# 5D Mark III ISO 100 RAW's - NEW



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Maybe already posted, but there are also 100 ISO RAW files available in the gallery.

Right here:

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


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

*Re: 5D Mark III ISO 100 RAW's*



altenae said:


> Maybe already posted, but there are also 100 ISO RAW files available in the gallery.
> 
> Right here:
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiGALLERY.HTM



No this hasn't been posted yet good fine, there was other RAWs from this site posted but not these.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

*Re: 5D Mark III ISO 100 RAW's*

Well I am happy with the detail from the portret after some sharpening in CS5 with the Beta Raw converter.

...Yep I am happy...


----------



## tonyp (Mar 8, 2012)

The jpegs are just not sharp.. what the heck is going on? I only shoot RAW and have never really shot JPEG out of camera with the Mk2... is this representative of results? I have a couple wedding photog friends who only shoot JPEG... I would never allow clients images like this.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Yep JPG due to NR I guess...
But the RAW looks fine to me after some sharpening in CS5


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

tonyp said:


> The jpegs are just not sharp.. what the heck is going on? I only shoot RAW and have never really shot JPEG out of camera with the Mk2... is this representative of results? I have a couple wedding photog friends who only shoot JPEG... I would never allow clients images like this.



It really boils down to what in-camera sharpening they have the camera set at for jpegs and NR settings... If you set the 5d2 at 0 for sharpening or even -1, and especially the 7D, you would get pictures like this if not worse in jpeg. With the 5d2 I typically have +1 sharpening and shoot my 7d is +5 sharpening... In raw, these dont apply as much, well they do in DPP but is seen as more of a preset which is adjustable further in DPP in case you dont like what you originally set it at.


----------



## Martin (Mar 8, 2012)

OMG. Thats the decision maker for. I will definitely switch to Nikon. Looks like from compact camera. There's nothing to wait for (test, reviews). It shows clearly what Canon did with it's SUPER digic5+....sad.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Well maybe sad...
Maybe it can be disabled in the menu ?

Well for me no Issue I NEVER take JPG's.
If for some reason I have made a wrong exposure or whatever there is MUCH more to save with a RAW file.

Maybe Canon expected more people to use RAW files with a 3500 EURO DSLR....
But indeed the JPG are a bit dissapointed ( so where the 5D Mark II jpg and we know how good this DSLR is) , but maybe the sharpness setting was at 0 ???


----------



## TAR (Mar 8, 2012)

i think sharpness will be better or same like 5d2, i just had a look at 5d2 samples from canon site ..they don't look sharp either so better not to jump into conclusion for now. i hope 5D3 will be better or just as good as 5d2 interms of sharpness


----------



## Canihaspicture (Mar 8, 2012)

Sharpness doesn't look like it was set to zero... maybe Im reading these exifs wrong, but did he just use a multi point auto focus instead of focusing directly on the eyelashes?...


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 8, 2012)

Martin said:


> OMG. Thats the decision maker for. I will definitely switch to Nikon. Looks like from compact camera. There's nothing to wait for (test, reviews). It shows clearly what Canon did with it's SUPER digic5+....sad.


You're willing to get rid of a camera system (including, presumably, lenses) based on the default setting that JPEGs are set at because it's not to your taste, before you get a chance to see what the situation is with the camera.

Up to you of course, but it seems a touch ... early maybe


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

For what it's worth, i combed through the exif, assuming everything is correct... he shot in single AF mode, but not the micro single AF. Unknown where it was focused on per se, but it said 30 AF points were in focus. His metering was evaluative and his in-camera jpeg settings was large fine, which isn't the full version large... so it probably has some compression loss. It has a sharpness number of 3. The 7d has sharpness settings up to 7, but it is unknown what the sharpness settings are fully on the 5d3 since they changed it up slightly, but i would guess it would be up to 7 like previous models. Many have said the raws look good sharpened and my 7d for instance, on this setting is like 5, so I wouldn't panic until we see final production, final firmware, etc... If that is enough to make you jump ship, good luck and hope the door doesn't hit ya where the good lord split ya.


----------



## birdman (Mar 8, 2012)

I wouldn't fret over these sample images. They show nothing besides jpeg quality, which to me is as worthless as a pair of flip-flops in a blizzard. 

If you look at the pictures of the teenage girl wearing the blue/turquoise dress, view at 100% or whatever and look at the details on her elbows, fingernails, skin. These are pretty sharp. What more can we expect, from a jpeg?

Relax and wait until you get your own 5d3 in hand and shoot raw. thats the real judge


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 8, 2012)

Why are the RAWs 4-6 mb? My 50d RAWs are 18+/- mb.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Well they are around 25 MB
Maybe you are downloading the jpg's


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Why are the RAWs 4-6 mb? My 50d RAWs are 18+/- mb.



I just downloaded a raw... was 24.6 MB...


----------



## birdman (Mar 8, 2012)

Sorry for my earlier post. I didn't see the RAW (CR2) files to be downloaded. How could I miss those??

I will go home and open in DPP. Then, and only then, can I pixel peep and scrutinize every freaking fine detail!!

But I promise to keep my opinion to myself. It's better for me, anyway. And for the record, I am still amazed at what the 5dII can do. It's hard to best a living legend, my friends.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

You can not open them in DPP

Use CS5 and the Adobe Camera RAW 6.7 Beta.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 8, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Why are the RAWs 4-6 mb? My 50d RAWs are 18+/- mb.
> ...



Ah, yes, how did I miss that.


----------



## Bijan (Mar 8, 2012)

raws are soft too


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Abcourse they look somewhat soft !!!!!

Zero sharpening is apllied.
I guess you are viewing raw with a viewer (or whatever)

You have to process the RAW files in CS5 with the Camer RAW 6.7 Beta and see how much detail is present in the RAW file............


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

Bijan said:


> raws are soft too



Plugged the raw, especially the turquoise dress shot, plugged it into photoshop with the beta camera raw... Sharpened a tad, looked quite impressive... When the 5d2 first came out and the realization (at the time) that I couldn't afford the camera, it really changed how i viewed the camera, how I perceived... I could see any photo and point out ever flaw in it taken by that camera... after owning that camera the viewpoint has changed... fact is we can analyze and pick apart and see what we want to see... it's human nature and basic psychology... The measurebators can have a field day when the camera comes out and Dxo and DPR does their in depth tests... In the end, still to this day, there are people who love the 7d and use it professionally, and others who call it soft, say it has low IQ, etc... It's not going to please everybody, but for me, I like what I see and the potential.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

> especially the turquoise dress shot



Funny I used the same shot...
All I can say (I speak for myself) it looks very very good.

I am very excited with the new 5d Mark III..........


----------



## nighstar (Mar 8, 2012)

Martin said:


> OMG. Thats the decision maker for. I will definitely switch to Nikon. Looks like from compact camera. There's nothing to wait for (test, reviews). It shows clearly what Canon did with it's SUPER digic5+....sad.



bye bye!


----------



## mauro.canon (Mar 8, 2012)

altenae said:


> Well maybe sad...
> Maybe it can be disabled in the menu ?
> 
> Well for me no Issue I NEVER take JPG's.
> ...




http://regex.info/exif.cgi?b=3&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imaging-resource.com%2FPRODS%2Fcanon-5d-mkiii%2FFULLRES%2FY2F2A0035.HTM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F216.18.212.226%2FPRODS%2Fcanon-5d-mkiii%2FFULLRES%2FY2F2A0035.JPG

no 0

from exif
Tone Curve	Standard
Sharpness	3

note:
firmware is 1.03

the last is 6.03 (sample of tiger)


----------



## Michael7 (Mar 8, 2012)

altenae said:


> Abcourse they look somewhat soft !!!!!
> 
> Zero sharpening is apllied.
> I guess you are viewing raw with a viewer (or whatever)
> ...



No you don't. A RAW file should be crisp. If it's not, there's an issue with the sensor.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

> No you don't. A RAW file should be crisp. If it's not, there's an issue with the sensor.



Excuse me ?
Something wrong with the sensor ?

All RAW files look a bit soft as they are unprocessed. How soft depends on the quality of the lens and the focussing.


----------



## Michael7 (Mar 8, 2012)

If you are getting soft RAW files when using sharp lenses on a tripod in good light conditions, it's probably a heavy AA filter or a soft sensor. See the 7D.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

All RAW files look a bit soft as they are unprocessed. How soft depends on the quality of the lens and the focussing. 

I have processed most of the RAW files and they look good.
If someone else thinks otherwise then they should not buy the 5D Mark III, period.
It is very simple if you don't like what you see then don't buy it.

Try reading all topics when the 5D Mark II was released.
Almost the same complains.
Well we all know what the 5D Mark II is capable of.


----------



## nightbreath (Mar 8, 2012)

altenae said:


> I have processed most of the RAW files and they look good.



Sorry for off-topic, but what do you use for processing 5D Mark III RAW files?


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Use CS5 and the Adobe Camera RAW 6.7 Beta.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 8, 2012)

I've done my share of criticizing Canon lately, and have the smites to show for it, but I don't understand what the whining is about. The sharpness of the raw files compare favorably to my 5DC and 1DsIII. Hit it with a quick unsharp mask, and the images are tack sharp. As others have suggested, if the jpegs are too soft for your fancy, then crank up the in camera sharpening.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 8, 2012)

Anyone know when Lightroom 4 is likely to get the upgrade for this? I was hoping the production release would handle these files right out of the gate, but it appears not to


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

> I've done my share of criticizing Canon lately, and have the smites to show for it, but I don't understand what the whining is about. The sharpness of the raw files compare favorably to my 5DC and 1DsIII. Hit it with a quick unsharp mask, and the images are tack sharp. As others have suggested, if the jpegs are too soft for your fancy, then crank up the in camera sharpening



Agree.
I am also very happy with the RAW's after doing some unsharp mask
I read only whining topics....

I guess we are the only two who are going to buy the 5D Mark III


----------



## Martin (Mar 8, 2012)

Of course RAW files should be sharper. people who think different has no idea about that. Some people will buy everything because it's new. That's why producers don't care. There is some issue with new sensor for sure, I also have canon gear but I am not a fanboy of any gear and can give a honest opinion. Think that Canon focus towards software and digic which is really bad idea as many can see on provided samples. Of course it's ok for people who had a compact cameras before but for dslr users it's really a joke at ISO 100.


----------



## altenae (Mar 8, 2012)

Then my 1ds mark III was also a joke. 
And my current 1d mark iv. 

I think you are a joke.


----------



## atrocious (Mar 8, 2012)

Dear Martin,

Long time lurker here. I was not planning on registering but I simply could not take any more of your little show. I have been taking notice of your consistent behavior throughout several topics and just decided to skim through your posts and oh, boy... You began, months before 5DM3 was released, complaining about this and that, how you used to be a Nikon-guy a year ago and were seriously contemplating going back, and you go on to complain about leaked 5D specs, and when 5D comes out, you complain a little bit more, followed by further complaints about sample images. Each time with a definitive statement on how that is it and you are certainly switching back to Nikon. "I know it is going to be expensive but I have to do it". OHHH-KAY! We are bloody idiots on the verge of jumping ship and you are that guy who will give the final nudge, eh? And if that's not it, that's even worse... Like if you do not have a hidden agenda and are simply somewhat neurotic. Because people are taking your comments seriously and responding to your monological rants.

Please, let it go.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 9, 2012)

Horizontal banding may be gone. Vertical is still there. These images don't have enough bottom level dark to really say what the degree is.

Unfortunately, I measure ISO 100 5D3 dynamic range 11.1 stops (screen level) and ISO 100 5D2 dynamic range 11.2 stops. .

Wow, was not expecting that after another 3.5 years. It's not even going to be the best Canon has done .

The only hope is that the mask area is not valid on the 5D3 for testing this. I did note that the top mask area gave way too high values so they must be storing something secret up there. Maybe they are at the side too then? Although the side seemed to be usable for this test. I hope I am wrong about that.

It may be that Sony hold all the patents necessary to improve DR at ISO100 without going to a much different technology??


----------



## Michael7 (Mar 9, 2012)

Very disappointing new RAW samples at ISO 100.

Four years for this?


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 9, 2012)

It should be noted (and perhaps already has been?), but These images are still from a Pre Production model.


----------



## wockawocka (Mar 9, 2012)

The images are soft but only because a Zoom Lens was used and the focus point wasn't on the eyes.

An 85L stopped down to F/11, which is what should of been used, would give completely different results.


----------



## e-d0uble (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm not a huge fan of these particular samples either as they do look a tad mushy (I'm really tired of the word "soft") for f/7.1 ISO100 and (apparent) flash. Camera raw does apply a "25" for sharpening by default and they still don't look too hot. Bumping this value in Camera raw, editing in photoshop and applying high-pass, unsharp mask, or even smart sharpening seems to help as well but I almost never need to do this with my 5DII raws.

I also got a good chuckle as well, as I noticed that the shooter used "AI Focus", which I never had good luck with on any Canon body. Straight out of camera raws from my 5dII usually look nice and sharp nearly all the time. I'm certainly not canceling my 5dIII pre-order or "switching to Nikon" due to these but they aren't fabulous. I'll also state for the record that I'm by no means a professional photographer or expert post-processor.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 9, 2012)

It is soft.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Mar 10, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> It is soft.



... They make a pill for that.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 10, 2012)

Canihaspicture said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > It is soft.
> ...


How do you know that?? ??? ???


----------



## 1982chris911 (Mar 10, 2012)

Well what you miss here and I guess everyone does so far is that these pictures where taken with a 24-105mm f4.0 L which per se isn't the best lens for portrait work and is known to have issues in mid and outer parts of the image. 

Secondly you can clearly see that the focus pane was not on the face when you look at the tissue of the dress. 

Third it does not say if the lens was in tripod mode (IS off) or shot handheld (IS on or off). In at least two cases (if shot handheld no matter if IS was used or not) at 1/125sec the image could look like this and the issue would be in no way related to the camera...

To really evaluate the cams performance in regards of sharpness an image taken with a 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 300mm f2.8 IS II at a value 1/1600 sec would be far more interesting. 

Just my 2 cents ...


----------



## aprotosimaki (Mar 11, 2012)

atrocious said:


> Dear Martin,
> 
> Long time lurker here. I was not planning on registering but I simply could not take any more of your little show. I have been taking notice of your consistent behavior throughout several topics and just decided to skim through your posts and oh, boy... You began, months before 5DM3 was released, complaining about this and that, how you used to be a Nikon-guy a year ago and were seriously contemplating going back, and you go on to complain about leaked 5D specs, and when 5D comes out, you complain a little bit more, followed by further complaints about sample images. Each time with a definitive statement on how that is it and you are certainly switching back to Nikon. "I know it is going to be expensive but I have to do it". OHHH-KAY! We are bloody idiots on the verge of jumping ship and you are that guy who will give the final nudge, eh? And if that's not it, that's even worse... Like if you do not have a hidden agenda and are simply somewhat neurotic. Because people are taking your comments seriously and responding to your monological rants.
> 
> Please, let it go.



I agree with you. It is painful to say the least.


----------

