# Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?



## shizam1 (Mar 30, 2012)

I received my 5DIII a couple of days ago, and haven't done extensive testing with it yet, but I plan on doing some studio shots tonight. I did notice in some of my high ISO comparisons that the 5DII seemed sharper in some instances. And yes, I was shooting RAW and used the LR ACR 6.7RC to do the conversion.

Then, while looking again at the DPReview comparison, looking at the RAW versions of that studio image they shot I'm noticing the same thing ( but I don't know what method they used ).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 30, 2012)

So I did some studio shots, and looks like the 5DIII is as sharp if not sharper than my 5DII. At least at ISO 100  Also, focus was pretty much nailed on nose of teddy bear test subject, while 5DII was kind of all over the place. So looking good.

One thing to note, I had to bring down the exposure on the 5DIII shots by .25 in Lightroom, so that camera is over-exposing ( or more sensitive to light ) than the 5DII. I used the same lighting of course, and all 3 shots with the 5DIII were over-exposed as compared to the 5DII, so it's not light variance. The strobe is an Einstien BTW.


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Share the photos? Ha!

People might pick apart my teddy bear selection. I just wanted to respond to this post and say that I don't have any softness problems, just in case anyone comes upon it later with a search of some sort


----------



## Janus (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm an owner of 60D and think to switch to full frame camera. I saw some test pictures of Mark III and compare to Mark II and have some feeling that Mark III a little softer and the picture not voluminal (a little bit flat) compare to II
What owners of both II and III can tell about my feeling?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 31, 2012)

I compared my new 5D3 to my 5D classic and if anything the 5D3 is sharper by a significant degree. The colours are also far more vivid and really pop. I haven't even micro adjusted for my lenses yet (waiting for FoCal to have 5D3 support). 

I think that the people claiming the5D3 is soft is due to unfulfilled and unreasonably high expectations and/or user error. Someone around here said that whenever a photo doesn't come out right, they're inclined to blame the photographer rather than the gear. I am inclined to agree. Not to mention, I have a feeling that a lot of the people complaining don't even have a 5D3 of their own and are just going off the samples available online. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 31, 2012)

yes the 5D3 is softer at iso100 than the 5D2 however the margin is so small for real purposes its negligible and only noticeable when pixel peeping at 200% with side by side comparison shots. 

I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

I'm definitely keeping my 5Dmk2s though as they still make kick ass images and I might grab a brightscreen for one and keep it for use with my MF only lenses


----------



## Janus (Mar 31, 2012)

And what about Flat image from III? Does enybody see it?


----------



## lessmore (Mar 31, 2012)

Has there been any definitive testing - using both cameras with the same lens, same subject, same settings - to see if the Mark III is actually softer?

I shot a number of portrait/face shots with the Mark III using spot focus. Using ACR and Photoshop PS5, with the same post processing settings that I usually use for the Mark II, I felt that the images were a bit soft. When I turned the sharpening plugin in Photoshop up to a higher level, I thought that the Mark III images looked better, even though that is usually too much sharpening for my Mark II images. My lens was not AF microadjusted for the Mark III (this lens was dead on with the Mark II), so that is one possible reason.

Can someone point me in the direction of any of the Mark III reviews where they compare the sharpness of the same RAW images shot with each different camera?


----------



## JR (Mar 31, 2012)

I noticed it also on my unit which I returned. to be honest it is more obvious with the kit 24-105 lens. With my prime lens and the proper RAW software out now it is hard to see a difference...but for the unit I had I did find a bit of softness compared to my mkII. When I lok at some of the pictures posted by others,makes me wonder that it was indeed my unit.

j


----------



## Janus (Apr 1, 2012)

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx
author talk about soft image because of RAW converter bug in DPP


----------



## JR (Apr 1, 2012)

Janus said:


> Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx
> author talk about soft image because of RAW converter bug in DPP



Even using ACR or the new version of Lightroom (LR4.1) I noticed a small difference between the mkII and mkIII sharpness. If I had never looked at a mkII before maybe I would not have picked on it but still was there on my unit.

In all fairness I did not perform a lens micro adjustment which would have helped.


----------



## Martin (Apr 1, 2012)

Hmm...I have seen that softness from every image produced with 5D3, starting with official canon jpgs and other test images and images made by others, I saw it see it in jpgs as well as unporcessed raws. It must be something bad about this If so many people complain about the fact. I was used to 5d2 images viewed at 100% and more so I was disappointed. I think it's better to wait for saome tests, on the other hand, why there is a need for test if so many people share the same feeling. It is strange cause IQ should be better in general, also in terms of sharpness, I also read that AA filter is weaker in new 5D so what is wrong? I will wait for some reviews, as I am holding my finger on buy button from some days.


----------



## Chris Geiger (Apr 1, 2012)

I have been very happy with the focus on my two 5d3 bodies. I've shot two weddings with them now.

This shot was hand held using 24-105 and a 12mm extension tube.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 1, 2012)

I have not been able to tell any difference from my 5D MK II using the same lenses at low ISO's. I have not really taken any meaningful images at higher ISO settings.

Now that Lightroom has a beta out that supports my MK III, its much faster and easier than using Adobe DNG or the RC of ACR.

The sensor in the MK III appears to me to be a much higher grade sensor, my MK II had a lot of hot pixels in a dark frame when the exposure was pulled way up, but I do not see a one with the MK III.


----------



## kaiser (Apr 1, 2012)

This softness issue just doesn't seem to die down. While a number of people have suggested a "workaround", I can't understand why Canon cannot come up with a fix over this whole DPP problem. To shell out $ 3,500 for a new camera and look for "workarounds" seems pretty dumb. 

Also, what the hell were the beta testers doing? Did they not have similar problems with the software? 

It is bad enough to launch a product which is not supported by third party image processing software, but Canon's own software is faulty  

I'm still debating whether to avoid all heartburn by opting for the 1DMIV!


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

Concerning the sharpness, I did a comparision test between MK 2 and MI 3 at 160iso. (same lens, manual focus in liveview, DPP develop or acr 6.7).
The result is that the MK2 is better than MK3.
Tomorrow I' ll return it on the shop.
Is a wrong one or other people had the same result?
The difference is really noticeable. 

Here you can see a 100% crop.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 1, 2012)

Chris Geiger said:


> I have been very happy with the focus on my two 5d3 bodies. I've shot two weddings with them now.
> 
> This shot was hand held using 24-105 and a 12mm extension tube.



Chris - are you glad with the quality of pics with the use of extension tube?


----------



## drjlo (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> Concerning the sharpness, I did a comparision test between MK 2 and MI 3 at 160iso. (same lens, manual focus in liveview, DPP develop or acr 6.7).
> The result is that the MK2 is better than MK3.
> Tomorrow I' ll return it on the shop.
> Is a wrong one or other people had the same result?
> ...



Were they on Tripod from same position, and I presume critical focus was achieved in live view for both?
If true, it's rather alarming finding, likely explainable by possibly heavier anti-aliasing filter on MkIII. If so, one should be able to increase sharpening a little more for MkIII photo and achieve the same results as MkII.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 1, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Chris Geiger said:
> 
> 
> > I have been very happy with the focus on my two 5d3 bodies. I've shot two weddings with them now.
> ...



I'm not Chris, but extension tubes are just hollow tubes with no lens or glass elements in the tube, so IQ will not suffer like it does with teleconverters, which do have lots of extra lens elements. Extension tube will only change the focal length closer for more magnification but now one can't focus near infinity.


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
> ...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
> I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.



Good to know. I must sigh because I have my 5DIII and have been trying to decide whether to send it back or not. I do not have 5DII on hand to compare so must rely on others who have both. I am finding that I am *still* using the spot focus most despite all the AF points of MkIII, and if MkII actually may be at least as clean or better at low ISO, I may need to just get a MkII instead. High ISO is great, but honestly, I always try to keep my ISO at or below 1600-3200 max anyway by introducing good lighting.


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> albertocanetta said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
> ...



If you want I send you some files...About the iso, since the file is so soft, it is obvious that you haven' t so much noise... I just bought the MK3 because the autofocus, but I can't accept to have a worse file than the MK2. I really hope to have a damaged body but it seems that it is not only me to have this problem...


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Geiger said:
> ...



Thanks for explanation though I know the difference and the way ETs work. Since I don't own my ET and never experimented with one, I'm just curious in impressions of people who did. I don't own true macro lenses and am aware of IQ degradation without it. All I did was stacking lenses 24-105 and 70-200 with 17-40 (front to front with 17-40 dettached from body) to achieve macro effect and was not amazed with IQ at all, although magnification was really big


----------



## Martin (Apr 1, 2012)

The photo above taken with 5D3 looks like out of focus for me. IMHO it is not possible that there is such a difference. Unbelievable. I will rather wait for more opinions/tests before my purchase/switch. Hope that is back or front focus only, or software problem, however if you are a pro you are probable aware of this so...sensor placed badly...or really such a soft images-can't be. look at "compact disc player" sing- it's too soft in comparison to 5D2, the difference is very significant.


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

The focus is made in live view. 
If the sensor were placed in wrong way, I had the problem only in one part of the photo instead of the all area.

Yes, I'm very surprised too, and I made several tests, but with the same result...


----------



## JR (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> Obviously I did on a tripod and focusing in liveview, same settings, lens etc. I'm a professional photographer with a deep knowledge.
> ...even if you apply sharpening, if the original file is better/worse, the difference will be always evident.
> I you want I send you the original raws and you can make your test.



Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got. It was noticably softer then my mkII. I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did. Ultimately I returned my unit. :-[


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...

I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

JR said:


> Hey Alberto, I got the exact same thing with the mkIII I got. It was noticably softer then my mkII. I tried everything except MA but came to the same conclusion you did. Ultimately I returned my unit. :-[



This is hilarious - I just cannot believe Canon screwed up that badly. And please don't return your 5d3s and keep selling 5d2s: I want to get one used ... so let's hope that maybe the mk3 has been released to early and the issues will disappear in later bodies or firmware updates - afaik it's called "banana ware" since it ripens when it's with the customer


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...
> 
> I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...



If Canon can't fix this in firmware and they did this on purpose to get better video they need a SERIOUS asskicking, and that EVERYBODY return their mk3's to the dealer. Send them a message....

I'm hopefully downgrading to the 5d3 tomorrow, I will be keeping it though, and hope for Canon to get it right with a new firmware. But Canon needs to earn everybody's trust again, because lately they've been screwing up WAY too much....


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 1, 2012)

The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.

James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.

Here's the article. I believe it applies to both stills and video

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

A second article on the fix

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

Yes...I can believe it.
But I will not open the mk3!!!!
I'll just return to the shop until something happens...


----------



## altenae (Apr 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> albertocanetta said:
> 
> 
> > ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...
> ...



screwing up way to much ????????!


----------



## Policar (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...
> 
> I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...



Have you tried comparing results between raw and jpeg? I've found jpegs to be okay from the 5DIII. It's pretty bright outside maybe I will give this a try...


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 1, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.
> 
> James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.
> 
> ...



Wow. That's bold. But this is kind of what Nikon now offers as one of the D800 options, right? To me so far all cameras without that filter have looked better. I would think it's one of the reasons why the Leica M9 looks better?


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm not sure I would risk disassembling my new camera for that kind of tiny improvement. The images it produces are already outstanding.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 1, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> ah...ok...thank you for the information...so, I won't loose time for others body tests...
> 
> I'm starting to think that canon used a stronger anti-aliasing/moire filter to make a better video output than the mk2 version. And the stills are suffering for it...



If Canon compromised stills for video, they did not do a good job on the video part, either.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 1, 2012)

Two points.
The article that appeared on the CPN Europe site actually stated that the filter has been reduced in strength. Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment.
When the 7D first came out, Adobe RAW produced very soft images which improved once it had been refined with a couple of updates. I wouldn't make too many critical comparisons at the moment with what using what is little more than beta versions of software. The difference when the 7D came out, there wasn't the same issue with DPP.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

altenae said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > albertocanetta said:
> ...



YES! I mentioned it before, but the S100 had an off center lens making the first batch useless. The G1x has useless AF and VF and costs way too much. The 60d lacking AFMA. The 1d X that never comes out along with the 300, 400, 500, 600, 200-400, 24-70 II. The WHOLE 5d3 shabang with tons of issues, listed in another topic by me, and also including that it now has NO user interchangable focusing screens

And even the short lived 1d4 that didn't get either the double crosstype af point AND spot-af (with all lenses) like the dirtcheap 7d got not long after.

And further back , the 1d mkIII with it's incredibly usless AF-system. 

At the same time, I never hear of any issues like this over at the enemy's camp and they're putting out products that work and that people can trust when using it, and also trust that the cash they pay aren't wasted. They don't need to make excuses for nikon. You have no idea what it feels like to buy a 1d mkIII and get what I got. They tried to cover it up and releasing firmware, but then FINALLY admitting it sucked and tried TWO hardware fixes, but it still wasn't any good. And now with all of the 5d3 issues, the worst is the soft images, due the fact that they care more about video, than still pictures, because that can't be fixed in firmware.

I could go on if you like?


----------



## Alker (Apr 1, 2012)

Yes I like that...

In all the years me and a lot of other photographers were able to make TOP quality images with Canon equipment.

I have had it will all the complains about Canon.
Sell everything and buy another brand and see what happens then.


----------



## CNfuzzy (Apr 1, 2012)

shizam1 said:


> I received my 5DIII a couple of days ago, and haven't done extensive testing with it yet, but I plan on doing some studio shots tonight. I did notice in some of my high ISO comparisons that the 5DII seemed sharper in some instances. And yes, I was shooting RAW and used the LR ACR 6.7RC to do the conversion.
> 
> Then, while looking again at the DPReview comparison, looking at the RAW versions of that studio image they shot I'm noticing the same thing ( but I don't know what method they used ).
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts on this?



My MK3 is sharper than my MK2. Attached 300% crops - same lens - it was microadjusted on both cameras.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 1, 2012)

Hmmmm. Roger at lensrentals.com has the 5diii just slightly sharper than the already excellent 5Dii. 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests


----------



## uwtb (Apr 1, 2012)

sweet mother of all the gods . . . this is the most confusing situation . . . one thing i am wondering is if people are using the most recent version of DPP. supposedly, canon have this lens correction tool that UNDOES the optical low pass blurring:

The EOS 5D Mark III comes complete with the most advanced version of Digital Photo Professional (DPP) yet – Canon’s free, in-box software enabling high-speed, high quality processing of RAW images. New in DPP v3.11 is Digital Lens Optimizer – a revolutionary new tool designed to drastically improve image resolution.

Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) precisely imitates lens performance, with a series of complex mathematical functions replicating each stage of the journey of light through the optical path. Using this information DLO can correct a range of typical optical aberrations and loss of resolution caused by a camera’s low pass filter, by applying an inverse function to each shot to take the image nearer to how the scene appears to the naked eye. This creates exceptionally detailed, high-quality images with highly manageable file sizes, providing photographers with maximum image quality and greater flexibility.


this came from the press release posted on northlight-images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d3.html

it would be a SLIGHT tedium to have to do this for every image, rather than having the images just come out "singing" (as Philip Bloom put it in his review), but if the end product is fabulous, i wouldn't mind. we all do a certain degree of digital darkroom work. no big deal. 

anyway . . . i am really hungry for some detailed reviews on the mark iii and the d800. the fact that nikon lenses can be so hard to get hold of makes me reluctant to go with a d800. but i sure hope to hear more positive, less conflicting news about the mark iii. maybe i'll just go with a mark ii.

BUT, the question stands: are you all using the new software, and specifically its lens correction feature (DLO)? or are we saying that the software is not doing what the press release claimed?


----------



## albertocanetta (Apr 1, 2012)

I did my test with the newest version of DDP. DLO doesn't affect the sharpness result.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

Alker said:


> Yes I like that...
> 
> In all the years me and a lot of other photographers were able to make TOP quality images with Canon equipment.
> 
> ...



Well, why are you here and not shooting film then?

It's not the features I'm complaining about, it's the fact that Canon promises something, and it's not how it is in real life. I'm seriously tired of vapor-ware...

Are you seriously saying the 1d3 was great? Are you saying I, and all others, are wrong in what I stated above? Look around this forum and 5d3 news.. It is things to be concerned about, and when we pay for a product to be a certain way, like the sharpness and overall IQ of the 5d3 being better than the 5d2, isn't that expected?? It's also increased in price and have a HUGE list of what has improved... Isn't it a little strange that many things seem better with the 5d2 then? NO ONE expects to pay a hefty price for a new product, replacing their old, to do LESS...

I have seen fantastic images shot by Iphones, this isn't about that, this is about me and other people paying Canon ten's of thousands of dollars based on what they say a product can do, and it doesn't deliever. 

Wouldn't you feel rather miffed if you paid ten grand for a bag of sugar instead of cocaine? Yes, it would get you a bit more awake, but it wouldn't excatly be what you expected now would it? 

And by being a yes-man, nothing improves.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> And further back , the 1d mkIII with it's incredibly usless AF-system.



I've got a late model 1Dmk3 and its AF is great never had a problem with it or are you refering to the debacle of the new release models?


----------



## Louis (Apr 1, 2012)

I have to be honest, reading all these posts, I am so disappointed with Canon, it feels that the 5D mark 3 was a complete rush job, no way has that camera been developed over 4 years, I have been on this website/forum for the last 8 months waiting for news of this camera, and I am shocked at the quality of the images, mainly at how soft they were, I was super happy with the AF, and that's all I wanted, but not to be softer than the mark2, I dont know if this is peoples models or it can be fixed, but I am in no way buying this camera untill I see a fix,


----------



## Louis (Apr 1, 2012)

Alker said:


> Yes I like that...
> 
> In all the years me and a lot of other photographers were able to make TOP quality images with Canon equipment.
> 
> ...



I really am thinking the same,


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And further back , the 1d mkIII with it's incredibly usless AF-system.
> ...



I just listed it as one of the big misses Canon has done. And the 1d3 is the reason why Nikon have the amount of users they have in the pro market today. They did something great with the D3 and Canon screwed up. They said so themselves along with people like me who used them, so it's not a secret exactly... 

Ever since then, buying a Canon camera doesn't give me the same faith in it as it used to do from the 350d and up. I used to know it was the best in it's class, and they worked. Now I get a feeling, ooo, should I get one or not, maybe it sucks.. When you pay 7000 dollars or whatever, that's not good. And this is, again, not just me, but a general opinion around. 

Again, I'm not saying you can't shot a award-winning image with a 1d3, I'm saying it was never the camera I paid for and Canon said it would be.... It's the feel of being ripped off that bugs me.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

The reason I don't "sell it all and buy another brand" is simply because when the Canon-gear does what it's suppose to, nothing comes even close. That's why I'm upset, because it (5d3) has the potential of being a truly remarkable camera that will live up to the legendary statur of the 5d and 5d2, I'm just not seeing that now with all the issues. 

How would you feel if you bought a sweet Ferrari and it went pretty good, but the old one was faster and sharper around the cornes, does it help that a bunch of people on a forum said, Yeah they will fix it, we hope.... Neh.. It should work when you turn the key and go like nuts, why? Cuz that's why you paid 200.000 dollars and it says FERRARI on it......


----------



## Louis (Apr 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The reason I don't "sell it all and buy another brand" is simply because when the Canon-gear does what it's suppose to, nothing comes even close. That's why I'm upset, because it (5d3) has the potential of being a truly remarkable camera that will live up to the legendary statur of the 5d and 5d2, I'm just not seeing that now with all the issues.
> 
> How would you feel if you bought a sweet Ferrari and it went pretty good, but the old one was faster and sharper around the cornes, does it help that a bunch of people on a forum said, Yeah they will fix it, we hope.... Neh.. It should work when you turn the key and go like nuts, why? Cuz that's why you paid 200.000 dollars and it says FERRARI on it......



Viggo I completely agree,


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

Ånd Canon is further proving my point...

The 24-70 II will not.meet the 17th of April deadline stated by Canon.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 2, 2012)

albertocanetta said:


> I did my test with the newest version of DDP. DLO doesn't affect the sharpness result.



That's your problem right there. Everyone knows dpp is buggy. Using dpp and critiquing photos. Based off it is like filling your sports car with Mexican gas and wonder why it spurts. You can switch dpp to faster processing, it does a better job than high quality which can give you better results but I think your being premature sending ur camera back until canon fixes dpp.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 2, 2012)

From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.

open up that aperture and shoot ambient light on my copy and it all goes to hell. My copy definately has a nutty AF, i am glad many others are reporting joy with theirs so I'll see if I can get another copy and give it a whirl.

I'd rather have the 5Dmk2 AF over the AF on my copy of the 5Dmk3 (at least I can rely on the center point of on that camer!)

I'm a bit disapointed, taking it back today I hope I can get a replacement within a week sinc ei'm going overseas and would like to use the mk3


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.
> 
> open up that aperture and shoot ambient light on my copy and it all goes to hell. My copy definately has a nutty AF, i am glad many others are reporting joy with theirs so I'll see if I can get another copy and give it a whirl.
> 
> ...



What the hell is going on? I don't own 5d3 so I can't discuss these issues but what? Reading some beginners' impressions I hoped they are wrong. But Wombat has the same? 1dx so late (it will be half a year from announcement in several days) and all those issues with 5d3? What's wrong with Canon?


----------



## MeHoo (Apr 2, 2012)

I generally have no interest in these pissing matches... But I love my new camera.

I just let the images speak for themselves. I wasn't shooting a Mark II before, but I was shooting a 7D.. a damn fine camera IMO, and this Mark III is an excellent addition to my camera kit. Is it sharp? I'm not claiming to be the best photographer ever, but have a look at the full res of these and see if you think it's sharp. And keep in mind that's the DO 400mm lens which isn't the sharpest in comparison to the other 400mm.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/oohem/6891027328/#in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oohem/6891027424/#in/photostream/lightbox/

They do the job for me. I have always followed the same rules with buying things.. if it doesn't make you happy, return or sell it. Looking for people to make up your mind for you, or convince you either way isn't really the best approach IMO. Grab the camera, go shoot, and either return it or keep it. Buyers remorse can be a real bitch on a $4k camera, car, house, boat, etc... You are the only one who needs to be happy at the end of the day.


----------



## rlarsen (Apr 2, 2012)

Most of the fear and dread, and complaints are from people who don't have the camera.
The rest of us are busy shooting pictures.

Check out the Nikon forums and you'll find the same complaints.

By the way, the camera features a micro adjustment so you can match your lenses to the body for critical sharpness. Most people won't need to do it. If you actually have the camera, know what you are doing, and have a real problem, reputable dealers will take care of it.


----------



## Alker (Apr 2, 2012)

@viggo

Complain and complain. 

Be a man and switch to a another brand and leave Canonrumors. 
If nothing is good about Canon, well simple make the switch. 

You are an adult so make the correct choice instead of topic after topic complaining about Canon.


----------



## Alker (Apr 2, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Ånd Canon is further proving my point...
> 
> The 24-70 II will not.meet the 17th of April deadline stated by Canon.



What the hell is your point ??????
Don't like Canon ?
Don't buy Canon !

Whining is not going to help you. Is it ???


----------



## Alker (Apr 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.
> 
> open up that aperture and shoot ambient light on my copy and it all goes to hell. My copy definately has a nutty AF, i am glad many others are reporting joy with theirs so I'll see if I can get another copy and give it a whirl.
> 
> ...



I hope the replacement will be good. 
Please keep us posted. 

Using my 5D mark iii with wildlife, I can only say that the AF works very very good.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 2, 2012)

In short, NO


----------



## Viggo (Apr 2, 2012)

Alker said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Ånd Canon is further proving my point...
> ...



You still don't get the point? lol. I said vapor-ware... Nothing can be bought, it's only released..


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 2, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Woah, one delay and you declare vapor-ware. That's strict.


----------



## bp (Apr 2, 2012)

My MK3 is slightly sharper than my MK2. Not by much, but it's definitely not softer

Others have reported the same. I wonder if there's just some variance between copies


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Woah, one delay and you declare vapor-ware. That's strict.



Try counting again...

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - *delayed*
EOS 1D X - *delayed*
EF 600mm f/4L IS II - *delayed*
EF 500mm f/4L IS II - *delayed*
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II - *delayed*
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II - *delayed*
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - *delayed*

For the 500 and 600mm supertele lenses, the delays have exceeded 1.5 years and are still ongoing!


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.
> 
> open up that aperture and shoot ambient light on my copy and it all goes to hell. My copy definately has a nutty AF, i am glad many others are reporting joy with theirs so I'll see if I can get another copy and give it a whirl.



You probably know this already, but there are lenses that breathe at different apertures. The 50mm f/1.2L is probably the most notorious in this regard. If using the MFA scale, the difference between f/1.2 and f/4-f/5.6 on my copy is about 10 steps.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.
> 
> open up that aperture and shoot ambient light on my copy and it all goes to hell. My copy definately has a nutty AF, i am glad many others are reporting joy with theirs so I'll see if I can get another copy and give it a whirl.
> 
> ...


wicked, what lenses, apertures, focus points and shooting mode are you using? They all work together but they are very specific in application. Never use servo with big glass, use spot af primarily for static subjects, use spot af for most everything for things moving rapidly use focus with assist points. You prob know all that but i just dont get how you are experiencing this other than you need to micro adjust your lenses to the body or that you possibly have a bad copy, electronics aren't perfect, some get thru to the consumers even when tested in factory to be working properly. I hope you get things worked out because with what i have been getting in testing is excellent. I dont have any gigs at the moment so dont expect to see samples at this time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Woah, one delay and you declare vapor-ware. That's strict.
> ...



The $400 kit discount on a pro kit 5D3 is also pushed back to July now (if they even bother with it now ever)....


----------



## Viggo (Apr 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...



Thanks! Appriciate the support.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Never use servo with big glass...



Shhhh...don't let all those guys on the sidelines with big white lenses in on your secret to getting crisp shots... :


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 2, 2012)

Viggo said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The fact that there was an earthquake and tsunami in Japan + floods in Thailand doesn't lend any sympathy?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 2, 2012)

ippikiokami said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



This isn't about empathy for the poor people and their family affected. I saw a picture of a main road in Japan after the earthquake and again a picture taken 14 days after, and the road looked like it was just built and clean as a whistle, well, it was, reconstructed in TWO weeks... They can still blame the earthquake and also the flood, but then they can go out and say "hey, this has affected us, and the planned releases will be pushed back" and skipped the announcement all together, BUT they keep telling us about these amazing products that no one can get their hands on. THAT's the problem......

And the only products they in fact have released seem to have all kinds of errors, and faults....


----------



## c3hammer (Apr 2, 2012)

On a side note, it looks there is a second OLPF in the 5DM3.

Filmmaker, James Miller has removed it and is seeing a significant increase in sharpness on the Mark III.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278918-Canon-5d-mark-iii-improved-olpf-removed-for-higher-resolution

http://twitter.com/#!/millerandmiller

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/


Canon 5Dmk3 OLPF removal, first results
Liberation Begins - 5DMK3 OLPF Removal Day 2

He mentions that it is working awesome for stills as well though I haven't seen any raw images being posted yet.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

c3hammer said:


> On a side note, it looks there is a second OLPF in the 5DM3.



Yes and no. The confusion comes from the fact that what we call the 'anti-aliasing' filter actually has two components that are essentially polarizers, one oriented horizontally and one oriented vertically. The two filters are separate within the assembly, with a 1/4-wave plate in between (necessary to convert the linearly-polarized light from the first filter into circularly-polarized light, else no light would get through the second filter, like when you orient a pair of linear polarizers at 90° to each other, the same principle that variable ND filters use). 







The horizontal layer of the AA filter, 1/4-wave plate (what Canon calls the 'phaser layer') and the IR cut filter are bonded together, and this assembly is what vibrates for the 'self-cleaning sensor'. The vertical layer of the AA filter is bonded to the sensor itself (well, on top of the microlens array, which sits on top of the Bayer mask, which sits on top of the sensor).


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Woah, one delay and you declare vapor-ware. That's strict.
> ...



Delays for separate products don't constitute "vapor-ware". Vaporware implies that the announced product might not actually exist.

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - *delayed once (maybe)*
EOS 1D X - *delayed*
EF 600mm f/4L IS II - *delayed*
EF 500mm f/4L IS II - *delayed*
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II - *delayed but now released*
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II - *delayed but now released*
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - *delayed but now released*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Delays for separate products don't constitute "vapor-ware". Vaporware implies that the announced product might not actually exist.



Vaporware: Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place). Vaporware is in the eye of the beholder, or _not_ visible to the eye of the beholder, as the case may be. 

The bottom line remains the same, whatever jargon you want to use - in the last 2-3 years, Canon has a terrible track record of getting their announced high end photo gear into the marketplace on schedule.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 2, 2012)

I think if it is ever released it ceases to be Vaporware.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 2, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...



I did not use it literally, but in annoyance over the lack of delievery. One or two months might (by some, not me) be accepted, one or two years I think for the most part, people do not think is okay. 

One thing is that you can't buy new stuff, but the longer you keep your old, the lower the price gets. Check out what happened with the 1d3 prices when the mk4 was released, and what happened to the mk4 prices when the X was released. For those of us who do not crap money, that means one of two things, loose A LOT in the delay time or spend 5 months with no camera. IF the X had been released in january and hit the stores in feburary, the loss of the mk4 I sat with would have been way less, and I could have replaced it with no vacuum in between. That would also make it easier for people to upgrade. Essentially I pay most of the new camera with money from the one I have.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 2, 2012)

Viggo said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well, true enough. I do think that Canon announced the 1Dx before they should have. And I'm not really defending Canon either. However, with everyone complaining about the lack of an update Canon might have felt the pressure from its market to go ahead and announce something?

And to be perfectly honest, I didn't realize the 500 and 600 were announced that long ago. As they cost more than my current car I'm less concerned


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 3, 2012)

Bosman said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > From the week I have had with the 5Dmk3 I can safely say I feel the sensor is fantastic. At narrow apertures and shooting with strobes the images are razor sharp.
> ...



I've stopped even bothering trying to work out servo now until I can get single shot AF sorted out,
Lenses tested are
16-35 f2.8 II
50mm f1.4
50mm f1.8II
sigma 85mm f1.4
100mm f2.8L IS Macro
24-105 f4L IS
70-200 f2.8L IS II
300 f4L IS

I have set it in spot focus only (I usually shoot in spot focus anyway) I failed miserably with AI servo but I blame myself for that and not knowing the AF but I've gone back to basics and even just trying to use it the way I use the 5Dmk2 with centerpoint and recompose.

I took it back to the shop yesterday but it started working, couldnt get it to misbehave for the guy in the shop 
he said regardless they have a backlog of preorders to the end of may so no chance of exchanging it and him and none of the staff had even handled the camera yet. my mk3 was the first time he had put his hands on the camera and he was the assistant manager. He suggested I keep trying it out and seehow it goes.
I definately don't have enough confidence in this camera to use it in a wedding though, studio with flash and narrow aperture though no problem It's great but apertures wider than 2.8 Its just plain unreliable.

last night i sat down to go through all the micro adjust process again but just gave up in disgust after 2 lenses


----------

