# Defective 5D MK III.....



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

Maybe defective is not the right word and I'm in no way a sensationalist but I think it's important for people to be informed. I bought my MK3 the other day the second I found one locally, and immediately started shooting and noticing a huge lack of detail in all of my images. I was hoping maybe I had something wrong in the settings, after shooting for a entire day and night I've come to the conclusion that there's definitely something wrong with my copy of the camera. I've tried 4 different lenses and all sorts of settings to try and remedy the problem. Most of these around ISO 160-200. 

Hopefully this is a 1 time fluke and there aren't others floating around with this issue. 

Anybody know if the Camera shop should take the camera straight back? I definitely just want a brand new camera and not for it to just be repaired.


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

Here's a good example: (100%)


----------



## dystorsion (Mar 22, 2012)

Have you tried resetting the camera to factory settings?


----------



## Alker (Mar 22, 2012)

I was able to take oneshot.
It's nothing special only a wheel of a car.

The RAW looks pretty sharp (for a RAW file  )

www.wildlife-photos.net/AF9C0155.CR2

Right mouseclick => save as

Maybe it's saved as TIFF, just rename the extension to CR2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 22, 2012)

I see three tiny screen shots saved as png's above.

Why PNG?? 

It does not give a high degree of confidence that anything is wrong with the camera.


----------



## t.linn (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> Here's a good example: (100%)



If this is a 100% crop, I'm not seeing a problem with sharpness. Maybe I'm looking at something different than you but it looks great to me. 

If you are comparing this to the performance of another DSLR like a 5D2, it might be helpful to actually set up a shot, shoot the same shot with the same lens and settings on both camera bodies and then post identical crops to illustrate the difference.


----------



## Seamus (Mar 22, 2012)

A side by side would help, thanks. I'm just not convinced of a problem, yet. Not to say there isn't, I just don't see it.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 22, 2012)

Looks like you need to micro adjust you lenses. I doubt its the body.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 22, 2012)

Should the camera store take it back? Yes, if you feel it is defective, I can't imagine any reputable dealer not accepting the return.

Is it defective? Honestly, as others are saying, it's pretty hard to tell from your examples, but it looks like you are showing us crops that represent 5% or less of the total frame. Have you compared these images to similar crops from your previous camera? Is it less sharp than what you had?

This reminds me of a thread awhile back from someone who felt his 7D wasn't performing up to par and no one else could see any problem. Bottom line is, if you aren't satisfied with it, there is probably nothing that people on this forum can say to change your mind so you may be better off returning it and either getting a different body or reconsidering if this is the camera for you.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

zwoop said:


> Here's another tip: stop shooting JPEG.


 When it comes to the 5d3, I am afraid that statement is not so robust. The jpgs on the 5d3 are pretty good to judge quality of the Cam. Although not as good as RAW, but for this example, perfectly adequate.

SFDTM: The picture of the grey car is 1322x2000 pixels or 2.64MP. This is about 12% of the full resolution of the 5d3. Question, was this a cro of the 100% magnification (i.e. 12% from the image) or did you "resize" the image itself to arrive at 1322x2000? 

At a crop with no re-size, the shot is pretty ok. But if you resized, then it looks a bit soft.

Also as others have said, if you have shots from other 5d3 owners with similar cropping/ resizing then please show it to us.


----------



## Seamus (Mar 22, 2012)

Since you were able to check side by side and your mark iii failed, take it back! Hopefully you will have no problems. I'm sure you are frustrated though, unfortunately s*** happens... Keep us posted on your experience, thanks


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2012)

I see a lens that's not absolutely calibrated and I'm seeing what looks like heavy color-noise reduction, def not the sharpness I see from my 5d2. It looks over processed and too much NR.

On a more positive note, the DR looks to have more detail in the highlights.


----------



## arioch82 (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> t.linn said:
> 
> 
> > SF DTM said:
> ...



hi, i'm only an amateur and i've never shot with a full frame so sorry in advance for the stupid question... can you please enlighten me (and the other that are not seeing any problem) on what's wrong with that image? 
it just seems slightly out of focus to me, it would be nice to see a side by side compare with the other MK3 and same lens/composition to see this night and day difference.


----------



## hhelmbold (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> Here's a good example: (100%)



Any comments on the reflection in this photo? According to the EXIF info it was taken at 24mm (no lens info) so the camera was quite close - and to me the reflection of the camera is a bit suspect... Unless it's not the camera's reflection I see in the photo?

Which lens was used here?


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.



Sorry about your luck but thanks for bringing this to our attention. When mine arrives, I will test thoroughly. The 5DM2 I just sold would easily outperform what you sent. 

I wonder how critical anti-alias filter alignment is? If it were askew relative to the sensor, I speculate it would create some strange NR looking results...


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.



Sorry if this has been covered already, but Have your tried turning off in Camera NR and also long term NR?


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> SF DTM said:
> 
> 
> > The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.
> ...



Yup, definitely turned all the in camera processing off including the NR.


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 22, 2012)

I think maybe you are just looking too closely at the images. They look fine to me and are very small crops. Though if you could post the actual full res JPEG somewhere that would help a lot. I'd love to crawl around in a full jpeg.


----------



## Seamus (Mar 22, 2012)

You seemed to have been very thorough in your testing, good job. Is there anything left for you to try or is it time to exchange?


----------



## AnselA (Mar 22, 2012)

Please post several uncropped Raw with all the shooting details (settings and lens) so we can help you. You sound worried but if it is defective you will get a new one.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2012)

Light optimizer and all that stuff turned off also?

Processed in Lr? It applies color noise reduction as default, turned that off also?

Because this image is not fine like many of you comment, I can clearly see what you mean by blotchy. It looks more like poor hybrid cam with way to much NR applied.... Very strange if all is turned off..


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> If you don't see anything wrong with he quality of that image then perhaps some glasses would do you good. I just met up with Borrow Lens and did multiple tests with their cameras and there is indeed something wrong with my MK3 body. The difference in image quality side by side with their MK3 was night and day.



Hopefully that was more of joke than it read like. It seemed fairly rude considering the person stopped to look at your photos and is trying to help.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with your posted images...which isn't to say there isn't something wrong with your camera. Remember that I'm looking at this on a lousy laptop and not my full desktop system with calibrated monitor. Also, different browsers shows the images differently, so it may look bad on IE and bad on Chrome or vice versa. You also have the advantage of having already seen the raw data, probably on a better monitor, so you already know exactly where to look.

Can you please help us help you by telling us exactly where to look. Maybe circle a few of the problem areas? If not, and the thread is still open, I'll try taking another look when I can see the image better.

Thanks.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 22, 2012)

I forgot I had my tablet with me...and it is calibrated. I think I see what your talking about, but even the lightroom controls aren't looking good (blured), so it makes me wonder if I'm seeing is really in your image or in the saved PNG file.

You said you saw the same thing in JPGs. Could you most an unaltered JPG for us to look at?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 22, 2012)

As another person posted, the crops you have been posting today/yesterday do not give us much information regarding location of crop in the overall scene/setting/etc and we're getting no where... Post a raw file so we can download it and see on our own computers... If it is a defect, the effect should be universal across the board on everyones computer... if not it could be your processing.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 22, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> As another person posted, the crops you have been posting today/yesterday do not give us much information regarding location of crop in the overall scene/setting/etc and we're getting no where... Post a raw file so we can download it and see on our own computers... If it is a defect, the effect should be universal across the board on everyones computer... if not it could be your processing.



Actually, if you look at his first post, second Lightroom screenshot you can see where the crop was taken from. However, what I initially missed was that the "100% crop" he posted is not a 100% crop. It's 2000 pixels wide. Based on the Lightroom screenshot, it's seems clear that the crop has been upscaled in order to be 2000 pixels wide. That explains why that image posted here looks so blotchy, but not what he is seeing.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 22, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > As another person posted, the crops you have been posting today/yesterday do not give us much information regarding location of crop in the overall scene/setting/etc and we're getting no where... Post a raw file so we can download it and see on our own computers... If it is a defect, the effect should be universal across the board on everyones computer... if not it could be your processing.
> ...



True but for the most part he is also showing us 100% or so he says of the photos on the screenshot... still tells us really nothing... Doesn't tell us settings, methods, etc... Raw files is the only way for everyone to have a crack at the file and see if it is a duff camera or if something in the lightroom raw process, but then again i thought LR4 doesn't support the 5d3... i guess that's another topic... but anyways it's the only way to see what's going on under the hood without physically handing the camera ourselfs... maybe there's a setting or something going on in lightroom that isn't in photoshops ACR or something like that... we really need more info before jumping the gun


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: Defective 5D MK III..... *



bchernicoff said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > As another person posted, the crops you have been posting today/yesterday do not give us much information regarding location of crop in the overall scene/setting/etc and we're getting no where... Post a raw file so we can download it and see on our own computers... If it is a defect, the effect should be universal across the board on everyones computer... if not it could be your processing.
> ...



You're right about the sizing, didn't think of that but I assure that at proper size the quality looks just as bad. I'm on my way home from returning the camera I'll post a bunch of samples when im home.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: Defective 5D MK III..... *



SF DTM said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Returned it already? ???


----------



## AnselA (Mar 22, 2012)

That was a waste of time.


----------



## Autocall (Mar 22, 2012)

are you aware that you should first press the shutter button halfway before pushing it down completely?
jpeg samples, png savings, 
come on...


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.



The camera doesn't apply NR to RAW images. Only DPP does that.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 22, 2012)

AnselA said:


> Please post several uncropped Raw with all the shooting details (settings and lens) so we can help you. You sound worried but if it is defective you will get a new one.



This is the only way to know. Also, be sure test shots are taken with a tripod. Use CENTER focus on a specific point in the photo as a reference.


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 22, 2012)

Autocall said:


> are you aware that you should first press the shutter button halfway before pushing it down completely?
> jpeg samples, png savings,
> come on...



Have you had a look at his portfolio site? I'm pretty sure he's capable of operating that camera. And if he's been able to do side by side comparisons with another Mk3 body he probably knows what he's looking out for.
And that crop of the car does look pretty soft and blotchy to me. Although one thing that strikes me when looking at the small preview image of the whole shot is the hdr-esque sky in the background? Was that shot an in camera hdr??


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 22, 2012)

Based on the screen captures you posted, your LR workflow indicates your working off of JPEGs. 

Are these JPEGs off the camera? If so - have you checked your image settings? Better yet, why not just shoot RAW to avoid Canon's in-camera processing?


----------



## Seamus (Mar 22, 2012)

Interesting points, let's wait and see the results with the new mark iii. I'm hoping that there will be no more issues. Good luck SF!


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2012)

It reminds me of the samples Canon have released of both the 1d X and the 5d3, I think DPP is doing something wacky. (and speaking of wacky) What the hell didi Adobe do to Lr 4 ? It's soooo slooooow and the NR was WAAAY better in beta. So if canon screwed the in camera firmware and their DPP, and adobe def screwed up on Lr 4, than we're better off keeping our old stuff :


----------



## prayharder (Mar 22, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> Autocall said:
> 
> 
> > are you aware that you should first press the shutter button halfway before pushing it down completely?
> ...



That's exactly what I was thinking too, very hdr ish.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't blame you for wanting a full new unit and not just a repair if the item is broken/defective, otherwise you are technically buying a factory refurb at full new pricing. Apple made me do that once with an honestly defective product, the new fangled heat sensor/power switch in the unit was physically defective, the f'in machine would turn itself off while I was using it, and it would turn itself back on in the middle of the night and wake me up when I wasn't.... Wasted a ton of my time, energy, happiness and the people on the support line were among the worst I've ever dealt with as a paying customer (make that over-paying sucker). Anyways, long story short I payed $4,500 for a factory refurb and a horrible experience and then spent the last 12 years listening to a-holes go on about how Apple is so f'ing great.

With that said, what is wrong with your new camera? Your opening post/description and accompanying sample images don't give me any hints as to what might be a problem?


----------



## towelie (Mar 22, 2012)

defective, I don't think so .... be sure that ALO turn off and make some shots again... got same same feeling with 100% crops "uhh a bit blury" but without ALO I'm happy


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: Defective 5D MK III..... *

I appreciate everybody who isn't bashing the hell out of me for trying to inform everybody about an issue this Camera had, I had 3 other professional photographers look at and inspect the camera before returning it today and not one person doubted there was something wrong with it. I'm not here to gain anybody's approval I simply wanted to put out there, that there was an issue with my camera and there may be more with this issue floating around.... 

I uploaded JPEG's because the RAW and JPEG images both looked the same in terms of bad image quality and I wanted to put something into LR so that I could actually inspect the image. 

As for the whole PNG thing, they were screen caps from my mac, automatically saved as PNG. 

My apologies to everybody hounding me on the samples, over the years I have spent most of my time getting better at photography, not pixel peeping and complaining about my equipment so I'm new to the whole posting samples thing. 

I've been shooting since I was 13, I know what a blotchy image looks like. It's pretty insane how many trolling fanboys manage to flock to this forum....

To the people that were actually trying to help and lend some advice, sincerely appreciated! 

full sized JPEG's here: 

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?s1682fco7h1haau
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?aiit0ri2sjf1af2
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?4zn5j6d2scn9gwe


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

towelie said:


> defective, I don't think so .... be sure that ALO turn off and make some shots again... got same same feeling with 100% crops "uhh a bit blury" but without ALO I'm happy



made sure to try this as well....


----------



## photophreek (Mar 22, 2012)

I think these types of threads will be the flavour of the month going forward. People getting this camera, in my humble opinion, should not just pull it out of the box, slap a CF card into it and shoot whatever. The manual is 402 pages long. It's probably a good idea to get yourself familiar with, argueably, a very new camera with new features before uploading images and statinng the camera is defective. I'm sure we are all competent seasoned photographers, but this thing is not an XTi. Give it some respect. Canon has had a long time to perfect this thing.


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

photophreek said:


> I think these types of threads will be the flavour of the month going forward. People getting this camera, in my humble opinion, should not just pull it out of the box, slap a CF card into it and shoot whatever. The manual is 402 pages long. It's probably a good idea to get yourself familiar with, argueably, a very new camera with new features before uploading images and statinng the camera is defective. I'm sure we are all competent seasoned photographers, but this thing is not an XTi. Give it some respect. Canon has had a long time to perfect this thing.



I'd say reading the manual online for the past week and shooting about 500 images yesterday in hundreds of different combinations of settings and then having 3 guys who do nothing but test equipment all day take a look at the camera and tell me there was something wrong, was enough to make my decision that there was something wrong with the camera. 

But keep it going guys, keep assuming on what I did or didn't do or know. 

=)


----------



## unfocused (Mar 22, 2012)

Okay, I think we've beat this dead horse sufficiently.

I was skeptical at first, but I trust the OP. We do get some hysterical folks on the forum at times, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. 

To me, this illustrates the difficulty of diagnosing problems over the internet. So many variables, so many different opinions. 

It seems that in this case, the camera was very likely defective. There will always be a few and someone has to get the defective ones. No reason to doubt it in this case. The OP was right to take it back and exchange it. Now, if the next one has the same problem...well...then it might be something else.


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 22, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I think we've beat this dead horse sufficiently.
> 
> I was skeptical at first, but I trust the OP. We do get some hysterical folks on the forum at times, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
> 
> ...



greatly appreciated and well said. 

I'm not at all here to bash the camera, it really is incredible and I have a new one coming from B&H tomorrow and can't wait to open it up and see some sharp images.


----------



## Positron (Mar 22, 2012)

As a person who generally doesn't bother pixel peeping, I'm actually very curious about where the issue is, since I can't see it. If someone could point it out to me (say with a comparison to a similar image that doesn't have the same problem), I'd be greatly appreciative, so I know what to look for in the future (for example if I can ever afford a 5D3 of my own  ).


----------



## photogaz (Mar 22, 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something here but the sample photos look fine to me.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Mar 22, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I think we've beat this dead horse sufficiently.
> ...



just hope B&H does not re-package that camera you're sending back. the next batch for their shipment is on a Wednesday the 28th, things might get mixed up around there.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 22, 2012)

did you get a new body? if so how is it?
I'm definately underwhelmed by how bad the jpg files are out of the camera
I'm still checking the raws out but its hard only having DPP and the beta of ACR


----------



## michaeldorian (Mar 23, 2012)

Positron said:


> As a person who generally doesn't bother pixel peeping, I'm actually very curious about where the issue is, since I can't see it. If someone could point it out to me (say with a comparison to a similar image that doesn't have the same problem), I'd be greatly appreciative, so I know what to look for in the future (for example if I can ever afford a 5D3 of my own  ).



I would also love some insight into this too. I would love to know what the experts thinks about these images. Maybe help us newbies know what to look for. I downloaded the full res files the OP posted and especially with the purple flower one, I couldn't tell what was wrong with it. 

If the OP had a bad one, since these are not made by hand, there's a chance a batch of them could be bad.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> did you get a new body? if so how is it?
> I'm definately underwhelmed by how bad the jpg files are out of the camera
> I'm still checking the raws out but its hard only having DPP and the beta of ACR



Did you download the DNG converter too? If so you can convert them all and then move them into LR or any other programme. They become slightly smaller than the RAW, but comparing the two I don't see any loss. I haven't shot jpeg straight out of a camera capable of RAW for 2 years


----------



## AAPhotog (Mar 23, 2012)

> Most of professional stills photographers don’t even know this but here’s the thing.
> 
> With mk2 and all the other Canon cameras with Picture Style, there’re mainly two types of Pictures Styles. Standard and Neutral. All the other built-in Picture Styles are based on the Standard one.
> Regardless of NR setting, Standard PS smears detail even at ISO 100 in order to reduce noise. For a simple test, take a picture using those two PS and compare the difference. The difference is quite huge.
> It gets even worse when you apply default standard NR setting since it does double smearing. This has been the key reason why Canon cameras do poorly in photography review since default setting of the camera uses Standard PS with standard NR.



Quoted from Philip Blooms website. It was a response to his review of the 5d3(in which he also said it was a bit soft).


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 23, 2012)

SF DTM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I think we've beat this dead horse sufficiently.
> ...



Good on you SF. In my opinion you did the exact thing I did with my MkII when I got it - it had a fault and I took it back to the store. Everyone there agreed with me and I was handed a new one straight away. 
I get the feeling that some of the posts here are picking up on a 'warning guys, this camera has a design flaw' type of issue. This is obviously not the case. Looking at your portfolio I would call you a very accomplished shooter and trust you spotted an issue with a (hopefully) fluke bad copy of a new body. These things happen. 

Enjoy the new one when you get it and let us know your results.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 23, 2012)

AAPhotog said:


> > Most of professional stills photographers don’t even know this but here’s the thing.
> >
> > With mk2 and all the other Canon cameras with Picture Style, there’re mainly two types of Pictures Styles. Standard and Neutral. All the other built-in Picture Styles are based on the Standard one.
> > Regardless of NR setting, Standard PS smears detail even at ISO 100 in order to reduce noise. For a simple test, take a picture using those two PS and compare the difference. The difference is quite huge.
> ...



I don't think that would apply here. It was said the jpgs and raws both suffered. Pictures styles wouldn't be honored unless using the canon software to view the raw. If using lightroom or aperture they wouldn't, countn't, respect those settings as they are are proprietary.

SF DTM, you can rule this in/out as a possibility. What app are you viewer the files with?

Unfortunately, even at home with the good equipment, I still am not seeing what your describing. Clearly from your portfolio, you have an excellent eye and probably better equipment than most. It may be possible that most of us aren't going to be able to see what your seeing, but I hope you get a replacement that works out.


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Another fubared one is mine 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4684.0.html


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 23, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> SF DTM said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



again, much appreciated. I went with my instinct on taking it back, I plan on having this camera for awhile and want it 100% from the get go!


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 23, 2012)

I'll let you have a little laugh at my expense....

I was so determined to see the splotchy-ness that I spent 10 minutes staring at unclemat's pictures before I finally noticed the black bar and realized it was a completely different issue.

Guess that gets back to the idea, sometimes you just need to know what to look for.


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 23, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> I'll let you have a little laugh at my expense....
> 
> I was so determined to see the splotchy-ness that I spent 10 minutes staring at unclemat's pictures before I finally noticed the black bar and realized it was a completely different issue.
> 
> Guess that gets back to the idea, sometimes you just need to know what to look for.



HA, I did the exact same thing then decided to read the post. I'd say only 2 bad cameras so far is a pretty good start. Seems like the problem he has is a packaging problem.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2

SFDTM can you have a look at the raw file i posted here, i'd be interested in your opinion vs your experience


----------



## ozzymax (Mar 23, 2012)

No expert by any measure but any issue at this stage is concerning. Would discussing it direct with Canon be any help? Maybe it is a setting or the card/s aren't up to the task. Many have said it looks or should look ok in raw, however I can think of many times when I would want the jpegs. It also has an auto mode and as it does write to jpeg so you would think it should do it well.
Unfortunately there is more than one with issues which is a bit of a concern. Hopefully the guys that do full reviews will look at the jpeg quality also.


----------



## thefixisin (Mar 23, 2012)

Positron]As a person who generally doesn't bother pixel peeping said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here but the sample photos look fine to me.



As someone who is currently waiting for their 5D Mark III to show up at their door this terrifies me. I can't find anything at all wrong with these photos. It would seriously help if you could take the photos in to photoshop and circle what made you return the camera. I'm worried my camera is going to have something wrong with it and I'll just never see it.

Thanks.


----------



## agierke (Mar 23, 2012)

if you dont see anything wrong....then there is nothing wrong. i wouldnt worry too much about other peoples concerns and just worry about if you are satisfied with the results of your new camera.

none of the sample shots are really presented in a way that any of us could determine any faults. a raw would be the only way i could definitively tell if the camera was producing soft results.

wickedcombat did post a Raw file that i did take a look at. i actually did think it looked soft but i think that was more a result of shooting at F2.8 and the eyes of the subject falling slightly out of the DOF (which is not uncommon to have happen). i applied a bit of sharpening to the file and it looked fine.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 23, 2012)

thefixisin said:


> Positron]As a person who generally doesn't bother pixel peeping said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I'm missing something here but the sample photos look fine to me.
> ...



There rarely is any more hard black and white issues with digital photography and mostly it's up to personal taste with exception to OOF and exposure... The jpeg full res images the OP posted looked good in my photoshop CS6 beta when blown up to 100%. There were some areas in the bokeh that could be argued either way as "blotchy" or whatever but I think it came out allright. Raws would be the only way to judge and the OP did not provide us with that... What it boils down to is if you liked the sample images he put up for download and find no faults in the image, then you should be happy with your copy assuming there isn't something out of the ordinary. Dont fret.


----------



## thefixisin (Mar 23, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> thefixisin said:
> 
> 
> > Positron]As a person who generally doesn't bother pixel peeping said:
> ...



Thanks. I get the whole "if it looks good to you, it's good" thing but having just started into being a more "professional" photographer I'm just worried that there is something that may look fine to me but other will instantly notice. I should also mention that to make my paranoia worse I'm also red/green color blind. Maybe I'll post some photos here once I get mine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 23, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> SF DTM said:
> 
> 
> > The issue is that every image taken with the camera, no matter what ISO, F stop, RAW, JPEG, etc. is coming out very milky/blotchy, almost like the camera is applying heavy NR to every image.
> ...


 
I think its how you define NR. Many of us think of the NR in the digic Processor firmware, but there is more. 

All Canon Bodies since the D30 have had on chip NR, and it gets better each generation. The developers slave away testing tweake and new NR algorithms to upgrade future sensors. Then, there is NR in the digic Signal processinf Firmware that is applied to jpeg images, and , of course NR is post processing software.

Chuck Westfall interview.

CW: Three main areas of image quality-related improvement on the EOS 5D Mark III image sensor compared to the EOS 5D Mark II are:
· Gapless Microlenses: This feature increases the amount of light received by each photodiode compared to the gapped microlenses used on the 5D Mark II’s image sensor.
· New Photodiode Structure: The photoelectric conversion rate of each photodiode has been improved.
· On-Chip Noise Reduction: Canon’s proprietary technology in this area, which was first shown on the EOS D30 Digital SLR in the year 2000, has steadily improved over the years.
The net result of these improvements is a cleaner signal at all comparable ISO speeds for the 5D Mark III, as well as increased sensitivity that is indicated by the expansion of the standard ISO range from 6400 on the 5D Mark II to 25,600 on the 5D Mark III.
We also doubled the throughput speed of image data from the CMOS sensor to the rest of the image processing chain by increasing the number of simultaneous readout channels from 4 to 8. This change has a side effect of helping to improve EOS Movie quality as well by cutting the level of rolling shutter artifacts in half.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 23, 2012)

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829129.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532352&Signature=EVMPTKLctOkeFwVjOjMXKv0GVtU%3d

I flipped through all the images over at dpreview from the 5d3 and it seems there are some blotchyness there also, but the one I linked to above I ran through a tad of unsharp mask, and this image is hilariously fantastic, so it seems it's a lot to do with processing, OP; def not saying your camera wasn't faulty! but this explains the useless images taken by Canon as promo, and it's very easy to [email protected]@k up IQ severely.

Here's another one I liked, focused at the aperture ring of the left cam I think. This is IQ 5d worthy;

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829138.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532750&Signature=6bgcqDJoycPmM4HqMBr0WN6uVWs%3d

And here's a blotchy one;

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829135.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532807&Signature=CkNpUh7j3%2fCBPOuAaovzm5i8aD8%3d


----------



## agierke (Mar 23, 2012)

not sure if its just me but all the above links are not working


----------



## Viggo (Mar 23, 2012)

agierke said:


> not sure if its just me but all the above links are not working



yeah, tried another computer of mine, and it didn't work there either, only on my main machine... I'll try again..


EDIT; this is at least to the gallery. Bridge image is the first one and the blotchy one is called "BK6A0201-reconverted"

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-preview-samples


----------



## Viggo (Mar 23, 2012)

For those of you who can't see what the issue is, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 24, 2012)

Viggo said:


> For those of you who can't see what the issue is, here it is:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx



After the soft samples and the fact that they hadnt got Adobe ready for the 5d3 with Lightroom 4 even though the 1dx, d4 and d800 all have their raws openable in LR4. Those and a few other things made me wonder if the 5d3 release was a rush job for some reason... but not even having your OWN software ready...seriously...

I'm trying not to be too critical or judgemental after all I have spent $4400 on a 5d3 myself and it arrived this afternoon... After waiting what felt like forever for the battery to charge I took a few shots with it opened them up in DPP (which I dont normally use... I'm a Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom guy) and just wasnt happy with the quality, everything looked not quite in focus and kind of blotchy. 

I was thinking either my copy of the camera had some issue/defect or I was just using it wrong in some unknown way, its my first full frame camera and I was in a hurry doing the test shots because we were about to leave to take the kids to a birthday party this evening at an indoor inflatables play place. When I knew the camera was coming today I thought it was going to be a great place to test it out with low light but after seeing how crap my first shots with it were I left it at home instead. Thinking either me or the camera were defective so itook my 550d instead. Having read the Digital Picture posts hopefully my issues were all down to the fact Canons own software cant display their own images properly? Come on guys... I'm trying not to get judgemental but as I said earlier... seriously? Not only have you sold me several thousand dollars worth of camera without having the worlds largest third party software manafacturer ready for it... but your own software wont work either? So I have paid all this money for a camera and at the moment I cant even use RAWs? I can only edit the over NR'd jpgs?

I'll take a look at the CS6 beta tomorrow with the raws... hopefully that will work with them... but will it work properly? Who knows? Speding this much money on a camera and not even knowing it works properly makes me feel kinda sick....


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 24, 2012)

But isn't this the risk people take when they just NEED to have one of the first products off the boat? I mean, why is this news to anyone?

What's the rush? People have been taking pictures for generations. I don't think a new model 35mm camera is going to change your life, so why not wait a minute? I'll never understand preorder people I guess. There always seems to be a few bugs at the beginning of new tech.

Good luck all!


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 24, 2012)

Okay, I've been playing with mine today and there is definitely something going on with the in camera jpges. I shot in RAW + JPEG today to compare and found all the jpegs to look very muddy as far as detail. As a basis for comparison, I opened the raw in DPP and set it to Neutral, no sharpening, no ALO, no noise reduction and exported a 16-bit TIFF. I then imported that TIFF into Aperture and did a version with sharpening and a version with Niks ColorEfex Tonal Contrast (which does bring out detail). Here are 100% crops saved as jpegs. The neutral TIFF shows more detail than the in camera JPEG. The Aperture sharpened TIFF looks best. The Niks contrast enhanced TIFF looks pretty good too. I suspect a combination of sharpening and the Niks filter applied more subtly would look even better, but I didn't try that.

At this point I am wondering if this is less a sensor issue and more an issue with rushed RAW processing software.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 24, 2012)

Photoshop CS6 Public Beta wont open the 5d3 cr2's either but the release candidate for Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 opens them and doesnt seem to display the issues that DPP is showing.

Hopefully Adobe will get the LR 4 update that includes 5d3 cr2's released soon.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 24, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> Photoshop CS6 Public Beta wont open the 5d3 cr2's either but the release candidate for Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 opens them and doesnt seem to display the issues that DPP is showing.
> 
> Hopefully Adobe will get the LR 4 update that includes 5d3 cr2's released soon.



That's a great point. I processed in ACR 6.7 RC1 using the defaults. Looks great to me. 

BTW, this picture was taken at ISO 100 with 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at 120mm f/4 1/90s with 430EXII/ Gary Fong Diffuser for fill.


----------

