dynamic range in stops. JS provided the raw read of 6.02 ADU. It's the same thing DxO does and same thing I did in my tests of the 40D,20D,50D,7D,5D2,1D3.



Just curious - how are you doing these measurements? ACR and LR don't even support the 5D3 RAW files yet... at least on my end I'm stopped by camera compatibility warnings when I try to import into either program.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

@justsomedude: You can try this: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Not a wedge test. Measuring the masked off black area of an ISO 100 RAW, finding the std dev in raw levels, then taking the max raw level - the raw black point and then dividing it by the read noise and then taking the log2 of that to get dynamic range in stops. JS provided the raw read of 6.02 ADU. It's the same thing DxO does and same thing I did in my tests of the 40D,20D,50D,7D,5D2,1D3.
> ...



The DR measurements were done with various RAW analysis programs, they measure things before de-bayer or any processing gets done on the camera output at all. Nothing to do with ACR or LR or DPP or C1.

People are viewing the images using the new ACR 6.7RC.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



And those RAW analysis programs would be....?? The longer you hold out on producing some actual reference material, sample images that actually exhibit read noise, and links to back up your claims here, the more it really does sound like your an anti-Canon troll. I've been searching the web...there isn't a SCRAP of information out there yet about anyone claiming to have done DR tests on the 5D III, let alone come up with worse read noise than the 5D II. Back it up or shut it up, man.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40826389
(near the bottom, post by John mentions 6ADU)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40824864
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40825115


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40826389
> (near the bottom, post by John mentions 6ADU)



Sorry, image contains no EXIF data. Who the hell knows what camera that image came from. If I had to guess, I'd say the 5D Mark II, not the 5D Mark II, as I've been poking around with every 5D III image I could get my hands on since they started hitting the net, and I've never seen anything even remotely resembling that much read noise. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40824864



Pretty charts, but they are lacking any context. Not to mention they were generated by a beta program that has a grand total of seven, yes 7, facebook likes. Skeptical.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40825115



Again, a lack of any viable EXIF data to verify the origin of either image. Not to mention the fact that they are being tweaked in Photoshop, which as I mentioned before always applies a basic set of processing to every image, so its not really a viable tool to measure DR.


----------



## bornshooter (Mar 7, 2012)

seriously you guys need to get a life lol is there any need for such a massive crop and pixel peeping?5d3 high iso looks amazing low light destroyer it is...now stop pixel peeping and get out there and take some photos


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> seriously you guys need to get a life lol is there any need for such a massive crop and pixel peeping?5d3 high iso looks amazing low light destroyer it is...now stop pixel peeping and get out there and take some photos



Oh, I'd LOVE to be out taking photos...except that its about 1am and a nasty, freezing blizzard is blowing in hard. I can't sleep, and I don't really have anything else to do other than harass those who are posting sketchy, anecdotal information about the horrid atrocities of 5D III banding noise. ;-P


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 8, 2012)

Listen, among those guys you are calling liars happens to be one the lead software developer of RAW conversion software ;D. He is not a liar and he does know what he is talking about!

And if you check out the latest post by Horshack on one of the those threads, near the bottom, you see what an exmor sensor can do with the extreme DR range. A picture taken of the sun where all the terrain below looked pitch black with zero detail was brought back to reveal a detailed suburban landscape.

I wish that the 5D3 will be able to do that and I had hoped and expected it to at least get close, but it seems unlikely now, hope it will, but....

And two of the posts that did measure DR did not use ACR.

Stop making stuff up and accusing people of being liars just because you can't handle that the camera you ordered (and I might still order myself one day, but I am not yet sure) almost certainly won't have nearly as much dynamic range as you had hoped for. I hoped it would too. It appears doubtful now. But I won't make stuff up and start getting on everyone who tries to say otherwise and act like an ostrich.





jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40826389
> ...


----------



## qwerty (Mar 8, 2012)

I finally got around to comparing the raw images myself (converted with ACR 6.7, viewed in LR 3.6 without any noise reduction). To my untrained eye, it looked like the 5D III gained about half a stop in high ISO noise. Comparing the jpegs on imaging resources showed a much larger difference, so it seems like the III has much better in-camera jpeg processing (which does not help those of us who shoot raw).

I had been hoping for ~1 stop in high ISO noise (yeah, I am an optimist, but DxO had almost a full stop improvement of the 5D II over the I), which the imaging-resources photos definitely did not show. I was also hoping for a big boost in low-ISO DR (comparable to the newer Nikon/Sony sensors), but the scuttlebutt seems to be that the low-ISO read noise is basically unchanged, so I do not expect to see this.

On the other hand, the resolution of fine details for the 5D III was significantly better; not sure if this is just due to the (22.3/21.1)^.5-1=2.8% boost in linear resolution, a weakened AA filter, or both.

All-in-all, it looks like the most minimal sensor improvement I could have expected from Canon. The improved AF and 6 fps are probably still enough reason for me to upgrade (from a 5D I), but its enough of a toss-up now that if there are any other disappointments that come to light, I will just get a 5D II and save $1,500.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> And those RAW analysis programs would be....?? The longer you hold out on producing some actual reference material, sample images that actually exhibit read noise, and links to back up your claims here, the more it really does sound like your an anti-Canon troll. I've been searching the web...there isn't a SCRAP of information out there yet about anyone claiming to have done DR tests on the 5D III, let alone come up with worse read noise than the 5D II. Back it up or shut it up, man.



IRIS also works
I just tested a file and I got the same thing John got, only I also found that the max raw level is lower so instead of a trace better DR, I got .1 stop worse.
I just hope the side masking area proves to be invalid for this measurement.
If not, then I'm afraid to say but the DR didn't get even the tiniest bit better (perhaps if the banding proves to be less the usable amount will be a touch greater).


----------



## altenae (Mar 9, 2012)

@lettheright

You already made your statement in 4 topics. 
Including a new fresh topic started by yourself. 

Let's wait for some production files and more info. 
Then we make some conclusions.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 9, 2012)

i'm not sure if anyone can remember back a few months with all the 5D3 wishlist threads most people were saying their wish list were

same or similar sensor - this is pretty much it (Personally I was never unhappy with the 5D2 sensor a bit of pattern noise in pushed shadows but i never go too overboard pushing anyway, i would have liked them to have address the pattern noise issue though)
much better AF ala 7D 19 point (people like me that said i wanted the 1D 45pt got laughed at for having too high expectations) NO ONE expected the 61 pt 1Dx system
5 FPS - got 6 (no biggy here 6 is respectable i found 4 fine for most of my uses of the camera though
dual card slots were often on the lists - got it not dual CF like most wated byt CF and SD is still good
better weather sealing - got it
built in wireless - didnt get 
100% VF - got it but still not as good as 1D
better high ISO performance - Still not 100% on how much raw improvement (isnt it annoying how they are talking up the damn jpg improvement? if i wanted to shoot jpg i'd use my iphone and carry 30kg less gear canon)
better AEB - Has the 5D3 got more bracket options? no ones been talking about this
and a whole bunch of video stuff I dont understand - i gather we didnt get most of it though 

so based on the wish lists form months ago I would say canon delivered in spades and then some

what did I miss?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> so based on the wish lists form months ago I would say canon delivered in spades and then some
> 
> what did I miss?



Perhaps the fact that people always want more? 

Or maybe the fact that a competitor is seemingly offering all (or at least, most) of the above, with far more MP (a historical Canon 'advantage'), for substantially less money? :


----------



## KeithR (Mar 9, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Stop making stuff up and accusing people of being liars



They're not liars, but _my God_, do they have agendas - and agendas that have not the remotest bearing on the Real World use the vast majority of photographers will ever put their cameras to.

I've crossed swords with John Sheehy, Horshack, Emil Martinec, Bobn and the rest of them on DPR more times than I can shake a stick at, and without exception the "problems" they identify are extreme edge cases of no relevance whatsoever to how cameras get used in reality.

I don't doubt their findings, I just don't see _any basis whatsoever_ for worrying that a 100% crop looks crappy when it's pushed 6 stops.

Bear in mind too that these tests never include any mitigation: there are converters and noise reduction programs out there that deal with these issues _trivially_ easily: me, I'm in the business of making images look _as good_ as they can be, so I simply don't see the point of worrying about how a file might look when you beat the bejezuz out of it. 

Frankly, these DPR threads are utterly irrelevant brow-beating that serves no useful purpose whatsoever except to give these people the opportunity to show the world how much more perceptive, critical, discerning and knowledgeable they are: _but you never see any actual Real World images from them_, and certainly none demonstrating that these "problems" _are actually hurting their photography_.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 9, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Frankly, these DPR threads are utterly irrelevant brow-beating that serves no useful purpose whatsoever except to give these people the opportuity to show the world how much more perceptive, critical, discerning and knowledgeable they are: _but you never see any actual Real World images from them_, and certainly none demonstrating that these "problems" _are actually hurting their photography_.


It's possible to get examples of the value of DR in things like landscape photography, but they are harder to come by than extreme methods to technically find the limits that make up said Dynamic Range. I appreciate your point, but it'd be a bit too easy to say that _all_ of those kind of threads are _irrelevant_. The examples they bring forward may be irrelevant and not occur in that same way in real world photography, but they do highlight the limitations of real world photography (for example, the limits of DR, which show up in extremes the clearest, yet affect a whole image if it's very contrasty). As such, some of them do have relevance.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 9, 2012)

Well I suppose it's useful in an academic sense to know when something falls over, but unless an artifact is of a sort that spoils images without any help from me in torturing the file beyond any reasonable use I might make of it, then I still think it's accurate to describe the issue as irrelevant. 

(I used to shoot with Nikon D200 bodies - believe me, Canon at its worst is better than my D200s ever were at their best). 

I accept that we all have different ideas of what's "reasonable" of course, but - really - how often does anyone need to dig six stops into the shadows?

And - again - there are ways to do this anyway.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 9, 2012)

the over the fence guy said:


> I can confirm that after a long period of tests that the 5DMarkus the 3rd. is actually better than the D700. But the real question is: Will it blend???


Good one!

And while we're at it, will the 400/2.8L blend?!


----------

