# A bad workman blames his tools? (5DMkIII)



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

I've had the 5DMkIII for about a week now. I haven't had the opportunity to use it in anger yet, just a few casual test shots around the house. However, looking at all the complaints in the forums, particularly about image quality, I have to admit that I'm in real danger of catching a bad dose of buyer's remorse. This was supposed to be an all round camera that would last me the rest of my life (or a very long time anyway). On the other hand, it has been gently hinted at in various threads that some of the problems might be more to do with lack of familiarity with setting up and using the camera. Also, quite a few of the posters reporting problems e.g. with soft images have only recently upgraded from crop to full frame, which might also be a steep learning curve in itself? Jeff Ascough's words stick in my mind i.e. "So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability." Is this what is happening here, at least to some extent? I'm also reminded of Lloyd Chambers' articles on image sharpness i.e. there are so many reasons why images might not be sharp, most of which can be resolved (excuse the pun) by good shooting technique. Only when all other alternatives have been explored can the finger be pointed at the equipment. So, what do YOU think? Are there REAL problems with 5DIII IQ or is it just a case of "a bad workman blaming his tools" or maybe just excessive "pixel peeping"? I'm not pontificating in any way, shape or form here, just don't want to believe that I've spent my money unwisely. Most importantly, I'm off on a trip of a lifetime in a couple of weeks and intended to take just the 5DMkIII with me with a view to coming back with some saleable images and perhaps recouping the costs of the trip. In fact I bought it with that specific purpose in mind. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether I should buy a 5DMkII as a backup or even a replacement - at least the MkII has a proven track record and all it's various quirks are well known. With the 5DMkIII, it's beginning to feel like a "leap of faith" to rely on it completely as my only camera body. What would you do in my position?

PS: please take part in the poll


----------



## psolberg (Mar 28, 2012)

the problem is not the workman or the tool. it is managing expecations. many expected something that could reasilicaly not be built to please everybody. the 5DmkIII is not unlike other cameras that it is full of compromises to try and please the greatest % of people but will inevitable let down many.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

psolberg said:


> the problem is not the workman or the tool. it is managing expecations. many expected something that could reasilicaly not be built to please everybody. the 5DmkIII is not unlike other cameras that it is full of compromises to try and please the greatest % of people but will inevitable let down many.



IQ is the most important aspect for me. I'm perfectly happy to work on achieving the potential of the camera e.g. by microadjusting lenses, developing better shooting technique, post processing technique etc, provided that the IQ is there to be had. I agree with your point about managing expectations. Perhaps some people are trying so hard to find fault with it that they are almost bound to find something to complain about. There do also seem to be quite a few who are more than happy with their purchase, though, reinforcing your point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

There do seem to be issues in terms of loss of detail with the in-camera jpg conversion, but that won't affect those shooting RAW. I'm not sure that's a 'problem' it may simply be the way Canon set the camera defaults (Picture Style settings are applied to in-camera jpgs, and you can modify them from what Canon thinks is 'best' - in general, Standard is pretty saturated and has a fair bit of NR, too). 

I do think people have somewhat unrealistic expectations - in terms of resolution, the 5DIII is essentially equivalent to the 5DII, and while the gapless microlenses and improvements in circuitry mean less light and signal loss, those mean less ISO noise, not sharper pictures at low ISO.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> There do seem to be issues in terms of loss of detail with the in-camera jpg conversion, but that won't affect those shooting RAW. I'm not sure that's a 'problem' it may simply be the way Canon set the camera defaults (Picture Style settings are applied to in-camera jpgs, and you can modify them from what Canon thinks is 'best' - in general, Standard is pretty saturated and has a fair bit of NR, too).
> 
> I do think people have somewhat unrealistic expectations - in terms of resolution, the 5DIII is essentially equivalent to the 5DII, and while the gapless microlenses and improvements in circuitry mean less light and signal loss, those mean less ISO noise, not sharper pictures at low ISO.



Just a quick couple of questions:

Is any noise reduction at all applied to RAW files in-camera e.g. at a lower level than or in a different way to in-camera jpegs? 

Can you suggest the best alternative to "standard" picture style for general shooting (i.e. when shooting jpeg/ RAW+jpeg)?

In tab 3 of the shooting menu, third item down is "High ISO speed NR", By default this is set to "standard" on my camera. The other options are "low", "high" or "off" and the help note at the bottom of the screen reads "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." This implies that the noise reduction is set for all ISO speeds, just has a more noticeable effect at higher ISO speeds. If NR really is the 'problem' has anyone experimented with e.g. turning it off and then processing the jpegs using third party NR software?

Finally, I noticed that in tab 1 of the shooting menu, lens aberration correction (peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration) is enabled by default, at least with the 24-105 kit lens. On tab 2 of the shooting menu, "auto lighting optimiser" is also set to "standard" by default. I'm guessing that any one of these in-camera corrections could potentially have an effect on sharpness?


----------



## mrmarks (Mar 28, 2012)

Well, I think its about time Canon make a statement about these issues, or non-issues and not let users and potential buyers speculate to death


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 28, 2012)

I think the biggest issue so far as I can reason

-- DPP software appears to be buggy
-- Adobe CameraRaw is not quite available yet.

DPP I blame on Canon, and it does look like from comments that I have seen, the previews are tack sharp, but processed looks softer, so that tells me it is software processing. Shame on them.

On ACR, to be expected. New cameras, especially ones that have been well guarded take a while to make it into releases. Adobe Lightroom 4, for example does not play nicely with the NIK plug-ins that worked fine under Adobe LR3, so like anything else... Software upgrades as well as hardware upgrades often take time to synch.

Can be frustrating... Especially when something is new and you want to kick the tires.

Then again, from announcement to release, the MKIII was pretty darn fast. People are still waiting on the 1Dx which was announced much earlier.

May be too soon to tell, but I expect once ACR7 is released, which may not be until Photoshop 6 is out and DPP is updated and people can process the Raw in their normal workflows, then things will calm down a bit. 

Canon missed a step with DPP, but we will see how quickly this is responded to


----------



## zim (Mar 28, 2012)

What did (maybe how does) Canon use to process all their RAW files during testing then?


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Mar 28, 2012)

if you look back in the forums on here and flickr, you'll see exactly the same kinds of comments about the 7D when it came out... still new users with the 7D complain about soft shots.. cameras these days are incredibly complex. they take a while to figure out all the Idiosyncrasies.. there might be a few problems with the 5DmkIII.. the people that bought them all are all early adopters! expect few rough spots.. expect canon to address all of them.. yes.. adobe raw isnt out there.. (no big surprise there, they have always taken a few weeks to release the update to the new cameras) 

for every complaint i see in the forums, i see just as many happy with their camera and getting good shots. 

make sure you've read the manual.. make sure you know what the settings you're using are really doing.. and take lots of shots. who knows.. maybe you did get a bad camera.. but i think 99% of the cameras out there are just fine.. its just a new tool we are all going to have to learn.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I do think people have somewhat unrealistic expectations - in terms of resolution, the 5DIII is essentially equivalent to the 5DII, and while the gapless microlenses and improvements in circuitry mean less light and signal loss, those mean less ISO noise, not sharper pictures at low ISO.



That is a greta point and reminder Neuro. My own personal experiense with the 5DmkIII however showed me more noise at ISO 400 compared to my mkII and a definit softness in the RAW file compared to the mkII. I was not expecting the mkIII to be sharper - good point - but I did not expect it to be less sharp as well...

If I could get the sharpness of my mkII at low ISO with the mkIII I would be happy...

It kind of gave me a cold shower to be honest. Now I wonder what should be my expectation for the 1DX, will it too be less sharp then my 5DmkII? I do need high ISO but I also have a significant portion of my shots taken at ISO 400 and below, and I am not ready to take a hit on those.

I really hope this is due to the RAW converters, but I am starting to doubt it. SO many of us experience the same things...makes me wonder.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 28, 2012)

The most interesting part of all this is that we really don't know the answers yet to the IQ... and if in fact them make enough difference to negate the positives we are sure about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

ereka said:


> Just a quick couple of questions:



That was four, by my count... 



ereka said:


> Is any noise reduction at all applied to RAW files in-camera e.g. at a lower level than or in a different way to in-camera jpegs?



Not by Canon, AFAIK. There is circuitry that's designed to generate less noise (and this is one thing that Canon has stated as am improvement in the 5DIII and 1D X), but that's not the same as noise reduction. Some Nikon cameras to apply NR to the RAW file before it's written.



ereka said:


> Can you suggest the best alternative to "standard" picture style for general shooting (i.e. when shooting jpeg/ RAW+jpeg)?



Depends on your use for the jpg file, I think. If you are going to use jpgs as final images, pick the Picture Style that you prefer. Personally, I just shoot RAW only and convert later, and in that case Neutral or Faithful would be the best representation of the unprocessed RAW file. Some people claim that if you shoot in RAW, the Picture Style is irrelevant. I would argue that's incorrect - while the picture style doesn't affect the RAW image data, it is applied to the in-camera jpg conversion that's used as the preview image embedded in the RAW file, and that same preview image is also used for the post-shot review (blinking highlights) and the histogram - therefore, even though the picture style doesn't affect the RAW image data, it may affect the exposure settings you choose (i.e. you may take a shot, then decide to reduce the exposure on the next shot based on the histogram, but that histogram may be right-shifted by the saturation settings in the picture style).



ereka said:


> In tab 3 of the shooting menu, third item down is "High ISO speed NR", By default this is set to "standard" on my camera. The other options are "low", "high" or "off" and the help note at the bottom of the screen reads "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." This implies that the noise reduction is set for all ISO speeds, just has a more noticeable effect at higher ISO speeds. If NR really is the 'problem' has anyone experimented with e.g. turning it off and then processing the jpegs using third party NR software?



That setting applies only to the in-camera jpg image, and yes, there is NR applied at all ISO settings, and the degree of NR applied increases with increasing ISO.



ereka said:


> Finally, I noticed that in tab 1 of the shooting menu, lens aberration correction (peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration) is enabled by default, at least with the 24-105 kit lens. On tab 2 of the shooting menu, "auto lighting optimiser" is also set to "standard" by default. I'm guessing that any one of these in-camera corrections could potentially have an effect on sharpness?



To some extend, yes. Vignetting correction and ALO affect exposure, and that affects noise, which affects perceived sharpness (and real sharpness if the jpg engine then applies NR to compensate for the increased noise that comes from pushing exposure). CA correction would actually increase perceived sharpness.

Again, as good as the Digic processor is at jpg conversions, keep in mind that your computer will be much better, especially once the better RAW converters (DxO, ACR) will handle the files. Plus, any changes to WB or exposure of a jpg file have IQ penalties that are reduced or absent when the RAW file is manipulated. Bottom line, shoot RAW and convert later, unless you have an absolute need for _immediately_ usable files (journalism), or your shooting requires the deeper buffer (nearly unlimited) that you get when shooting only jpg. 

I would really recommend against shooting RAW+JPG unless you need the jpg files immediately. Many people go through a similar progression:

[list type=decimal]
[*]get a dSLR, shoot jpg because that's easy and it's what they're used to
[*]realize the benefits of shooting RAW, and start shooting RAW+JPG, editing the RAW files for 'special' images and just keeping the JPGs for the rest
[*]find themselves wanting to go back and modify a 'non-special' image for which they only have the JPG file, and smacking themselves in the head for not saving the RAW file
[*]switch to shooting RAW only
[/list]

I'd say, skip steps 2 and 3, especially the smacking yourself in the head part, and go straight to RAW only.



JR said:


> I was not expecting the mkIII to be sharper - good point - but I did not expect it to be less sharp as well...
> 
> I really hope this is due to the RAW converters, but I am starting to doubt it. SO many of us experience the same things...makes me wonder.



I would not expect it to be less sharp, and indeed, the RAW converter(s) may be to blame. If so, that's an easy fix. But I think I saw you write that you didn't do an AFMA, and in that case, if you were relying on phase detect AF for shots used to judge sharpness, that may be the issue. I suspect that's the case for many people with 'soft' images.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 28, 2012)

> There is circuitry that's designed to generate less noise (and this is one thing that Canon has stated as am improvement in the 5DIII and 1D X), but that's not the same as noise reduction.




What does that mean?


----------



## wcksmith (Mar 28, 2012)

I used the Adobe DNG converter 6.7 to convert my MKIII raw files to DNG format - I was then able to use my normal work flow with ACR and Photoshop to process the images - it seems to work fine until they get the new ACR updated for the MKIII

Link to the download: click here

You'll get an error message saying this beta software expires at the end of March, but it also says it will still work after that, but you'll see the message each day. A small price to pay to have the consistent work flow.

FYI - my raw files were stunningly sharp with some test shots and a 16-35mm 2.8 lens. I love the camera so far. I only shoot raw, no JPGs.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I was not expecting the mkIII to be sharper - good point - but I did not expect it to be less sharp as well...
> ...



Correct Neuro I did not do MA, however a lot of the test shots I had done with softness were at f4 or smaller. Could it be that with the new AF system, the tolerance for MA is smaller and therefore need it more then with the mkII? I ended up never needing MA on my mkII. Some of my test shots at f4 or smaller even felt not in focus, using a single spot AF point with a flash! Maybe I lost patience too quickly!

I am just waiting for B&H to get some body only mkIII in stock to get another one and will make sure to do MA. I am sceptical however that this alone was the problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

AnselA said:


> > There is circuitry that's designed to generate less noise (and this is one thing that Canon has stated as am improvement in the 5DIII and 1D X), but that's not the same as noise reduction.
> 
> 
> What does that mean?



Any electronic process generates noise. There's noise added by the photosites, noise added by the ADC, etc. Circuitry can be designed to be less noisy, for example by generating less heat (one way of many).


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 28, 2012)

JR, MA changes from camera to camera... A few years ago I shot with 2 50Ds and I borrowed a 24-70 from Canon's CPS for a few weeks... one camera i needed an MA of like -2 and the other 50D i needed a MA of almost +10... Also were you shooting in full auto AF or were you shooting in spot AF or expanded AF? I've gotten feedback from a few users that full auto AF may be "off" a bit but when i told them to shoot spot or expanded, all of a sudden their images got increasingly sharper. Lastly the 2 RAW softwares, one a beta which may do wonders for you, or may irk you and the other DPP which has a bug... All those factors could factored into your results... all but one, full auto AF, not being the cameras fault, per se, but the software for DPP being a canon issue. Also unlike adobe, canon doesn't allow people with preproduction cameras to shoot raw let alone use beta versions of DPP, so they could get no feedback that it's buggy... Perhaps if they stopped that policy but allowed them access to beta versions and keep that under the NDA agreement, they could head off some of these issues in the future. 

Neuro i fully agree with you about expectations... Sad thing is from a XXD or 7D user, the 5d3 will likely be more than they could have asked for, but for 1d and prior 5d users, i can see how it could have been seen as a disappointment. I personally see it both ways, but since i never really faulted the 5d2s image quality when I had my 5d2, I just hated the body/af/etc the new features and any improvement of IQ and ISO is welcome. Is it on paper as impressive of DR and IQ as the D800, probably not, but i'm not going to waste time fretting about it either.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

I was using a single pot AF point to eliminate the AF system as a variable. But you guys have some good point about MA, maybe I naively gave up too quickly. I will go and look back at my pictures tonight because I know I use my 50 1.2L a lot for the testing and maybe it was the problem. I shot a few with my 135L and now remember the issue to be lessen. If it turns out most of the softness were with the 50 1.2L then MA would likley have helped for sure. (while I had the kit version, I dont want to base my judgment on the 24-105 because in general I find it softer then my prime lenses).

Thanks for the feed-back guys...I will look again.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 28, 2012)

> Any electronic process generates noise. There's noise added by the photosites, noise added by the ADC, etc. Circuitry can be designed to be less noisy, for example by generating less heat (one way of many).



Are you saying this is not "officially" a noise reduction option on a menu b/c for me that is noise reduction at its most effective.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

neuro - thank you for your comprehensive reply to my 'couple' of questions 

Just for the record, I started shooting 'RAW only' some time ago because I found myself hardly ever using the in-camera jpegs and concluded therefore that they were just cluttering up and unnecessarily filling up space on my hard drive.

I can see a use for shooting RAW+small jpeg for instant 'proofs' though or just for my wife to whack up on FB quickly e.g. after a party. For 'serious' shooting, I stick to RAW.

Having said that, I've just set my 5DMkIII to shoot RAW to the CF card and large fine jpeg to the SD card, but that's only because of the RAW processing issues currently. I figured I can manage with the jpegs for now and if necessary do better conversions using the RAW files when more reliable RAW conversion software becomes available. 

Although I have LR3, I don't really use it (at the moment, but only because I haven't learned how to). I tend to do everything in Photoshop CS5.5, which I'm more familiar with, but I'm hesitating to download and install ACR6.7 release candidate in case it mucks up my system. Is there any danger of that happening? How easy is it to uninstall if it causes problems?

PS: the main reason I asked about the effect of various in-camera processing parameters on the sharpness of in-camera jpegs is because that's what a lot of people seem to be commenting on and I thought there might possibly be some easy fix simply by adjusting the camera settings.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

ereka said:


> Although I have LR3, I don't really use it (at the moment, but only because I haven't learned how to). I tend to do everything in Photoshop CS5.5, which I'm more familiar with, but I'm hesitating to download and install ACR6.7 release candidate in case it mucks up my system. Is there any danger of that happening? How easy is it to uninstall if it causes problems?



I downloaded the ACR 6.7 and found no issue from a messing up of my system perspective 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

AnselA said:


> > Any electronic process generates noise. There's noise added by the photosites, noise added by the ADC, etc. Circuitry can be designed to be less noisy, for example by generating less heat (one way of many).
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying this is not "officially" a noise reduction option on a menu b/c for me that is noise reduction at its most effective.



I suppose it's semantics. I consider 'noise reduction' to be processing which reduces noise _after_ it's generated. The improvements in sensor circuitry result in less noise being generated in the first place, so there's less need for NR. The bottom line is still less noise in the image. The difference is that NR has a penalty - you reduce sharpness along with the noise; if you prevent the noise from being generated in the first place, there's no sharpness penalty.


----------



## Shawn L (Mar 28, 2012)

Ereka:

I used to only use Photoshop for image editing, too. Some friends suggested LightRoom, but I really didn't see the need -- how could an application much less powerful than Photoshop be of help?

Then, I took the time (a couple of days) to learn it (Scott Kelby's book (http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Lightroom-Digital-Photographers-Voices/dp/0321700910/) is *awesome* by the way). Now, I can churn through more photos in the same amount of time. Moreover, the changes are non-destructive (i.e., the original file remains untouched).

In addition to the editing features, being able to tag photos with keywords means I can easily find all my photos that are animals, or more specifically birds, or maybe just parrots -- without regard to when I took them or where on disk they live.

So, fwiw, taking the time to learn LightRoom might be well worth your time.

Your mileage, of course, may vary 

Shawn L.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> Ereka:
> 
> I used to only use Photoshop for image editing, too. Some friends suggested LightRoom, but I really didn't see the need -- how could an application much less powerful than Photoshop be of help?
> 
> ...



Thanks, Shawn! I already have that book - just haven't got around to reading it yet. Even more frustrating, I'm wondering if I'll need to buy the "Lightroom 4 version" if and when it comes out before I've even read the "Lightroom 3" book! :-[

I have the LR4 update (boxed version) sitting under my desk waiting to be installed, but I've been holding off until all the bugs are fixed! It seems from another thread that there might be something coming out later this week.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Poll update: so far, almost 90% think there isn't any real problem with 5DMkIII IQ - very encouraging ;D


----------



## bycostello (Mar 28, 2012)

i think your post title says it all....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2012)

I took a couple of quick shots when I got my camera, and the raw images were fuzzy. Then I buckled down, put it on a tripod with my 100mm macro and used live contrast detect autofocus and images were razor sharp. since I was also tethered to my pc, I could quicklly compare phase detect and contrast detect, and that lens does indeed need AFMA, just as it needed -10 with my 5D MK II.

I wish Reikan FoCal were ready, I'll have to do it manually with my LensCal target, iof I can just find where I stashed it a few months ago.

I also wish that I could adjust AFMA with the remote shooting window, that would be fast and easy, or at least relatively so.

Here is a sample using contrast detect at f/2.8 and my 100mm L. I used Adobe DNG converter and lightroom with the sharpen and NR sliders turned all the way down. I did have lens and CA correction turned on.














Its a bit sharper at f/5.6


----------



## skitron (Mar 28, 2012)

AnselA said:


> > Any electronic process generates noise. There's noise added by the photosites, noise added by the ADC, etc. Circuitry can be designed to be less noisy, for example by generating less heat (one way of many).
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying this is not "officially" a noise reduction option on a menu b/c for me that is noise reduction at its most effective.



At the circuit level, it is more "noise mitigation" i.e. avoiding creating extra noise in the first place and of course it makes no sense to have a menu choice to tell the hardware add some noise. Whereas "noise reduction" in camera terms is a software process to try to undo noise that is already there and of course it makes sense to add a menu option for that since sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 29, 2012)

Skitron


> At the circuit level, it is more "noise mitigation" i.e. avoiding creating extra noise in the first place and of course it makes no sense to have a menu choice to tell the hardware add some noise. Whereas "noise reduction" in camera terms is a software process to try to undo noise that is already there and of course it makes sense to add a menu option for that since sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.



I was fine with neuro's last explanation of what he meant. Noise reduction is an umbrella term for all efforts to create the mythical clean signal. When applied to software we might use in a camera I think we all know what it means. Naturally the current software create a smoothing of the details to create the noise reduction so, like everything, there is a trade-off.


----------

