# The digital picture and the first tests with the 5D Mk III



## nikkito (Mar 24, 2012)

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

If softness is a problem of DPP then it's ok, I guess.


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 24, 2012)

Yeah, and too bad because the test he is doing is exactly what I want to see. RAW to RAW comparisons, explaining the methodology of how it was converted. Other places are comparing out of camera JPEG's.


----------



## nikkito (Mar 24, 2012)

yeah, i always shoot raw, so that's what i want to see.
anyway i've preordered the 1D X, not the 5D.


----------



## candyman (Mar 24, 2012)

I just wonder, the 5D MKIII has been tested by a lot of photographers before the camera was released. And none of them reported this problem? Then maybe it is a problem of this specific sample that The Digital Picture used for the review.


If a general problem.....then I hope they can fix that. Maybe with a firmware update?


----------



## candyman (Mar 24, 2012)

nikkito said:


> yeah, i always shoot raw, so that's what i want to see.
> anyway i've preordered the 1D X, not the 5D.




We haven't seen the RAW of the 1D X yet. Maybe the same issue and Canon is working on it?


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 24, 2012)

candyman said:


> I just wonder, the 5D MKIII has been tested by a lot of photographers before the camera was released. And none of them reported this problem? Then maybe it is a problem of this specific sample that The Digital Picture used for the review.
> 
> 
> If a general problem.....then I hope they can fix that. Maybe with a firmware update?



The Pre-release testers were all showing in camera JPEG results, so maybe they didn't have DPP, just the camera


----------



## nikkito (Mar 24, 2012)

candyman said:


> nikkito said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, i always shoot raw, so that's what i want to see.
> ...



i hope not. Anyway i think they don't want to mix that up with all the current 5d hysteria.


----------



## unruled (Mar 24, 2012)

probably just needs a dpp update. i wouldnt worry about it too much.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 25, 2012)

I thing the ACR6.7 shows up even softer 
the out of camera jpegs are so bad i've just turned them off all together.

My initial feeling about the files is they are not as good as the 5Dmk2 however its to hard to call until proper raw converters come out.

I really dont know what they have done to the in camera jpg output but its not good

i've not processed any files yet just view in DPP and bridge and open in PS but the adobe ones are noticably softer than the dpp preview


----------



## melbournite (Mar 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I thing the ACR6.7 shows up even softer
> the out of camera jpegs are so bad i've just turned them off all together.
> 
> My initial feeling about the files is they are not as good as the 5Dmk2 however its to hard to call until proper raw converters come out.
> ...



You know, I gave up on DPP after trying it again for the first time in many years. I installed and uninstalled it and decided to shoot only in JPG for the first time, till Lightroom and Aperture get their RAW updates. So funny thing is, I can't compare it to any of my MkII or 7D shots (all RAW).

It's interesting that you mention the JPG quality out of the camera is not so good - I know it's not as good as RAW (without a doubt) but for JPG, I thought this was standard? As I said, I have nothing to compare it to.

One thing's for sure, it's frustrating having received this long awaited camera and not being able to test it using RAW's and in my preferred workflow. I haven't even used it at the last two gigs - it's a back up, back up to the MkII and 7D!


----------



## Ricku (Mar 25, 2012)

shizam1 said:


> He is doing is exactly what I want to see. RAW to RAW comparisons. Other places are comparing out of camera JPEG's.





nikkito said:


> yeah, i always shoot raw, so that's what i want to see.


Don't we all?

I really can't understand why some people even care about comparing jpegs, or why Chuck Westfall was braging so much about the 2 stop jpeg improvement over the 5D2.. Who the heck cares?

RAW improvement is all that matters


----------



## Viggo (Mar 25, 2012)

So this seems to be an issue that requires both a firmware update for the camera and an update for the DPP software.

Now let me just take a second to ask here; How in the [email protected]@k does this [email protected] get passed Canon when releasing a VERY important product?!?!?!?!

And do not tell me there's a glitch in the Matrix! And the same happened with the 1d mk3, how did it take some reviewers online to find out the AF doesn't work?!?!?! What in the hell are beta-testers for?!?! Do the Canon people even use their products? Are the people in charge surrounded by yes-men? I am actually asking...

I'm done making excuses for Canon, either do it right or leave it, seriously!

The mk4 was an awesome camera that worked, but it needed a firmware tuning the Ai Servo right at the beginning, how come this wasn't already in the camera considering the useless AF of the mk3???

And how come the S100, one of their TWO most important compacts (before the G1X) had an "off center lens resulted in soft images" discovered ALSO by reviewers... 

Do this make me confident waiting ver anxiously for the 1d X?

It shouldn't be like I have creepy feeling in my stomach and just crossing my whatnot for the awkward silence not to happen and Canon drops the ball, again... After trying the D4 which is bulletproof through and through, I'm not settling for paying a thousand dollars more for the 1d X that almost gives me sharp images... Someone needs to wake them up over there at Canon, cuz this announcing a product 8 months before it can be bought and then screw it up releasing firmware just isn't going to cut it...

I need a coffee and Laphroaig now....


----------



## Crapking (Mar 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I thing the ACR6.7 shows up even softer
> the out of camera jpegs are so bad i've just turned them off all together.
> 
> My initial feeling about the files is they are not as good as the 5Dmk2 however its to hard to call until proper raw converters come out.
> ...


 

I agree - I want a better RAW converter the ACR 6.7 was not very good either, though I am not 'underwhelmed' by the in camera JPEG. Here is a sequence of shots - with out of the camera JPEG settings (except Landscape and WB set to 3200) - not too bad handling of either the JPEG engine or the AF / low light handling, these are a burst at 1/800, f 2.8 ISO 3200 with the 70-200 2/8 II. 




5D3L0653 by PVC 2012, on Flickr



5D3L0654 by PVC 2012, on Flickr



5D3L0656 by PVC 2012, on Flickr




5D3L0657 by PVC 2012, on Flickr



5D3L0658 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2012)

candyman said:


> I just wonder, the 5D MKIII has been tested by a lot of photographers before the camera was released. And none of them reported this problem? Then maybe it is a problem of this specific sample that The Digital Picture used for the review.


 
None of the preliminary users had DPP, just out of camera jpegs.


----------



## mrmarks (Mar 26, 2012)

Some new updates from Bryan of TDP http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2148 :

Clarification: The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is Delivering Very Sharp Images
I am getting a lot of email asking about the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the image softness issue. Let me clarify what I'm seeing:

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is Delivering Very Sharp Images

There is a softness issue, but it appears to be completely isolated to the Canon Digital Photo Pro software's "High quality" RAW conversion algorithm.

You can see the sharp 5D III images in DPP's quick viewer and in the Edit window with preferences set to High speed. The issue appears to be completely in DPP's High quality processing algorithm.

Canon has been in touch with me again this morning and appears very eager to resolve the problem. My personal expectation is that the problem resolution will be in the form of a DPP update. The 5D III appears to be fine from my perspective. I have no intentions of returning my camera - I'm having far too much fun with it.


----------



## t.linn (Mar 26, 2012)

Ricku said:


> I really can't understand why some people even care about comparing jpegs, or why Chuck Westfall was braging so much about the 2 stop jpeg improvement over the 5D2.. Who the heck cares?
> 
> RAW improvement is all that matters



RAW _is_ all that matters. But people talk about JPG because they can't talk about RAW. And Chuck talks about JPG because Canon seems unable to significantly improve RAW—at least that's how it looks now. (I hope I'm wrong.)


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 26, 2012)

For what it's worth, if you switch DPP from High Quality to High Speed, the files turn out much much better... has anyone tried this yet? Any thoughts?


----------



## peederj (Mar 26, 2012)

Doing that turns of the NR system and possibly some other things. We have to be patient for the software to be worked out, the camera may have lots more potential than we're seeing right now.


----------



## Crapking (Mar 29, 2012)

[/quote]

RAW _is_ all that matters. 
[/quote]

Unless you are shooting sports / news for a deadline and/or wirelessly are transferring files for a smaller file size.
Not every photo will be enlarged to its' maximum possible size, every time, although I have heard before that size 'is' all that matters.


----------

