# 5D MK III Soft Images Even When Changing Settings in DPP



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Hi Everyone,

Like everyone else who is "upgrading" from a 7D to the new MK III I was excited. Now not so much. I've read where the softness issue was because of faulty software (DPP) so I changed the setting. Maybe someone can explain why this image isn't tack sharp. You can clearly see where the auto-focus is. Here are the stats:

5D MK III
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
f/5 1/500 s
ISO 100 @ 200mm

100% Crop

So what's the issue? Why is this not tack sharp? I have one of the best lenses Canon makes, their newest camera and I'm feeling severe buyer's remorse. So much that I'm thinking of taking it back and getting the D800 or D4. Even though I have a ton of Canon glass. Any help understanding what I'm doing wrong would be appreciated.







I've never posted here so I don't know if you'll be able to click the image or not so here's the direct link: http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/Soft.png


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

I wish I had some advice to give you. I'm new to this pixel peeping stuff, but like you I want to make sure my MKIII is getting as sharp of photos as possible. 

What caught my attention is the display of focus on the photo. Was that an in camera setting, or something that DPP shows you??


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

In Canon's software you can overlay where the auto-focus was. It's actually a pretty awesome feature. I normally use Lightroom to process so I've never bothered to use DPP. So I never new about it.

On a Mac:
Go to View then click AF Point.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> In Canon's software you can overlay where the auto-focus was. It's actually a pretty awesome feature. I normally use Lightroom to process so I've never bothered to use DPP. So I never new about it.
> 
> On a Mac:
> Go to View then click AF Point.



That is cool. Is there anyway to make just the points that catch focus light up in the camera's viewfinder? Mine just all light up when focus is achieved.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

You're better off asking one of the professional photogs here. I'm the wrong person to ask


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

I've got sharper 100% crops from my dogs using the kit lens.

I have noticed with some experimentation, that if you do a focus-recompose operation, then the highlighted focus points are the ones that the camera originally locked on when you focused. Perhaps that varies with different focus modes, but I think it's entirely possible that if that dog was moving then it's not actually showing what was in focus at the time the shutter actuated.

Remember that even at f/5 on that lens, you've only got a 3" depth of field at 10' range.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> That is cool. Is there anyway to make just the points that catch focus light up in the camera's viewfinder? Mine just all light up when focus is achieved.



Menu -> AF5 -> AF point display during focus -> Selected (focused)

You can also do

Menu -> Playback -> AF point disp -> Enable

And you'll get that DPP like view when you review images in the viewfinder, but certainly in One-Shot mode it show the point that I locked focus on, not whether that point had focus at exposure time.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> tasteofjace said:
> 
> 
> > That is cool. Is there anyway to make just the points that catch focus light up in the camera's viewfinder? Mine just all light up when focus is achieved.
> ...



Thank you for this info! Something i've been wondering about all this "Sharp" business. What exactly should I be expecting from the my MKIII in terms of sharpness? 

I'm coming from a T3i and the images are definitely sharper from my MKIII, BUT i'm not sure if I'm getting the maximum sharpness.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

skinsfactory... I looked at your photo... what shot mode where you using? zone? I noticed it had a bunch of points turned red... Have you tried single point/point expansion/detail single point? On my 7d, when using zone or full auto zone (all 19 points) the camera gets very hit or miss on the focus, but on single, single expansion, spot single those give me the best results... Please let me know as if it's zone is as unpredictable as the 7D's, it could just be that...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 27, 2012)

Download the Adobe DNG release candidate and use it. I just received my 5D MK III last night, and my shots are razor sharp, even at ISO 12800. I'm waiting for a DPP fix, but the on screen shots are very sharp, its just a matter of something going wrong when being saved. It looks like excessive NR.

I'll play with my camera some today and post the images.


----------



## iMagic (Mar 27, 2012)

I think Grahamaz might be right. Did the dog move between focus and shutter actuation? Also there are many focus points and at F2.8 that may be too many if the depth of field varies too much between the focus points. Have you tried to test on stationary objects. Try something flat at 2.8 and see if its OOF. Maybe a little Micro focus adjustment?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

lastly what setting did you change on DPP? the high quality/high speed? Just making sure so I can best find the root of the problem. Lastly, it looks like the hairs on thee chest/front leg is in decent focus and was where the camera focused... Zone could be the reason but i'm awaiting confirmation of your shooting settings.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> tasteofjace said:
> 
> 
> > That is cool. Is there anyway to make just the points that catch focus light up in the camera's viewfinder? Mine just all light up when focus is achieved.
> ...



So I did this, but no matter what I change, I still only see the center focus box and when It achieves focus, it disappears on the viewfinder? Any suggestions?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> grahamsz said:
> 
> 
> > tasteofjace said:
> ...



Are you shooting in zone AF? this is what it sounds like you are doing? If you shoot single or expansion, you will only see the AF points available until you move them to a new location and only those AF points in focus within the points you selected will light up when focused. Makes it easier to pin point where you want focused instead of letting the camera guess for you.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> So I did this, but no matter what I change, I still only see the center focus box and when It achieves focus, it disappears on the viewfinder? Any suggestions?



Don't particularly feel like explaining canon's af system to you, but try putting your camera in A+ mode on the mode dial and playing with it then. That picks a fairly sensible set of AF points


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Download the Adobe DNG release candidate and use it. I just received my 5D MK III last night, and my shots are razor sharp, even at ISO 12800. I'm waiting for a DPP fix, but the on screen shots are very sharp, its just a matter of something going wrong when being saved. It looks like excessive NR.
> 
> I'll play with my camera some today and post the images.



I'm using the DNG converter -> lightroom workflow and quite happy too


----------



## JR (Mar 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Download the Adobe DNG release candidate and use it. I just received my 5D MK III last night, and my shots are razor sharp, even at ISO 12800. I'm waiting for a DPP fix, but the on screen shots are very sharp, its just a matter of something going wrong when being saved. It looks like excessive NR.
> 
> I'll play with my camera some today and post the images.



Good to know you got a good copy. When you look at your in camera JPG on the rear screen, do they look sharp there as well? On my unit literally 100% of the in camera JPG were soft on the rear panel. Just curious.


----------



## eeek (Mar 27, 2012)

The focus confirmation is a circle on the far right, bottom of the view finder.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> tasteofjace said:
> 
> 
> > grahamsz said:
> ...



I'm starting to feel a bit retarded.. haha

No matter what settings I change in AF I still get the same thing through my viewfinder. It's blank until I hold the button down half way, then I get a center box that disappears as soon as it grabs focus. :-\


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

When you cycle through the AF modes, the one that just shows you an outline of the whole AF area is the 61 point full auto one. Or just flip your mode dial into A+ so you can see what you are looking for.

I can get it so when i hold two fingers up in front of the lens the overlaid squares look like a U shape.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > tasteofjace said:
> ...



Ok this leads to another question, what shooting mode are you using? Green mode? program? AV/TV/M? As you change and cycle through AF modes You should only see the points your AF mode is using. See this video to describe what i'm talking about better

Canon 5D Mark III Review: 61 Autofocus points

It sounds like you are using the full 61 AF point auto selection and not one of the AF modes... If you are on one of the full auto program or green mode it may not let you change the AF modes but let me check into that before you get your hopes up...


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm going to have to go through this since another poster has hijacked (unintentionally) the thread. So I have to try and figure out what's addressed to my issue. Didn't want anyone thinking I was ignoring responses. 

One thing I noticed. The edit mode in DPP is a joke. It's adding all kinds of chromatic aberrations I don't see in the Adobe Raw 6.7 beta. Here's a 100% crop with data on the right. It's fairly sharp.

Sample Image: http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/TestImage1.png

Still trying to figure out where the settings are to micro-adjust AF. I ordered the spyderlens calibration "chart" from B+H.

Update: Just saw the video. Good stuff.


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ouch... that pic of the dog you posted does indeed look very soft for my liking... This appears to be a re-occurring issue the last few days on CR. Then again, a lot of people claimed the MkII was soft when it first came out. 
Having said that, the settings you posted for that shot, especially seeing as it's shot at iso100, if I were to replicate on either of my bodies I feel confident they would be a heck of a lot sharper than the one you posted... Maybe this is one of those teething problems that could be addressed with an early firmware upgrade??


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

@Cow: It's hard to know whether it's just user error or camera error. I never had these issues with my 7D.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> I'm going to have to go through this since another poster has hijacked (unintentionally) the thread. So I have to try and figure out what's addressed to my issue. Didn't want anyone thinking I was ignoring responses.
> 
> One thing I noticed. The edit mode in DPP is a joke. It's adding all kinds of chromatic aberrations I don't see in the Adobe Raw 6.7 beta. Here's a 100% crop with data on the right. It's fairly sharp.
> 
> ...



Oh crap, I totally did hijack the thread with my lame questions about AF. Thanks to all those who posted stuff, it was very helpful! 

Now back on topic!!!


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> @Cow: It's hard to know whether it's just user error or camera error. I never had these issues with my 7D.



Skins... it's hard to see but it looks like the front shoulder/chest is what's somewhat in focus... what focus mode did you use and did you use fast processing vs high quality in DPP?


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

@awinphoto: It was in auto mode. In DPP I changed from high quality to high speed yesterday. Just did more test shots. Going to check them out in Adobe.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 27, 2012)

I think the first thing you need to do is try one point auto focus. Then it will focus on that one spot instead of trying to focus all over.

Also, try micro adjusting the lens. My 100-400 was "soft" when I got it, but after +6 MA it's tack sharp.

I think a lot of people are claiming that their new 5Ds are broken when in fact they just need to adjust things and also learn to use them properly. This is not an error on the part of the camera, it's a fact of life. There are certain tolerances with everything. If you wanted everything to be perfect out of the box they would have to fine tune not only every part of the camera, but also the lenses during production. That would shoot the price up on all this Canon gear even more.

Also, don't forget that there isn't even a raw converter for these files yet in any post-processing software - someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

So, my point is, your camera is probably fine. First, try one point focus, and if that fails MA your lens. If it still looks like crap after that then maybe your camera is messed up.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> @awinphoto: It was in auto mode. In DPP I changed from high quality to high speed yesterday. Just did more test shots. Going to check them out in Adobe.



Auto mode is putting way too much control into the cameras hands... the shoulder/chest is in focus, the eyes aren't, but it's giving you false impressions the rest of the dog is in focus, but with 2.8 F stops, it aint going to happen... switch to the single or single expansion and you can tell the camera exactly what part of the scene you want in focus... try that and see what results you get... High speed wont fix mis-focus...


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Keith: You're probably right. Now can you point me in the direction of the micro-auto focus settings?

awinphoto: I agree, which is why I'm doing other test shots. Haven't returned anything yet. I own a user interface design studio, so I'm well aware that this may be nothing more then 1. user error and 2. needing to calibrate things. 

With that said, I never had these issues with my 7D.


----------



## thure1982 (Mar 27, 2012)

Havn't read all posts.
Have you made microadjusments so you "know" that focus is where you think it is. If you understand what I meen.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> Keith: You're probably right. Now can you point me in the direction of the micro-auto focus settings?
> 
> awinphoto: I agree, which is why I'm doing other test shots. Haven't returned anything yet. I own a user interface design studio, so I'm well aware that this may be nothing more then 1. user error and 2. needing to calibrate things.
> 
> With that said, I never had these issues with my 7D.



On my 7d, it was shipped with the auto AF already the preset... the initial photos i took were lousy... i thought i really had a bad camera... everything looked soft and i was frustrated i spent that much money (at the time) for a bad camera... I then switched modes and had reliably sharp images from that point onwards... I get tempted to switch back to full auto AF but figure why risk it when I can quickly enough tell the camera what precise area or in the expansion modes, what rough area i want it to look for focus rather than letting it basically throw a dart at the wall hoping it gets it right... It's a powerful tool but sometimes needs help knowing what you want it to do.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> On a Mac:
> Go to View then click AF Point.



Or command J.


----------



## x-vision (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> So what's the issue? Why is this not tack sharp?



I don't see any issue with your image - seems pretty sharp to me. 

Maybe you should look at other 5DIII images on the web and set your expectations correctly with regards to sharpness of 100% crops. :-\


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 27, 2012)

AF microadjustment is the last item under the rightmost tab in the AF section of the menu.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Thanks David.

Off-topic: Love the Canon concept you did. Just realized it was you. I actually posted a link to my Facebook/Twitter the other day.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 27, 2012)

Thank you


----------



## swampler (Mar 27, 2012)

Didn't read all the replies, but running dog at 1/500s is probably part, if not all, of the issue.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

A couple of new test shots - Raw to DNG. Brought into Lightroom and unprocessed.

http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/NewTest1.png
http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/NewTest2.png
http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/NewTest3.png

I guess these are pretty sharp. I notice a lot of background noise on test shot 1. On number 3 you can see the red and blue "hairs" embedded into the bill.


----------



## publiux (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> A couple of new test shots - Raw to DNG. Brought into Lightroom and unprocessed.
> 
> http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/NewTest1.png
> http://www.theskinsfactory.com/tsf-clients/NewTest2.png
> ...



They look pretty good to me. Much improved.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

They are and then I see this image from a Nikon D800: 

http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg

and think that's what I'm looking for. That's the sharpness I want to achieve with the same level of detail.


----------



## lithium2k (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow my 5D3 is nowhere near that sharp. And I am converting using DNG. That picture is making me want to switch. But I yet to try the MA.


----------



## SandyP (Mar 27, 2012)

You guys are on crack, seriously, I've seen endless images that sharp (the D800 sample) from a Mark II. 

The problem with the Mark III, isn't the camera, it's the software. 

I work in the studio almost once a week for basic beauty headshots for make up artists, and when shooting my 135L on a Mark II, at my usual f/5.6, with the face fully in the frame, it's that sharp, every single time. Of course the file isn't as big, but I'm not printing bill boards. And neither are you.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Sandy: It's a different camera with a different processor if I'm not mistaken. How many times have you seen a series of products where the next gen isn't as good as the gen before? I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying it's not out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## SandyP (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> Sandy: It's a different camera with a different processor if I'm not mistaken. How many times have you seen a series of products where the next gen isn't as good as the gen before? I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying it's not out of the realm of possibility.



Of course it's possible, but do you really believe that they would have not figured that out, Software problems aside. If they messed up, they messed up. Fine, but I'm telling you if you want to achieve sharpness and detail, you don't need a Mark III or a D800 to do that. Put any decent lens to F/8 and shoot a portrait at low ISO with decent lighting, and you'll get very high detail and sharpness. I do it with a Mark II every few days... the level of detail is incredible, and gives me a lot to work with. 

Of course it's possible.  As I said above, but we've seen the test photos the day it came out, or just after, from a few sites who had their hands on it for a few weeks or days, and they're tests showed high levels of detail VS. the Mark II. I assume this is the software problem that has been talked about on places like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx



Which I trust, to read that, and see that it seems to be software related, and nothing so far is a true 100% fix for the solution yet.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah I read that earlier. It's a helpful article.

Your argument of "do you really believe they would have not figured that out" doesn't say much considering they released broken software. Which in my book means they rushed out this product. What else with this camera was rushed just to make sure they came out near the release date of Nikon's D800? I don't like the whole "let's release broken crap and fix it later". That's amateurish. I didn't spend $3500 dollars on beta anything. I want a working product when I'm paying that much money.


----------



## Longvision (Mar 27, 2012)

This is my first post here and I registered specifically to be able to write this reply. It seems to me a good deal of the softness complaint I'm seeing has to do with mistaking photographer technique with camera performance. This thread is a case in point. 

The original dog picture may be soft for reasons other than dpp settings or focus error. A moving subject with a long focal lens, an aperture of 5 and zone autofocus is not the best condition for great sharpness. The depth of field is too shallow, and the angular shake due to following a moving target with a long lens can produce a lot of blur. 

On the other hand, the sharpness of the Nikon portrait pose as an example is taken in a controlled environment, with controlled lighting producing subjective sharpness. There is enough DOF to put the whole model in focus. Also, the skin texture hints at a good deal of sharpening applied (something I'm not too crazy about personally). 

As someone else said, I have a number of portraits with L135, that look just as sharp (at least at that enlargement ratio), and the camera attached to the lens is an old 5d classic ! On the other hand, when I shoot moving subjects with my 200/2.8, I know I have to have a speed 1/1000 or 1/2000, to avoid any kind of even minute motion blur. The dog picture here is taken at 1/500 if I'm not mistaken. Too slow, and with the shallow depth of field...

There may or may not be a softness issue on some 5diii bodies. But we need to run tests in conditions that allow for the best possible sharpness, in terms of photo technique, before we can draw any form of conclusion.


----------



## SandyP (Mar 27, 2012)

The camera works fine, you have a working product.  

The software on the other hand...


Some of the reviews coming in, one I just read posted on this site, shows some pretty impressive detail from a 100% crop of a bird.... looked nice.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

For comparison, here's a 100% crop from my favorite hairy girl. Kit lens, f/7.1 @ 1/200th, iso 400, bounce flash a few wb and sharpening adjustments in LR.

Some of the 36mp images I've seen are stunning, but I really can't see anything to complain about when a snapshot from the canon looks like this.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

I agree with the comment about user error and my dog. I still have a lot to learn about camera operations. There seems to be a learning curve (for me at least) when moving from a 7D to the MK III.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

One last thing about the nikon shot mentioned on page 3... nikons are notorious of adding extra processing even to raw files that cannot be undone, that coupled with the fact that we dont know what raw/setting the original photographer used... for all we know they could have taken the sharpness setting up to 50 on ACR... you take a 5d3 and pump that much sharpening and you will get similar sharpness files... When focused correctly, most raw files i've seen online that's downloadable, when put in ACR 6.7 RC beta... files, when given the slightest sharpening, look phenomenal overall. Plus the colors, the pop, the overall affect... this camera when fully mastered, appears to be a spectacular camera... That's not taking anything away from the D800... it's a great camera in it's own right... but keep playing and have a little patience and i have no doubt you are going to get awesome results...


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

@awinphoto: I'm going to stick with the MK III. I took a bunch of shots today and I like what I saw. Thanks for all your help.

Everyone, thanks.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 27, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> They are and then I see this image from a Nikon D800:
> 
> http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg



Sharp image with the 5D3 of a model with fuzzy facial hair? NO PROBLEM: http://davidriesenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fuzzyYoda1.jpg


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Mar 27, 2012)

Hah! That's awesome David.


----------



## vinniegray (Mar 28, 2012)

Awin is right. If you look closely (at the Nikon shot) you can see some jagged edges on some of the hairs. This indicates to me that a lot of extra sharpening was applied in post processing.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

with it all being so new i wish people would only post images or raws straight out of camera.
posting post processed images is fine for showcasing but none of this is about that its about what the camera can do at a base level. I think everyone know that a little PP can dramatically change an image from its raw state to present it in a completely different light.
leave the processed images for the image gallery at the moment htis is all about the gear and what it can and cant do.
I am concerned this new AF system may be a dud :'(


----------



## gragusha (Mar 29, 2012)

Any more developments on this?


----------



## Kane (Mar 29, 2012)

Are you using a uv filter? I put a uv on my 70-200 2.8 is after getting it. I didnt noticed much at 70mm but at 200mm the shots were considerably softer than I knew they should be. I couldn't figure it out until I realized that I still had a cheap filter on. As soon as I took it off they became tack sharp.


----------



## TheSkinsFactory (Apr 2, 2012)

Kane: Yeah I have a UV filter on but it's not a cheap one. It's a B+W Clear UV Haze with MRC. All my lenses have the B+Ws on them. You think that's it?


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 4, 2012)

I'd definitely try spot AF, I seem to be getting better results with that. The AF has been amazing for me, even with fast-moving subjects it just nails it almost every time. But when you're messing with really shallow depth of field even if it's back focusing or front focusing slightly it will appear to be "soft." There are so many variables, handheld or tripod, shutter speed, AF settings, etc., I'd just experiment a bit more if I were you. But I'm willing to bet it's not the camera itself that's causing your problems..


----------



## AKCalixto (Apr 4, 2012)

TheSkinsFactory said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Like everyone else who is "upgrading" from a 7D to the new MK III I was excited. Now not so much. I've read where the softness issue was because of faulty software (DPP) so I changed the setting. Maybe someone can explain why this image isn't tack sharp. You can clearly see where the auto-focus is. Here are the stats:
> 
> ...



You should FIRST calibrate your camera to your lens. I use FoCal Pro for micro adjustment.

www.reikan.co.uk/focal/


----------



## Viggo (Apr 4, 2012)

Posted this in another thread as well.

I, like many of those with problems dispite what some might think, know how to use the camera. I mean how hard is it to look focus on a building at hyperfocal and f8 and get sharp image with the 85 L II? But it isn't tacktack like it was on the mkII. I don't use DPP, I use Lr4. And it lacks som crispiness.

This image for example, shot at f1,8 @ 85mm/ 100% crop. This would have been sharper on the 5d2. And yes the lens are adjusted. Very easy to see it hits where it's suppose to.






It's too smooth... And I have pulled more on the sharpening sliders than I normally would.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 4, 2012)

Viggo said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Pixelpeepalert!
> ...



Ignore the troll, those of us experiencing problems clearly have never takena photograph before and just went out to buy mk3s because we could to look cool. It's inconcievable that bad units could be around. clearly user error : go take a picture of a tennis ball on a lawn at f8 and extole how awesome and sharp it is instead 

but sarcasm aside, I'm glad i'm not the only one :-[


----------



## Viggo (Apr 4, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



Yeah, I know... Let's hope they release a firmware with awesomness soon, and Adobe can get their sh!t together and make Lr function properly and also handle the 5d3 files. To me the NR is non-working compared to the 5d2 files and the Lr4 beta. 

There isn't much I don't LOVE about the 5d3, but sharpness shouldn't be one thing I'm not happy about, because it is indeed very good on the 5d2. I miss the crispness... But the AF, oh my, the AF.....


----------



## swampler (Apr 5, 2012)

DPP update due mid April.

http://www.canon.com.au/Support-Services/Support-News/Service-Notices/Digital-Photo-Professional-RAW-image-processing-software-with-Canon


----------



## lessmore (Apr 5, 2012)

swampler said:


> DPP update due mid April.
> 
> http://www.canon.com.au/Support-Services/Support-News/Service-Notices/Digital-Photo-Professional-RAW-image-processing-software-with-Canon



Thank you for posting the link. Hope the new version is better at reading the RAW files.


----------



## vWings (Apr 5, 2012)

Even sooner than I expected. Excellent news on the update.

I love this camera.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 5, 2012)

Well, I use lightroom and still think the pictures are soft, so I was hoping for a new firmware...

Edit: I shot jpeg and raw converted with Lightroom, and the jpeg is sharper.. So it's just the raw convertion both from Adobe and Canon that's got some issues I guess.

Is it possible that Adobe uses parts of DPP to make it compatible with Lr?


----------



## lessmore (Apr 6, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Well, I use lightroom and still think the pictures are soft, so I was hoping for a new firmware...
> 
> Edit: I shot jpeg and raw converted with Lightroom, and the jpeg is sharper.. So it's just the raw convertion both from Adobe and Canon that's got some issues I guess.
> 
> Is it possible that Adobe uses parts of DPP to make it compatible with Lr?



My assumption would be that the RAW conversion in LR and ACR would be identical (assuming the same settings). Are you seeing any differences in the RAW file conversion between LR and the latest ACR BETA?


----------

