# So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

I have been playing with the 5DmkII for two days now shooting lots of pictures and man am I frustrated! WHile high ISO is better, I stuggled with the following:

1- ISO 100-400 is not better than my 5DmkII and actually at ISO 400 where a lot of my picture are taking with a flash I actually see more noise - ok I know the official RAW converter are not out yet so I was ready to live it until final software come out BUT:

2- Beleive or not over 50-70% of my shots are either soft or have way less details then my mkII ever had! Either I have a bad unit or I am really dumb! Or both!

I tried every AF mode and even in single point or spot AF the camera is not in focus compared to my mkII...so as frustrating as this is, I decided I was not going to spend more time trying to make this work, not for the price tag I paid! SO I am returning the unit tomorrow. I really hope I got a bad unit!

Anyone else has gotten some reservation with their new toys or am I the only one dis-appointed?

P.S.: I hope the 1DX is better then this!


----------



## nikkito (Mar 26, 2012)

Sorry to hear that


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!


----------



## AnselA (Mar 26, 2012)

Sounds like you need to return it.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!


I'm very keen to hear how you new unit goes because so far I'm concerned about the IQ of the images too
I'll probably wait unti proper raw converters are out before i look at taking it back
I think canon need to get a firmware update out STAT that fixes the horrid in camera jpeg processing too
I think i'd be happier with jpegs out of a rebel than this thing puts out


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

I did turn sharpness down on my 5D3 from the default setting, because the dark border problem was offensive at pixel level.

Having done that, I think I'm happy with it.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 26, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> Mine is pixel-sharp.
> 
> With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)
> 
> ...



Hey FLEETIE

Can you post one of your shots? A JPEG version and possibly a link to the RAW as well? I'd love to see one!

I'm also loving my 5DMKIII - Images are looking sharp and very low noise


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!
> ...



For sure I will wait for proper converter to be out indeed!


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Mine is pixel-sharp.
> ...



Maximum attachment size allowed is 4096kB (4MB), so I can't. The JPGs are 7 to 12MB.

I don't have any fancy web accounts that'll store files that size.

If you really want, give me your email address and I'll mail you a JPG straight out of camera.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

Sorry to hear that...I think you got a dud because my experience is that all my lenses look dead on sharp and in focus even in low light. Sometimes a sensor can be out of its proper alignment making all the lenses work improperly, that may be the issue...Dude, that sux.


----------



## Blaze (Mar 26, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> tasteofjace said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetie said:
> ...



You don't need any fancy web accounts. Just use something like minus.com.
(Note that unlike say imgur.com, minus.com leaves the metadata intact.)


Example:
Here's a direct link to an 8.61 MB JPG: http://i.minus.com/ibmN49uCtD9Jov.jpg
Here's a link to download the original 25.76 MB CR2: http://minus.com/m1FHpveLO/


----------



## jlev23 (Mar 26, 2012)

mine is very sharp as well, even with the sharpening turned to zero and the kit 24-105mm.
maybe your lighting is bad? or your auto focus setting is not properly set for what content you are shooting.
or you have a bad unit, bring it back and try another, maybe try it before you leave the store, most places return in 30 days, but make sure you are not shooting with out of the box settings, customize to what you are doing, its really a pro camera this time.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

I don't think the in-camera JPEGs are very good at this point either. I never shot JPEG on my Mk II, so I don't really know big the RAW vs. JPEG difference was in detail in good light, but with the Mk III the JPEGs loose a lot of detail compared to RAW images process with Adobe ACR 6.7 RC1 / DNG convertor. I think that Canon has a RAW processing problem in both the DPP software and the camera firmware. The Adobe processed RAWs show the detail is there. I've been looking at this a lot and would be glad to take a look at one of your RAW files compared to mine. You can sign up for a free dropbox.com account and upload it to your Public folder to share. You can do it all through their website if you don't want to install their software. My gmail address is the same as my username here.


----------



## RunAndGun (Mar 26, 2012)

I received mine Friday(3/23) and used it Saturday with my 70-200mm f/2.8 v2 and I have to say that the new focus system is NICE. I actually had a lot of fun shooting people running around(it was a "mud run") because the focus WORKED. I was outside, so after the sun came out from behind the clouds I was shooting at ISO 100 and everything looked pretty darn good when I got back home. I will say there IS something wrong with DPP(which I normally LOVE). My MKII images have always looked great with DPP, but the MKIII images on the new DPP don't seem as sharp or vibrant(I do shoot RAW). BUT when I look at them with Image Browser(full screen and even 100%), they look MUCH better, like MKII images used to on DPP.

Hopefully you just got a bum steer and they will replace it. It's no fun when you're the one that get's the bad apple, but it happens. Nothing man made is ever 100% perfect and sometimes we forget just how complicated and precise these machines are, because most of the time they do "just work" when grab them and use them.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 26, 2012)

I vote for micro focus adjustment. Just give it a try. One of my Canons front focuses by about an inch with all lenses at about 50mm. It's easy to fix but it is annoying knowing that it's not perfect out of the box.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

Here's a pixel-level zoom of a straight-out-of-camera JPEG I took this afternoon. (If it works on here!)


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

Closer in...


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

Uh, those seem to be magnified way beyond 100%


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

Yes, they are WAY beyond 100%.

The idea was to make it clear what was happening at individual pixel level.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> I don't think the in-camera JPEGs are very good at this point either. I never shot JPEG on my Mk II, so I don't really know big the RAW vs. JPEG difference was in detail in good light, but with the Mk III the JPEGs loose a lot of detail compared to RAW images process with Adobe ACR 6.7 RC1 / DNG convertor. I think that Canon has a RAW processing problem in both the DPP software and the camera firmware. The Adobe processed RAWs show the detail is there. I've been looking at this a lot and would be glad to take a look at one of your RAW files compared to mine. You can sign up for a free dropbox.com account and upload it to your Public folder to share. You can do it all through their website if you don't want to install their software. My gmail address is the same as my username here.


I posted these raw comparisons in a couple of other threads
https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2
https://rapidshare.com/files/2949940123/IMG_8491.CR2

I feel the 5D2 is sharper still


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Me too! I was having such high hopes! Hopefully a different unit will be better!
> ...



Ouch. Sounds like your 5DIII is performing like a dud so far. What specifically about the IQ is so bad? If the jpegs look worse than a Rebel, I'm hoping I'm not in for disappointment when my 5DIII shows up this week.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2012)

thanks for emailing those jpgs fleetie!

but I feel your jpg processing is about on par with mine (vs how sharp the 5D2 is)
definately something funky with the in camera processing on these things IMO

at f8 the edges of those petals would be razor crisp on the 5D2

heres hoping there are some early firmware updates coming up


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> thanks for emailing those jpgs fleetie!
> 
> but I feel your jpg processing is about on par with mine (vs how sharp the 5D2 is)
> definately something funky with the in camera processing on these things IMO
> ...



Well, ok. But I think they're ok. Considering they've been de-mosaiced, I think they're ok. 

But keep us informed of your progress, cos we'd all like to know if there is something that can be done to make the pics even better.


----------



## jrista (Mar 26, 2012)

@JR: It sounds like your lens(es) and camera body may be out of alignment. Thats not really all that uncommon (all manufactured equipment has to be manufactured within certain tolerances, and when you have broadly compatible interchangeable parts, tolerances usually have to be loosened to a greater degree than would be ideal), and the primary reason most higher grade cameras like the 5D III include lens micro adjustment features. You may have a general adjustment problem, or it may be lens specific. The 5D III supports adjusting for both cases, however by default micro adjustment applies globally. 

I would try micro adjusting your lens+camera combinations and see if that improves your results. You will need a calibration chart or device. For a chart, you might try this one: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart (this site also includes very detailed instructions on how to print and use the chart.) If you really want to go all out and get things extremely precise, you should probably get a LensAlign device: http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html. Canon cameras allow you to micro adjust per-lens, and I think you can store up to around 20 lens micro adjustment profiles. The camera will automatically select the right profile for a given lens when that lens is attached (I am not sure if that works with third-party lenses or not...Canon lenses are microchipped with a bunch of statistical information.)

Hopefully micro adjust will help, and prevent you from having to return your camera (and incur all that extra shipping cost and who knows what other costs.)


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I posted these raw comparisons in a couple of other threads
> https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2
> https://rapidshare.com/files/2949940123/IMG_8491.CR2
> 
> I feel the 5D2 is sharper still



I saw these posted earlier but didn't look at them as closely as I did today. They don't look too bad, although they are on the soft side. They did sharpen up nicely with a subtle unsharp mask, though. Maybe my standards are just low 

It sounds like the jpegs are real turds, though. Can anyone put up some sample jpegs? I'd like to see how bad the in-camera processing is.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 26, 2012)

Have you tried focusing using Live View?


----------



## aloper (Mar 26, 2012)

Everyone, take a look here before assuming its a camera issue...seems DPP may be the problem...
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

Here is a quick screenshot from Aperture. I was shooting RAW+JPEG. Photo on left is in-camera JPEG (one of the better ones) and photo on right is CR2 converted to DNG. Notice the missing detail in the white petals.


----------



## PhotoCat (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> 1- ISO 100-400 is not better than my 5DmkII and actually at ISO 400 where a lot of my picture are taking with a flash I actually see more noise - ok I know the official RAW converter are not out yet so I was ready to live it until final software come out BUT: ...



Wow, this is the 2nd time I have heard that 5D3's ISO 800 noise is better than that of ISO 400. See:

http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=2262&canon-5diii-vs-5dii-vs-7d-high-iso-noise-tests

Sounds like 5d3's latest software noise reduction algorithm definitely kicks in on or before ISO 800, making jpg
noise look great compared to 5d2. As a 5d2 owner, I hope we can use the new DPP to do the same noise reduction as the 5d3, making 5d2's high ISO performance even better... 

Also heard that 5d3's sensor has banding noise improved compared to 5d2. If so, with the same NR engine in the new DPP, one should be able to push 5d3 higher in ISO than 5d2.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Here is a quick screenshot from Aperture. I was shooting RAW+JPEG. Photo on left is in-camera JPEG (one of the better ones) and photo on right is CR2 converted to DNG. Notice the missing detail in the white petals.



It looks like the in-camera processing is adding lots of contrast to add more color, contrast, and "pop" at the expense of detail in the midtones. I agree that it seems quite aggressive. Just out of curiosity, where did you have the jpeg presets (contrast, saturation, etc) set at for this shot?


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

This was one of the first pictures I took with it, so I believe it was on Standard with all the defaults.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

Oh, I should also say that to me it looks more like noise reduction... almost like it's applying noise reduction at all ISOs. This shot was ISO 100.


----------



## dystorsion (Mar 26, 2012)

This seems pretty symptomatic of the DPP issue, and I bet that is indeed the problem. 

As someone else posted earlier, Bryan C over at the-digital-picture had this to say:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2142

Another fellow returned his because he encountered the exact same problem (but did not know the cause at the time which has been revealed to be the above).

My apologies if you don't use DPP and already use the DNG converter, and are still getting sub-par results. In which case, I hope things turn out better if you exchange for another copy.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 26, 2012)

Try reading this article about lenses/cameras. Personally, I think your soft focus problems could be fixed easily with micro-adjustment.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

The bottom line is, this is fantastic camera and I really like using it. Converting to DNG proves the sensor and the RAW files have the detail, we are just stuck dealing with a firmware/software issue...which sucks, but is not the end of the world.

To anyone concerned about their camera: try converting with the Adobe software first. If you are still not satisfied do some tripod Live view manual focus shots to make sure you aren't having a focus calibration issue. If the result is still bad, then maybe you have something to worry about.


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I feel the 5D2 is sharper still



Me too unfortunately!


----------



## dystorsion (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> The bottom line is, this is fantastic camera and I really like using it. Converting to DNG proves the sensor and the RAW files have the detail, we are just stuck dealing with a firmware/software issue...which sucks, but is not the end of the world.
> 
> To anyone concerned about their camera: try converting with the Adobe software first. If you are still not satisfied do some tripod Live view manual focus shots to make sure you aren't having a focus calibration issue. If the result is still bad, then maybe you have something to worry about.



This +10.

It's hard to imagine how Canon could manage such a blunder with their software.. otherwise I still feel that the camera is at the least, good.


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> @JR: It sounds like your lens(es) and camera body may be out of alignment. Thats not really all that uncommon (all manufactured equipment has to be manufactured within certain tolerances, and when you have broadly compatible interchangeable parts, tolerances usually have to be loosened to a greater degree than would be ideal), and the primary reason most higher grade cameras like the 5D III include lens micro adjustment features. You may have a general adjustment problem, or it may be lens specific. The 5D III supports adjusting for both cases, however by default micro adjustment applies globally.
> 
> I would try micro adjusting your lens+camera combinations and see if that improves your results. You will need a calibration chart or device. For a chart, you might try this one: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart (this site also includes very detailed instructions on how to print and use the chart.) If you really want to go all out and get things extremely precise, you should probably get a LensAlign device: http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html. Canon cameras allow you to micro adjust per-lens, and I think you can store up to around 20 lens micro adjustment profiles. The camera will automatically select the right profile for a given lens when that lens is attached (I am not sure if that works with third-party lenses or not...Canon lenses are microchipped with a bunch of statistical information.)
> 
> Hopefully micro adjust will help, and prevent you from having to return your camera (and incur all that extra shipping cost and who knows what other costs.)



Thanks jrista this is a good suggestion indeed, just not sure I want to invest the time required for this MA since I tried before and lets say I am note he best at these test. Point is for a brand new camera, I feel a should return it and get a proper unit that does work ...


----------



## JoeDavid (Mar 26, 2012)

Not meaning to hijack the thread but, since most of this is about soft images from the 5DM3, here goes...

I have had the 5DM3 for 4 days now and am pretty pleased with its performance. I've been doing mostly outdoor landscape type of stuff testing it out. Tonight I realized that I hadn't used a flash on it at all so I mounted a small 270EX that I use for fill flash and began firing away at at a stack of magazines on the coffee table with the 24-105L. With the camera set to let it select the focus points the results were soft to completely out of focus. Changing the AF to single point produced sharp photos. The magazine on top was a copy of American Photo with the large word "Photo" in red. When the camera locked onto the red Photo word, the focus was completely off. It got better when it chose to lock onto areas with black text but never produced anything as sharp as single point AF focused on the same black text. This requires more investigation on my part but it will have to wait. I have a 580EX II that I can test with as well but I thought I'd go ahead and put this out there in case anyone else with a 5DM3 can look at it too...


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

dystorsion said:


> This seems pretty symptomatic of the DPP issue, and I bet that is indeed the problem.
> 
> As someone else posted earlier, Bryan C over at the-digital-picture had this to say:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2142
> ...



I tried DPP, the new Adobe 6.7 DNG converter then import in LR4, and I also tried ACR 6.7 altogether with PS CS5...all more or less give me the same disappointing result.


----------



## dystorsion (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> dystorsion said:
> 
> 
> > This seems pretty symptomatic of the DPP issue, and I bet that is indeed the problem.
> ...



I see... then I guess this should be considered odd. I hope the next body works out (if you choose to get another one)!


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

JoeDavid said:


> Not meaning to hijack the thread but, since most of this is about soft images from the 5DM3, here goes...
> 
> I have had the 5DM3 for 4 days now and am pretty pleased with its performance. I've been doing mostly outdoor landscape type of stuff testing it out. Tonight I realized that I hadn't used a flash on it at all so I mounted a small 270EX that I use for fill flash and began firing away at at a stack of magazines on the coffee table with the 24-105L. With the camera set to let it select the focus points the results were soft to completely out of focus. Changing the AF to single point produced sharp photos. The magazine on top was a copy of American Photo with the large word "Photo" in red. When the camera locked onto the red Photo word, the focus was completely off. It got better when it chose to lock onto areas with black text but never produced anything as sharp as single point AF focused on the same black text. This requires more investigation on my part but it will have to wait. I have a 580EX II that I can test with as well but I thought I'd go ahead and put this out there in case anyone else with a 5DM3 can look at it too...



Interesting about the flash since I was using a 580 II speedlite ... Will investigate further.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

JoeDavid said:


> Not meaning to hijack the thread but, since most of this is about soft images from the 5DM3, here goes...
> 
> I have had the 5DM3 for 4 days now and am pretty pleased with its performance. I've been doing mostly outdoor landscape type of stuff testing it out. Tonight I realized that I hadn't used a flash on it at all so I mounted a small 270EX that I use for fill flash and began firing away at at a stack of magazines on the coffee table with the 24-105L. With the camera set to let it select the focus points the results were soft to completely out of focus. Changing the AF to single point produced sharp photos. The magazine on top was a copy of American Photo with the large word "Photo" in red. When the camera locked onto the red Photo word, the focus was completely off. It got better when it chose to lock onto areas with black text but never produced anything as sharp as single point AF focused on the same black text. This requires more investigation on my part but it will have to wait. I have a 580EX II that I can test with as well but I thought I'd go ahead and put this out there in case anyone else with a 5DM3 can look at it too...



If you were using the flash AF assist beam(default setting) and were very close to the magazines, is it possible that the flash's beam was overshooting the area you were focusing on?


----------



## helpful (Mar 26, 2012)

Re: rate button

Have any of you had to take photos and turn in "several good ones for web use" to sports information at halftime of a basketball game? I receive my 5D3 on Wednesday next week, and I am so hoping that the rate button will work by simply pressing it twice to give a default 1-star rating to a photo. If it requires pressing the button and selecting a rating with another knob, then yes, that will be extremely irritating.

Right now my workflow is like this:

* During the first half I have to be chimping after any major play, and if a photo is good or a play is good if I don't have time to chimp, then I take a blank picture of the floor after that sequence of photos containing the good photo.
* 1-3 minutes before half time I have to run to the media room, download all photos, look at them in thumbnail mode, scroll through the ones before the blank floor pictures, and then star the ones I want to turn in.
* Select and export the starred photos.
* Give flash drive to sports information about 15 minutes of wasted time, if I'm lucky.

Assuming that I can just do a quick double "click" of the rate button to assign it a 1-star default rating (the stars aren't important, because I'm not rating them, just indicating that I want to turn them in to SI), then the rate button would be a tremendous boon to me. I could lesiurely go to the media room, download photos, export the starred photos, and walk back with flash drive in hand in under 5 minutes.

Hopefully I can even have a direct ethernet connection so that someone else can use my pictures live, but I am not sure if I would be happy with that. Some people don't realize that every click of the shutter on a professional camera does not necessarily a cover photograph make. Letting someone else select photos would probably result in a bad representation of my work.

Anyway, I just thought that I would speak out in favor of what hopefully is going to be a good feature for me.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

helpful said:


> Re: rate button
> 
> Have any of you had to take photos and turn in "several good ones for web use" to sports information at halftime of a basketball game? I receive my 5D3 on Wednesday next week, and I am so hoping that the rate button will work by simply pressing it twice to give a default 1-star rating to a photo. If it requires pressing the button and selecting a rating with another knob, then yes, that will be extremely irritating.



Each push adds one star, so a picture starts with none. Push it once for one star, twice for two, etc. up to 5. A sixth push returns to zero stars.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2012)

helpful said:


> Re: rate button
> 
> Have any of you had to take photos and turn in "several good ones for web use" to sports information at halftime of a basketball game? I receive my 5D3 on Wednesday next week, and I am so hoping that the rate button will work by simply pressing it twice to give a default 1-star rating to a photo. If it requires pressing the button and selecting a rating with another knob, then yes, that will be extremely irritating.
> 
> ...



good explanation, I never shoot sport so never have that issue typically i find trying to identify if images are good or not on the screen is quite difficult. 
It would be nice if they made the ability to assign other funtions to that button so people that will never use the rate button in their life can make it usefull for their purposes.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 26, 2012)

Sorry to hear that. But since its still on warranty, you are covered. Sorry for the bad luck of getting a bad copy.


----------



## helpful (Mar 26, 2012)

So you are saying that I could just push the Rate button once to tag it with a star? That would be so awesome and make my life 10 times easier for sports!!


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

Not sure how this got to be about the rate feature haha. As far as the issue with the came i think it is the sensor alignment because its not just one lens that is an issue for you. You prob could get what you need out of micro adjustment features but start at the highest number to the left or right because it is almost indecernable each notch you move it.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

On the subject of JPEG quality I just did a test. I set the camera to RAW+JPEG, turned off Auto Light Optimizer, Highlight tone priority, and Noise Reduction and used Sigma 85mm f/1.4, 25mm extension tube, manual exposure at ISO 100, f/8, 1/180s, macro flash, tripod mounted, 2 second self timer to avoid shake. This is an incredibly sharp lens at f/8, so this should be a best case scenario. I took one with Standard picture style and one with Neutral picture style. In this setup the JPEGs show nearly the same amount of detail as the RAW. Looking at the histogram, the Red channel did overexpose, so I did botch the test somewhat. Still, by comparing areas that didn't overexpose I think the JPEGs look fine. I think the only real difference in camera setup compared to some of the initial JPEGs I took is the Auto Light Optimizer... it could be that this is what is killing the JPEGs. I will do that comparison tomorrow. For those of you curious, here is a 49mb zip with the in-camera JPEGs and the converted DNG files: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32275661/samples.zip


----------



## jrista (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @JR: It sounds like your lens(es) and camera body may be out of alignment. Thats not really all that uncommon (all manufactured equipment has to be manufactured within certain tolerances, and when you have broadly compatible interchangeable parts, tolerances usually have to be loosened to a greater degree than would be ideal), and the primary reason most higher grade cameras like the 5D III include lens micro adjustment features. You may have a general adjustment problem, or it may be lens specific. The 5D III supports adjusting for both cases, however by default micro adjustment applies globally.
> ...



Keep in mind, both the lens and the camera have manufacturing tolerances. It _sounds_ like you might have received a copy of the camera that is at one of the extremes of those tolerances. _On the other hand_, you may have a few lenses that are at one of the extreme ends of their tolerance ranges, and whatever camera you had previously was on the same end of its tolerances. Returning the 5D III for another does not, in any way, guarantee that you will get a good copy next time...or even the third, fourth, etc. times. It may not even be the 5D III that is "bad"...if it IS the lenses, then you could get any number of normally calibrated 5D III bodies and they would all perform roughly the same for your particular lenses. 

Calibrating is not all that difficult...you point the camera at a 45 degree test chart, AF the lens on a given mark in the test chart, and examine the focal plane. If the lens+camera combination is significantly out of alignment (i.e. opposing ends of their tolerance ranges), you'll know right away, and one or two microadjustments will solve the problem. It may take a little more work to identify and fix a slight misalignment, however if you shoot teathered (as the one blog mentions), you'll see the results in large size immediately on your computer, and it still won't take long to correct even minor misalignment issues.

You could save yourself a lot of hassle of returning one camera body after the other to get a "perfect" one if you just align your gear yourself. Once its aligned...your good to go, and don't have to worry about it again.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 26, 2012)

helpful said:


> So you are saying that I could just push the Rate button once to tag it with a star? That would be so awesome and make my life 10 times easier for sports!!



YUP, you will be very happy... and as far as sport shooting... the AF performance is going to make you wet yourself. I wanted to do some tests this weekend with the different servo modes, but didn't get to it.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 26, 2012)

I am hoping to shoot lots at the American Lemans series in Canada in July. Really want to test the AF there.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Here is a quick screenshot from Aperture. I was shooting RAW+JPEG. Photo on left is in-camera JPEG (one of the better ones) and photo on right is CR2 converted to DNG. Notice the missing detail in the white petals.



I've noticed since the early samples that the jpg and video engine, in cam, seems very prone to waxy away fine details in lower contrast areas and in ultra-high contrast areas with extreme whites, to outline things in black. They seem paranoid about noise showing through and going for the waxy nasty look of a really bad blu-ray transfer where some video guy was told to scrub all film at all cost by some studio guy not knowing much abotu the finer points of nice video processing. An ugly combo. I wonder if they sort this if it will bring the video back up to true 1920x1080p??? Or if the 3x3 sampling being so much larger scale than the AA filter was designed for means they have to do resolution AA on the video (maybe they can add a 2x2 blocked, like C300, crop mode video for perfect 1920x1080p if so?).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> Thanks jrista this is a good suggestion indeed, just not sure I want to invest the time required for this MA since I tried before and lets say I am note he best at these test. Point is for a brand new camera, I feel a should return it and get a proper unit that does work ...



The thing is each lens might need a different MFA, so a new body can't be a universal fix if MFA is the issue (although if the body is way off, and if if most everything seemed ok before, then perhaps the new one might at least make most of your lenses seem sort ok to the degree they had on your old camera, myself I fine tune every single lens+body combo, for low DOF shooting, sports, wildlife, I find it to be critical, 400mm f/4 has such thin DOF at certain distances that even a single step adjustment can make a difference).


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> On the subject of JPEG quality I just did a test. I set the camera to RAW+JPEG, turned off Auto Light Optimizer, Highlight tone priority, and Noise Reduction and used Sigma 85mm f/1.4, 25mm extension tube, manual exposure at ISO 100, f/8, 1/180s, macro flash, tripod mounted, 2 second self timer to avoid shake. This is an incredibly sharp lens at f/8, so this should be a best case scenario. I took one with Standard picture style and one with Neutral picture style. In this setup the JPEGs show nearly the same amount of detail as the RAW. Looking at the histogram, the Red channel did overexpose, so I did botch the test somewhat. Still, by comparing areas that didn't overexpose I think the JPEGs look fine. I think the only real difference in camera setup compared to some of the initial JPEGs I took is the Auto Light Optimizer... it could be that this is what is killing the JPEGs. I will do that comparison tomorrow. For those of you curious, here is a 49mb zip with the in-camera JPEGs and the converted DNG files: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32275661/samples.zip


Thanks for the post, i'd like to know how those diff settings affect things...


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks jrista this is a good suggestion indeed, just not sure I want to invest the time required for this MA since I tried before and lets say I am note he best at these test. Point is for a brand new camera, I feel a should return it and get a proper unit that does work ...
> ...


All my lenses but my 70-200 II have been to Canon so they have all prob been brought to spec and being lucky with my camera also being to spec it all is magic.  
It is expensive to send stuff to them but some people do get all their lenses and bodies calibrated for utmost accuracy. 
For the best way i have seen calibration done go to this link:
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/MA-web/
Like Live view seeing the image you are focussed on zoomed in you use DPP to calibrate it, pretty sweet if you ask me.

I have bought the lens calibration kit from some dudes store online that makes them and I prefer to not really use it as it didn't work all that well in my opinion.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2012)

Can you get any better looking results by using magnified live-view and manual focus, just to check?

My 5D2 with EF 50mm/1.4 set to f8 renders small leaves clearly at large distances right to the edge of the frame. Per-pixel sharpness can be impressive on 5D2, maybe a weaker AA filter in it.


----------



## Crapking (Mar 26, 2012)

I thought the JPEGs were actually pretty good for ISO 3200 in a high school gym, varying light.

Camera	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	140 mm
ISO Speed	3200

70-200 2. 8 II




V8Beast said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I posted these raw comparisons in a couple of other threads
> ...


----------



## dunkers (Mar 26, 2012)

In your original post, I got the interpretation that the majority of your shots were with a flash. Then in a later post, you said that you shot with the 580 EX II.


If that is the case, then the problem may lie in your setup. I was reading through another topic earlier this morning with a similar problem to yours. He said that when he used the flash (580exII), the camera seemed to be misfocusing for some reason. Another poster suggested that the flash may be the problem. He said something about how the 5d3 and 1dx AF systems are more compatible the 600ex flashes or something.

His issue was more of how the focus seemed to be a little slow. So perhaps the flash may be the issue. 


But again, my post may be worthless if I interpreted your original post wrong


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2012)

oh dear I'm going to be testing the 580s tonight! I've only done some test shots with a 600 I borrowed from someone so far!


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2012)

If it is micro-adjustment, take a look at these:
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/af_microadjustment_article.shtml
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html


----------



## photogaz (Mar 26, 2012)

JR - can you post some examples of what you think is so bad please.


----------



## AUGS (Mar 26, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> On the subject of JPEG quality I just did a test. I set the camera to RAW+JPEG, turned off Auto Light Optimizer, Highlight tone priority, and Noise Reduction and used Sigma 85mm f/1.4, 25mm extension tube, manual exposure at ISO 100, f/8, 1/180s, macro flash, tripod mounted, 2 second self timer to avoid shake. This is an incredibly sharp lens at f/8, so this should be a best case scenario. I took one with Standard picture style and one with Neutral picture style. In this setup the JPEGs show nearly the same amount of detail as the RAW. Looking at the histogram, the Red channel did overexpose, so I did botch the test somewhat. Still, by comparing areas that didn't overexpose I think the JPEGs look fine. I think the only real difference in camera setup compared to some of the initial JPEGs I took is the Auto Light Optimizer... it could be that this is what is killing the JPEGs. I will do that comparison tomorrow. For those of you curious, here is a 49mb zip with the in-camera JPEGs and the converted DNG files: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32275661/samples.zip



I just had a quick look up of "Auto Light Optimizer" in the manual (okay, I read the manual...), but here is what it says:
Page 63: "In the <A+> mode, the Auto Lighting Optimizer (p142) will adjust the image automatically to obtain the optimum brightness and contrast. It is also *enabled by default in the P/Tv/Av/B modes*".
Page 142: "If the images comes out dark or the contrast is low, the brightness and contrast can be corrected automatically. This function is called Auto Lighting Optimizer. The default setting is [Standard]. With JPEG images, the correction is applied when the image is captured".

I think this is exactly whats happening. The side-by-side comparison you posted earlier of JPEG and CR2 showed the JPEG "more exposed" to my eye, washing out some of the details (softer). Not saying its the answer to all the problems being seen by others, but certainly explains your post observations.
Could it be that some are seeing this and not others suggesting that those not seeing the problem _"may"_ be using Manual mode?

Similar issue with the flash usage? That is, is the flash creating an image of low contrast (according to the camera) and blowing detail in the auto-correction causing a soft image?

If you are experiencing soft JPEG images, what mode are you using? P, Av, Tv, M or B?


----------



## John Thomas (Mar 26, 2012)

Since it seems that DPP and Adobe gear has problems perhaps you can try IrfanView - http://www.irfanview.com/

It works ok for me for any RAW (including Canon 5D Mark III) - viewing, converting etc. Ok, the GUI is a little hackeradic, but it works very fast and smooth till other solutions arrive. Also, you can test for sure if the problem if with camera or somewhere else.

HTH


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 26, 2012)

I quite like irfanview if I quickly want to browse through RAW files. I primarily use it during the weeding out process. It's very helpful.


----------



## @!ex (Mar 26, 2012)

I've had to micro adjust my lenses. Try it might make a huge difference.


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You're right doing MA would be worthed. It is just the brick and mortal store I got it from is not that flexible about return, so I may just wait and get a unit from B&H instead and first thing I will do is do MA for all my lenses. That and I would like to properly test it when the camera is actually supported by RAW software! This way I put all the chance behind me!


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

dunkers said:


> In your original post, I got the interpretation that the majority of your shots were with a flash. Then in a later post, you said that you shot with the 580 EX II.
> 
> 
> If that is the case, then the problem may lie in your setup. I was reading through another topic earlier this morning with a similar problem to yours. He said that when he used the flash (580exII), the camera seemed to be misfocusing for some reason. Another poster suggested that the flash may be the problem. He said something about how the 5d3 and 1dx AF systems are more compatible the 600ex flashes or something.
> ...



You know this would make so much sense. I mean I know about the MA and all, but MA cannot help me that much if I am shooting at f4 or f6.3, 12 feet away with a flash with a 35 or 50 mm lens! I know the new flash are really different, so maybe I need the 600 instead of the 580! Hummm, how can we check for this? Anyone with both flash?


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> oh dear I'm going to be testing the 580s tonight! I've only done some test shots with a 600 I borrowed from someone so far!



@wickidwombat, please let us know what you find with the 600 versus 580 flash!



photogaz said:


> JR - can you post some examples of what you think is so bad please.



@photogaz, will try to post some later tonight when I get back from work.


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

Update: for now I decided to actually return my unit which I did first thing this mornign before going to work. I will wait when we have proper RAW converter out and maybe learn more about the 5DmkIII before getting a new unit. For the next unit I will make sure to do MA for my lenses and also check if the 600 flash works better.

Since my local dealer did not have a new unit in stock, I will have to wait. Likley will get it from B&H next time. The dealer did try to bring me to the dark side when I returned it but told him no thanks! I will wait to get a good unit in my hands.

Thank you for all your post and comments!

:-[


----------



## avangardphoto (Mar 26, 2012)

Most likely user error to blame not the camera 
Mario
avangardphoto.com


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

avangardphoto said:


> Most likely user error to blame not the camera
> Mario
> avangardphoto.com



Yeah, you must be right, after shooting aver 10,000 pictures with my 5DmkII I must have had a brain freeze and forgot how to use a camera all together when I got the mkIII - stupid me! :-X


----------



## KHAS (Mar 26, 2012)

Bosman said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



Has anyone tried this form of calibration yet? I have a 5D mkII, 1D mkIV and a bunch of EF lenses which are in need of MA. Is this the best form of calibration (outside of sending all my gear to Canon)? If so, a quick question regarding the distance to the target. By x20, does this mean that if I'm focusing a 200mm Lens, then the target area should be 4,000mm (400cm/4m)?
Thanks for any advice.


----------



## candyman (Mar 26, 2012)

JR said:


> avangardphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Most likely user error to blame not the camera
> ...



Do you think the 61 AF points is something to get used to? I just wonder in case I move up so I know what to expect.


----------



## naterz (Mar 26, 2012)

So I have been thinking the EXACT SAME thing as JR...that's it's soft. I focus locks, I take the picture, and the image is soft. In camera I'll zoom to 100% and see how soft it is. It has been driving me nuts. About 20% of my photos are sharp, but even still, not that incredibly sharp. I was SURE it was my unit, and I had played around with af fine tuning...but decided to print out the test that was posted here earlier. I printed it out, did the test and WOW! That helped TREMENDOUSLY! My camera/lens was backfocusing. I had to set it to -15 to get it in the sweet spot. Now the images are MUCH more tack sharp. Thank you for posting that link to the Focus Chart. : )


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

candyman said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > avangardphoto said:
> ...



Yes I could certainly get used to the 61 point system! Seriously while I did my test using the center point first to compare the camera and take a few variable out of the way, there is no denying that this system will be good and am sure my issue will prove trivial eventually or linked to first production unit firmware issue maybe.

Since I am getting the 1DX (no way I am going to Nikon over this!), I will need to get used to it afterall!


----------

