# 5D MarkIII Low ISO performance in shadows



## Alexandros (Jun 20, 2012)

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...
Is there something wrong with my copy or is it supposed to be like this ?


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 20, 2012)

Another sample


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 20, 2012)

Can you post side by side comparison between 5D3 and rebel? Same scene, same lighting, same exposure. 

If this is the nature of the sensor, you and I have to live with it. But if you don't do large print or not always look at 100%, the noise may not be an issue at all. Remember that this camera provides you tremendous opportunity to capture the scenes or the moments you would've have missed using other camera. What really matters is the content in your image. Enjoy the camera!


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Jun 20, 2012)

That is exactly what I hate about my 7D! You are right my old 350D also handle it better :-( 
I was looking to get a 5D III and hoped it would be significant better there...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

no way mine is nothing like that i dont even get noise like that at iso 8000 unless pushing it 3 stops


----------



## Sycotek (Jun 21, 2012)

Same issue mate - 2 bodies, returned them both and hired a 3rd - same issue.

Questioned Canon they advised to send the bodies in as they had never heard of this issue - strange they have never googled 5d3 read noise (dubbed the rainbow effect).

If you want to really see it - shoot anything close to 18% grey or shoot a landscape and check the shadows you will see it.

Better yet import it in LR and remove the default +25 colour NR reduction.

---

Funnily enough if you look at dpreviews review you can clearly see the banding. Yet they never mentioned it.

It is a good coverup!


----------



## dryanparker (Jun 21, 2012)

Fascinating! Earlier today I posted an identical thread regarding this same phenomenon I found in my 5D2. ISO 100 and very noticeable vertical banding. Weird!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7486.0


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 21, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
> Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
> Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
> Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...
> Is there something wrong with my copy or is it supposed to be like this ?



Welcome to the party .

There have been endless posts and whining about this since the very first RAW files were leaked (and going even back to the early 5D2 days). Yeah Nikon got like 3 stops better for low ISO shadows and got rid of all banding and Canon got rid of horizontal (while leaving vertical as bad as ever) and actually made the read noise per photosite at ISO100 the worst of any of their DSLR since the 30D, I believe. That said it's only a trace worse than the 5D2 in that regard.

The deep low ISO shadows of the canon dslrs look best with the 40D and 1Ds3 and maybe 1D3. The 7D,5D2,5D3 are probably worst with the uglies. The D800 is easily the best, althoguh almost any even semi-recent nikon is a lot better in the low ISO shadows.

Some of use tried to make a big deal of it before it would be too late but most got driven out of various forums for being whiners and babies and here we are, say thanks to the fanboys and helped make Canon think nobody cared.

The 5D3 did fix up the high iso shadow uglies a ton though, it is probably canon's best yet up there and probably only the D3s and D4 are better of all consumer DSLRs ever made (and the D3s is very low res). The D800 is right there too though or better at the lower high ISOs though.

I've said too much on this, way too much already, so I won't say more than what I just said above, which was already adding too much to all I've said.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2012)

i still dont have any sort of low iso noise anything like this on any of my bodies 5dmk3 5dmk2s or 1Dmk3


----------



## psolberg (Jun 21, 2012)

this has been documented a lot. dpreview, fred miranda, etc. If you push the shadows on that and other canon cameras, you get exactly that.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2012)

psolberg said:


> this has been documented a lot. dpreview, fred miranda, etc. If you push the shadows on that and other canon cameras, you get exactly that.



only if you push out of camera you do not get that normally, if that noise is coming in files straight out of camera I would say soemthing is wrong with the camera

also Topaz denoise has a nice option to correct pattern noise which you can tweak to just about wipe it out completely if you have to push 4 stops of shadow


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> also Topaz denoise has a nice option to correct pattern noise which you can tweak to just about wipe it out completely if you have to push 4 stops of shadow




And, what about sharpness after you applied Topaz denoise? Do you need to correct much sharpness and how is the result after that?


----------



## bloodstupid (Jun 21, 2012)

You probably did but id better ask to be sure. Did you disable the "highlight tone priority", this improves noise in the dark areas.


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 21, 2012)

First of all I try to understand if it is a defective copy that I have or this is the way all the 5d3s are.
And again, I didn't push the image in any way.

I will disable al the highlight tone priority as well as the other shadow optimizer and test again...

In the meantime you can check the raw if you want...


http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/nA3A16dCP9CjsnDtdsf2%2FQ


----------



## bloodstupid (Jun 21, 2012)

All that matters is the "highlight tone priority" because this pushes the shadows while recording your image and cant be undone in RAW.


----------



## Ricku (Jun 21, 2012)

Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?

No, you are not the only one. I guess you haven't been following the dynamic range debate lately? 

Canon is known for banding (pattern noise) and now also underwhelming dynamic range. The 5D line has always had banding, and it seems that Canon doesn't know how to fix it, nor how to increase low ISO DR (at least not during the last 5 years).

Nikon on the other hand, are leaping forward with the sensor in their D800. Well, they are getting their sensors from Sony, but that doesn't really matter.

Canon needs to step up.


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 21, 2012)

Hmmm interesting http://colorbyjorg.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/highlight-tone-priority-htp-choice-of-iso-and-noise/

I didn't know that...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> Hmmm interesting http://colorbyjorg.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/highlight-tone-priority-htp-choice-of-iso-and-noise/
> I didn't know that...



HTP *underexposes* your image by 1 stop (that's why it starts at iso200) and then applies a tone curve to raise shadows - of course noise in dark areas & banding is more of a problem. HTP doesn't exchange your Canon sensor for a Sony one behind your back. This feature is only for shooting video & jpeg of high dr scenes where you want to make sure highlights aren't clipped. For raw, underexpose yourself and then recover highlights manually.


----------



## Steven_urwin (Jun 21, 2012)

That reads wrong. Did you mean overexpose, and then pull back the detail from the highlights?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Steven_urwin said:


> That reads wrong. Did you mean overexpose, and then pull back the detail from the highlights?



No, it's exactly what I wrote. HTP doesn't give you more highlights, but more definition in highlights by preventing them being clipped - that's why the camera has to *under*expose.

Since the total dynamic range stays the same, at the same time the shadows have to be compressed and are only expanded again with a tone curve in the raw converter or in in-camera jpeg, with the known side-effects banding and/or more shadow noise.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ?



To the op: You bought yourself the wrong camera body and should have gotten a Nikon d800 instead that improves in *exactly* these both "issues" - dynamic range and low iso performance. Lots of $$$ for gear doesn't tell you what is right for you or how to use it.

It is also correct that people somehow manage to get ok exposures even out of the 5d2/5d3 sensors  .. and to answer the original question: No, this is not how it is supposed to be, expose to the right to decompress shadows while avoiding to clip highlights = max. dynamic range with min. noise.


----------



## Invertalon (Jun 21, 2012)

Are you by chance using LR4/LR3 to process these files? 

I noticed LR has the tendency to add weird noise patterns and blotches in shadow areas... That does not happen with other RAW converter software. I believe this has been discussed in detail elsewhere as well. I have noticed this forever, even with the 5D2 and 7D prior. Only happens in the darkest shadow areas. It does NOT happen with in-camera JPEG's or if I process using DPP. But I hate DPP, so I use LR4 and suck it up. 

EDIT: I saw the EXIF and see you did use LR 4.1... Try processing those in DPP or something and see if it is still there and report back.


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 21, 2012)

Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 21, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.


Instead of bashing could you please keep your mouth shut. I tried to be polite before but I am losing my temper. Or t least think before you type. I don't have the right to have a dark underexposed looking image? The shadows should be clean in such situation. I didn't want criticism regarding my images or my technique I just wanted to figure out the noise issue.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Invertalon said:


> I noticed LR has the tendency to add weird noise patterns and blotches in shadow areas...



*Autotone* in LR has the tendency to raise the shadows in underexposed or dark pictures no matter what, resulting in noise & banding in shadow areas. The op's picture is such a case with the small white flowers and the dark red (= only 1 channel) background. In these cases, you have to tune exposure down again and/or lower shadows, Lightroom cannot fix a sensor's deficiencies.

I don't think Adobe Raw Converter adds more noise than DPP - it's *raw* after all. But I'm happy if you prove me wrong and I stand corrected.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 21, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> SteenerMe said:
> 
> 
> > Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.
> ...


Actually, whether or not the image is underexposed is extremely pertinent (I don't know whether yours is or not). If you underexpose (either accidentally, deliberately or as a result of using HTP), then noise will be significantly higher. Each time you increase exposure by a stop in post, you double the amount of noise. It's a matter of physics, regardless of how much or little noise the sensor captures to start with. Also, as others have said, the early versions of Lightroom after a camera release have a tendency to process images sub-optimally. For example, when I first got my 7D, the images looked soft with double exposure-like effects on the transitions between very dark and very light areas (such as the black and white feathers of oystercatchers). Upgrading from LR2 to LR3 mostly resolved the issue.
In order to test whether it is a sensor issue, you need to make sure you expose correctly (I actually tend to err on the side of slight overexposure to minimise noise), with HTP switched off and processed by both LR and DPP. It is the only way you can be sure it isn't a problem with the sensor.


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 21, 2012)

Sure you have the right to have bad underexposed images. But then why complain about it. Maybe if you overexpose by 5 stops you can complain about the camera making everything so white and blown out. It must be a bad sensor. Not a bad photographer. Knucklehead.


----------



## sparda79 (Jun 21, 2012)

The noise seems quite bad even when the ACR settings are set to default. But since you enable HTP, I'll just wait until you upload some RAWs with HTP disabled, and ignore all the rude comments.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
> Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
> Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
> Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...
> Is there something wrong with my copy or is it supposed to be like this ?



Did you turn off all ALO and HTP on your camera? It always adds extra noise in you photos as it tries to pull more details in the blacks. I never use either on my 7D and clean files.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2012)

I turn off all that in camera process junk, the raws are clean, I wish You could trade in useless features for features you actually want like trade in all this waffle and in camera HDR for the ability to customise everything more

or for video guys enable some fancy shooting mode i dont know anything about but they really might like


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Jun 22, 2012)

Shoot RAW to get the best results. Plus most people aren't going to be pixel peeping at your photos. They will just be seeing 1000 x 1000 pixels at the maximum on the internet. The 5D2 is clean enough up to ISO 1600 and the 5D3 is clean enough up to ISO 3200ish. If you tend to print extremely large images then that is another story.

I will say that I was hoping for this issue to be resolved with the 5D3 but when I tested one on a cloudy day at ISO 800, zoomed in, and saw all that noise I was immediately turned off. Canon really didn't make much of an improvement in high ISO but the images I have seen from the 1DX are a completely different story. I can't tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 on the 1DX. Clean as can be, I'll take two please.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 22, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?
> 
> No, you are not the only one. I guess you haven't been following the dynamic range debate lately?
> 
> ...


 
Please post your images showing the issue. Show your D800 images as well. I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.
Here is one from my 5D MK II, notice the severe banding at the left --- wait, thats just a window shade.




I at ISO 51200

And from my D800 at ISO 6400. Both have a ton of NR. Very grainy, and not much more detail that the 5D MK III at ISO 51200.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.



For a comparison, the d800 images should be downsized to 22mp as well - it's like the Canon aps-c 18mp vs 15mp vs 12mp sensors: While more mp might have more noise at 100% crop, downsizing them gives the newer sensor an edge. So more mp are there if you need them, but there's no real disadvantage iq-wise. But of course all reviews show that the d800 is not made for shooting at iso6400+, and wedding photogs are able to stay at iso1600/iso3200 mostly anyway.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 22, 2012)

I find metering in almost all cameraes to be quite a bit under for MY taste. I like to overexpose both the 5d2 and 5d3 in "normal" light by at least one stop. It gives me VERY little noise with all NR turned off in Lr, and nothing when some applied.

Do your NR BEFORE sharpening and use the masking option to not sharpen the areas that aren't edges. And if you want an underexposed image, do it in post.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I find metering in almost all cameraes to be quite a bit under for MY taste. I like to overexpose both the 5d2 and 5d3 in "normal" light by at least one stop. It gives me VERY little noise with all NR turned off in Lr, and nothing when some applied.
> 
> Do your NR BEFORE sharpening and use the masking option to not sharpen the areas that aren't edges. And if you want an underexposed image, do it in post.



Or you can do what pro photographers have done for decades, get a cheap sekonic incident light meter, and you will get accurate metering for the rest of your days =)


----------



## Dr. Benway (Jun 22, 2012)

Another example of 5D MKIII shadow noise.

You can see the LR metadata.

Is that shadow noise acceptable?

I will have some 8x10's printed tomorrow to see how this noise looks when printed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 22, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> Maybe work on getting your exposure correct in camera before crying about some noise in shadows at 100% crop. If you underexpose on any camera the shadows will be filled with noise. Why not work on your skills before whining on the forum. Bah



Even with proper exposure it's still an issue. But you do have to be extra careful with exposure with non-ISO-less cams.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?
> ...



He is talking about LOW iso only. Nobody said the 5D3 DR is worse at 6400 or 51200 or whatever.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I somehow am skeptical, having both bodies.
> ...


 
Yes, turn my 36mp body into a 22mp body in order to make it look better. Thats how DXO rationalizes the high per pixel noise into something usable. Maybe if they resized it to one pixel it would be perfect.
The point is that there is no holy grail, and all the posting being done by those who just read articles and have zero experience with either camera is not very helpful.
Obviously, my D800 can take some amazing images at ISO 100 - 400, but just like the OP notes with his 5D MK III, as soon as you get into shadows and the ISO gets up over 400, you have to be more careful with exposures, and at very high ISO's, the 5D MK III has more DR than the D800.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Jun 23, 2012)

Most of the shadow "noise" I see people complaining about (including those in this thread) are a result of an improperly exposed shot - not a failing of the camera.

I do understand that many people today feel a modern camera should be able to take a great image (for them)... but that just isn't the case, and hopefully never will be. If you want a camera that takes average exposed images 98% of the time, zero depth of field, everything from foot to horizon in focus, etc, etc - get a p&s.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2012)

SiliconVoid said:


> Most of the shadow "noise" I see people complaining about (including those in this thread) are a result of an improperly exposed shot - not a failing of the camera.
> 
> I do understand that many people today feel a modern camera should be able to take a great image (for them)... but that just isn't the case, and hopefully never will be. If you want a camera that takes average exposed images 98% of the time, zero depth of field, everything from foot to horizon in focus, etc, etc - get a p&s.


I've yet to see a P&S with zero depth of field, or even close. P&S cameras have more depth of field, not less. did you use this same expertise to judge others images and magically know that they were underexposed?
The two images i posted had zero adjustment to the exposure. So much for the 98%.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Op (Alexandros), are you kidding me?
> ...



I suspect you are the only one with the D800 and 5D3 here 8)


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 23, 2012)

I picked up my 5D mkIII the day it was released and haven't experienced any of these problems. I shot a sunset over at the reservoir last week, so lots of shadows. At iso 100 there isn't any noise, even if I really push the shadows in post processing. I did a few at iso 500 and it had just a touch of a noise, but it was what I expected, and no bad noise in the shadows, even when pushed in post. 

Maybe I just got a good one. I also don't shoot with highlight tone priority on. *shrugs*


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> SiliconVoid said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the shadow "noise" I see people complaining about (including those in this thread) are a result of an improperly exposed shot - not a failing of the camera.
> ...



+1 million.

P&S's have more DOF, for instance, 5D Mark III DOF at f/5.6 < P&S DOF at f/5.6


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 25, 2012)

For those having problems with shadows and underexposure, with ALO turned on, Canon have released new firmware, which fixes a problem (among others) where the camera can underexpose with ALO turned on.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_5d_mark_iii_firmware_1_1_3.do?utm_source=newsletter-june-1-2012-no1&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

I plan on testing my 5D Mark III tonight downtown doing night macro shots. Yes, I know I'm insane, but at least it'll give us concrete shadow perfomance noise and/or cleanup post-processing.


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 27, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I plan on testing my 5D Mark III tonight downtown doing night macro shots. Yes, I know I'm insane, but at least it'll give us concrete shadow perfomance noise and/or cleanup post-processing.



Please do so, and update us when you have some news !


----------



## Ivar (Jun 27, 2012)

No comparison is bad or good, they just serve different purposes. Downsizing a bigger image compares how a camera reacts to the *same* amount of light - which wouldn't be the case without downsizing (assuming the same (area) size sensors and shot setup). At the same time looking resolving power, a smaller image has to be uppsized because downsizing would just throw the extra info away - detail wise there is no difference between two 600x400 pixels image one being 80MP MF the other G1X. All comparison have meanings done and interpreted properly. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Yes, turn my 36mp body into a 22mp body in order to make it look better. Thats how DXO rationalizes the high per pixel noise into something usable. Maybe if they resized it to one pixel it would be perfect.
> 
> The point is that there is no holy grail, and all the posting being done by those who just read articles and have zero experience with either camera is not very helpful.
> 
> Obviously, my D800 can take some amazing images at ISO 100 - 400, but just like the OP notes with his 5D MK III, as soon as you get into shadows and the ISO gets up over 400, you have to be more careful with exposures, and at very high ISO's, the 5D MK III has more DR than the D800.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 27, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i still dont have any sort of low iso noise anything like this on any of my bodies 5dmk3 5dmk2s or 1Dmk3




Would it be possible for you to post a link to a raw where the OP and all of us can see how much better your bodies are?


----------



## bigmag13 (Jun 28, 2012)

Dr. Benway said:


> Another example of 5D MKIII shadow noise.
> 
> You can see the LR metadata.
> 
> ...



well first off is that i think you should have tried to pull more info from that shot. looking at the histogram and looking at the shot tells me that there is too much difference between the lights and dark's in the image to expect much detail from the shadows. its just not a properly exposed pic ( as Siliconvoid pointed out). The histogram should be a lil more to the right because the DR is great in that shot. its not high-key or low-key so you should have pulled for more detail in that fur if you wanted it exposed properly. 

I knew that the nose of my dog and the white fur were to far apart in range so had to expose as so, which meant popping the flash or using a tripod to get enough info.
I popped the flash.
-shot with a 50D and a Sigma 30 1.4


----------



## David Hull (Jun 28, 2012)

This guy ran through this same thing over on DPR a week or so ago. Quite a few people tried to help him but apparently he didn't hear what he wanted to here there so he has trotted this back out over here. Regardless, one look at his RAW files for the two images he put up in his OP will show that they are under exposed by 2 and 3 stops respectively. A simple application of ETTR will solve his issue (for these two images anyway).


----------



## Alexandros (Jun 28, 2012)

David Hull said:


> This guy ran through this same thing over on DPR a week or so ago. Quite a few people tried to help him but apparently he didn't hear what he wanted to here there so he has trotted this back out over here. Regardless, one look at his RAW files for the two images he put up in his OP will show that they are under exposed by 2 and 3 stops respectively. A simple application of ETTR will solve his issue (for these two images anyway).



Dear David, 

This guy has a name, Alexandros. Thanks for bringing the report back from DPR forums. You have done an excellent job as a forum patrol/scout.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 28, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
> Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
> Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
> Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...
> Is there something wrong with my copy or is it supposed to be like this ?



I think with any comparison the original raw files need to be put on a server for individuals to download.

Otherwise nobody can spot other reasons for poor performance. (Like badly exposed images - which cause noise). The images need to be from the same spot, in the same lighting too. A dog in amber lighting will be totally different to a flower with a dark background behind it.


----------



## David Hull (Jun 28, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > This guy ran through this same thing over on DPR a week or so ago. Quite a few people tried to help him but apparently he didn't hear what he wanted to here there so he has trotted this back out over here. Regardless, one look at his RAW files for the two images he put up in his OP will show that they are under exposed by 2 and 3 stops respectively. A simple application of ETTR will solve his issue (for these two images anyway).
> ...



My pleasure, thanks.

Now, if you were to re-shoot the shots in your OP with a proper exposure instead of two to three stops under, your result would be better. IMO, the noise you are seeing is normal for that sort of exposure scenario with that camera based on what I have seen from other images I have looked at.


----------



## revup67 (Jun 29, 2012)

I've posted this before but if you click this link http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html scroll almost to the bottom and note the paragraph that begins with: "I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters.." for a potential work around to the reduced DN.

Also, I think as Mt. Spokane pointed out earlier..there's no Holy Grail. I recently read and saw an in depth article with video clips on how difficult it is to get the D800 with proper WB and the reviewer was attempting to decide between the 5DM3 or D800. He claims if was far more difficult to adjust for proper WB than deal with noisy DN..he chose the 5DM3. If interested here's that link as well: http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652


----------



## n0iZe (Jun 30, 2012)

Alexandros said:


> SteenerMe said:
> 
> 
> > Because do you really think those samples are properly exposed? A great camera cannot compensate for poor photography.
> ...


Dude, you really take a bit of critics personal, don't you?
You have to prepare for critics if you upload your images to a website - it's always the same. It's web 2.0 - share your opinion on everything, even if no one would be interested in your opinion, you still share it don't you?
So just let the critics talk as well, since we also let you talk.

That said, I'll talk now.
After taking a look at your pictures, I suppose you want to create a dreamy look on your photos. However, focus on the flower photo is badly set, also is the exposure. Why did you take it at 1/2000sec at aperture 2.8? Where is the point in this?
Seriously, I have to defend Canon on this: take a look at that black. A camera is not supposed to fix your incorrect exposure! If you need dark images like this one, it would probably work out better if you take shots in RAW and afterwards adjust brightness.
I think that your banding would then be reduced by an awful lot.

Also imho the second shot doesn't look as bad as the first one regarding the banding and noise. I would guess it's because that shot isn't quite as under-exposed as the first one.


Just a suggestion:
People should sometimes practice more before complaining. Cameras don't fix pictures, they just take them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 30, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Cameras don't fix pictures, they just take them.



While it the shortcomings of the op's shots are obvious and don't need to be discussed further, I disagree with you on this one: Of *course* I want my camera to fix my pictures = enabling me to fix errors in post!

Exposing correctly might not be an issue while shooting landscapes, but if you shoot events then you're quite busy with the things around you, so a lenient camera (good af, much dynamic range beyond the scene dr as a fix for wrong exposure, low noise at high shutter speeds to fix my shaking hands while holding heavy gear for hours).

I'm sure future camera bodies will cover up photog's lack of experience even more in the future, so as a pro it's less and less about exposing correctly by running around with a light meter...

Not too long ago I even saw a sensor concept enabling you to shift the *focus* in post, so you can just shoot away and wonder what to focus later on. But for the moment, this was a proof of concept and made for mobile phones rather then dslrs.


----------



## n0iZe (Jun 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras don't fix pictures, they just take them.
> ...



Of course you do want them to do fix the pictures. However, they are just not capable of this at this point.

I do not question that it's not always an easy job. However I feel free to question it when it comes to still photography - afaik neither flowerpots nor flowers move a lot. So you have all the time you want for exposing, taking several photos at different exposures if necessary. Digital photography gives you way more space for trying out things. It won't harm your CF card if you take three different shots when not sure about exposition.
I catch myself doing this sometimes aswell, since the display on my Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II is so poor you can't actually judge the photos in daylight. Indoor, it's okay. But never try to judge the photos outside, lol. It doesn't work well.

Regarding shifting the focus after taking the actual picture, I think you refer to the Lytro. However I'm not sure how great the photos will come out: check out the "Play with the picture" function on the right of the main frame on their website lytro.com . I think sharpness is really poor. Also this is an easy picture since you can't really play with focus - you have two choices; either you focus on the girl or on the guy / wall. No matter what you focus on the girl, ring, tea cup or face - it always looks the same to me.
Don't know if this is a problem of illustration or if it's actually that bad in real life use.


----------

