# 5Dm3 Grainy Images?



## epiieq1 (May 18, 2012)

Hey All,
I've updated my 5dm3 to the latest firmware and it feels like the images are not as crisp as they once were. Here's an image that I recently took with a 5Dm3 running the latest firmware, a 70-200f4L at ISO200, and in natural light. When I zoom in to this one vs. one I had taken about 4 weeks ago, it's very clear that one is worse than the other. I'm not sure if it's firmware, or the difference in Lightroom 4.1 RCs (RC1 v. RC2). Any thoughts, or am I just being too picky?


----------



## Z (May 18, 2012)

That's noisy as hell with banding in the shadows. Has this image been pushed? And by that I mean... by a couple of stops.


----------



## Sycotek (May 21, 2012)

I've returned 2 so far for the same issue

ironically doing jpeg to raw conversion in-body yields the same results.

iso 100 in my first two had banding in the shadows.

second body iso 400 you can see the noise even on the rear lcd.

this ones going back today - not sure if im going to bother with a 4th body


----------



## SuzC (Jun 4, 2012)

I have updated to Lightroom 4.1 and am having the same issue with both my MkII and MkIII cameras. I haven't undated the firmware for the Mk III yet, so it's probably safe to say it's a LR 4 issue. It's pronounced in the blacks


----------



## Astro (Jun 4, 2012)

well if it´s LR or not should be easy to check.. use DPP on the images.


----------



## bp (Jun 4, 2012)

No, you're not being too picky - that's not just grain, that's a crap ton of grain, noise and banding - far more than you should be seeing at ISO 200 (unless you've pushed this file beyond it's limits - was the exposure pushed much in post?). As others have said, you might run the same shot through DPP and see if results are any different. 

You also said that a shot you'd taken 4 weeks ago wasn't this bad. If you still have that original RAW file, what about running that one through LR again now, and see if you get the same thing (different results from the first processing)


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 4, 2012)

It seems like LR4.1 is really having conversion issues.
Aperture doesn't seem to have such problems BUT LR has better Noise and Len correction data which Aperture doesn't
Also, Adobe isn't going to update the Camera Raw anymore so i don't think there's any chance there's going to be a better LR4.1 RAW conversion.
I've not tried DPP…
I guess there really isn't 1 software that is best…i guess i'll have to live with the conversion issues of LR4 since i use it alot..


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 4, 2012)

With the sun as bright as it is, I would expect the lit areas to be blown out if the subject was properly exposed, it's pretty harsh lighting. It's also unusual to be able to get a shutterspeed of 1/2000th second in such deep shadows. That suggests to me it's been pushed, possibly as much as 3 stops. In fact, I just experimented, as it's quite harsh lighting outside at the moment and only half an hour later than the time in the EXIF. If I use the same camera settings (ISO 200, 1/2000th sec, f/4) on my 5D MkII, the shadows are four stops underexposed.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 5, 2012)

my new one is sharp and clean

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6933.15

see down in this thread for a 100% crop from it


----------



## hoghavemercy (Jun 6, 2012)

3 cameras all the same issue??? :'(


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 6, 2012)

hoghavemercy said:


> 3 cameras all the same issue??? :'(



Naw... this picture has had lots of shadow recovery and noise will be unavoidable... It's the nature of the beast.


----------



## CanonCollector (Jun 6, 2012)

This image had a lot of shadow recovery given the range of light yet the kid was perfectly exposed. It was post processed to this point - perhaps a little too far. Cute kid!


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 6, 2012)

Use a flash. Process less. You can only push an image so far.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 6, 2012)

If all three bodies have the same problem, it's almost certainly a software-related issue.

I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit. 

If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 6, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> If all three bodies have the same problem, it's almost certainly a software-related issue.
> 
> I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit.
> 
> If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?



The image was recovered too much in post processing... nothing wrong with the camera or software... it's perfectly natural...


----------



## epiieq1 (Jun 19, 2012)

Sorry for the delay in responding! I took a look, and some of it was post-process (had to +1.85 EV in LR4.1 RC2) which was way too much...

OTH, I had some images checked out at the local photography school in a weekend course I was taking, and even just straight conversion images (RAW to JPEG) in the latest version of DPP, there was a ton of grain similar to this, and the instructor used it as an example of excessive digital noise. Also, in my 550D (t2i) I didn't notice the same issue with finding the proper exposure as I'm finding with the 5Dm3. Just seems to expose everything a touch dark.

And thanks for the comments on my son - he's the majority of what I shoot, but I'm branching out now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 19, 2012)

epiieq1 said:


> Sorry for the delay in responding! I took a look, and some of it was post-process (had to +1.85 EV in LR4.1 RC2) which was way too much...
> 
> OTH, I had some images checked out at the local photography school in a weekend course I was taking, and even just straight conversion images (RAW to JPEG) in the latest version of DPP, there was a ton of grain similar to this, and the instructor used it as an example of excessive digital noise. Also, in my 550D (t2i) I didn't notice the same issue with finding the proper exposure as I'm finding with the 5Dm3. Just seems to expose everything a touch dark.
> 
> And thanks for the comments on my son - he's the majority of what I shoot, but I'm branching out now.


 
Sensors can be bad. They have lots of on sensor electronics for noise removal, and like any electronic item, can be defective or crippled.

Return it for another, never wait until its too late. If you cannot exchange it, send it to Canon with a example of a properly exposed but noisy image. All digital sensors have noise, even at ISO 100, but it should not be noticible until you get to about ISO 800, and then, a tough of nr might sometimes be needed.

My 5D MK III and my Nikon D800 will produce slightly grainy images when viewed 100% at ISO 800 or over with no NR, the D800 is the worst. NR cleans it up nicely, and as long as its very light NR, the image will remain sharp. As soon as you have to use a lot of NR, resolution suffers, but even then, prints at normal sizes will look sharp.


----------

