# 5D MK3 - dark - about 1stop less sensitive than 5DMK1



## life (Apr 17, 2012)

Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?
Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1

I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.

Anyone else out there with this issue?


----------



## bp (Apr 17, 2012)

Hmm - interesting! I don't have a 5DMK1, but I did the same sort of side by side comparison with my 5DMK2, and found the opposite. My MK3 was just a bit brighter than the MK2 at the same settings.


----------



## life (Apr 17, 2012)

I have produced a comparison image.

my 5DMK3 is about 7RGB points of luminance DARKER than my 5DMK1

THATS CRAZY! It should be 2 stops BRIGHTER.
Not impressed canon.

Anyone else out there want to feedback?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 17, 2012)

life said:


> Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?
> Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1
> 
> I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.
> ...



I did a test with all three 5D models, using the same lens, scene, ISO settings, aperture and shutter speeds. There was no discernible difference in the brightness of the images from the three cameras. I'll admit that I didn't sample the images to see what the numbers were, but visually, there wasn't enough of a difference to worry about.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 17, 2012)

life said:


> I have produced a comparison image.
> 
> my 5DMK3 is about 7RGB points of luminance DARKER than my 5DMK1
> 
> ...



If a 5D3 WAS 2 stops brighter than a 5Dc at the same settings, that would mean it was broken. It should be the same or darn close.

Are you shooting jpeg or RAW? Is lens correction turned on? Highlight tone priority?


----------



## JerryKnight (Apr 17, 2012)

bvukich said:


> life said:
> 
> 
> > I have produced a comparison image.
> ...



Exactly. They should be close to identical, but JPEG RGB values are hardly a scientific or reliable measurement. And even if the brightness of the brightest point on the frame is different, that says nothing about the relative sensitivity. There are so many other factors that determine the final RGB values.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 17, 2012)

Actually, it's interesting because I just happen to read the following this morning from DPreview.com on the Canon 5Dc Review:

"As is typical of almost every Canon digital SLR the EOS 5D is about a third of a stop more sensitive than indicated, hence its ISO 100 is actually more like ISO 125. The Nikon D2X is (as with most Nikon digital SLR's) right on the spot, the Fujifilm S3 Pro turned out to be about a third (to a quarter) less sensitive."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Actually, it's interesting because I just happen to read the following this morning from DPreview.com on the Canon 5Dc Review:
> 
> "As is typical of almost every Canon digital SLR the EOS 5D is about a third of a stop more sensitive than indicated, hence its ISO 100 is actually more like ISO 125. The Nikon D2X is (as with most Nikon digital SLR's) right on the spot, the Fujifilm S3 Pro turned out to be about a third (to a quarter) less sensitive."



The 10D/20D/30D/5D era from Canon rated ISOs very conservatively. The 50D/5D2 era the most generously. The rest have been somewhere in between, recently with the 60D/1D4 and probably 5D3 they have been creeping back closer to the old 10D era, although I guess they didn't go as close as I had thought with the 5D3 if what you say is true (but I can't believe it can be 1 stop off since that would make it even more generous than the 50D/5D2 which is known to not be true).


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 18, 2012)

Considering a friend who moved up to the 5D3 from a 5D is extremely impressed with its low light capabilities, I'd say you either got a dud version, or you're doing something different


----------



## life (Apr 23, 2012)

PROBLEM CONFIRMED.

Just did a day in studio with another pro shooter.
(Who has a fellow friend who mentioned the same issue)

my *5D MK3 is about 2/3 of a stop DARKER than the 5D and the 5DMK2* - Same ISO /shutter / ƒ stop and exact same lens, on tripod.

The histograms in camera clearly show the almost 1stop difference, in C1 Pro - a MK3 file has to be pushed about .70 of a stop in exposure to match the previous cameras.

Can anyone else out there do some comparisons?

Really not impressed. The AF is mostly pretty good but what's up with the ISO? how is my 5D, a 6 year old camera BRIGHTER than the MK3? — Also, we found very mushy focus issues in dark areas,... not sure about that... (perfect focus in bright areas) and I have also noticed a weird fragmentation/crunchy (almost heavy JPEG compression effect) around areas of details at ISO 800 and above in dark areas (about 1stop bellow proper exposure)

——————————

Waiting on Pro Nikon availability from the rep to test with my friend, and heavily considering switching, — that is, if Nikon has finally gotten around to producing better colours and not orange skin tones (doubtful)


----------



## gary (Apr 23, 2012)

I think I have purchased a different camera because I am not suffering any of the problems you are mentioning


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 24, 2012)

CONFIRMED!!!
There is something definitely wrong with your camera, because mine is exactly the opposite, the 5DMK3 is about 1/2 stop brighter, visually i can barely tell the difference, but the digital imaging tech on my job says according to the waveform the MK3 has about a 1/2 stop more sensitivity.
id return yours


----------



## elflord (Apr 24, 2012)

life said:


> Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?
> Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1
> 
> I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.
> ...



The much maligned dxo mark test shows the MkIII being slightly more sensitive but the difference is tiny (small fraction of a stop).


----------



## JShoda (Apr 24, 2012)

I have 2 5d3's and _both_ meter about 2/3's to 1 full stop under where they should be in most lighting situations. This isn't just an eyeball test either, I've tested against my Sekonic light meter and the results are pretty consistent. I'm fresh off a switch from Nikon so I've never been familiar with how Canon's operate but it's crazy to me that I don't have the ability to push the meter in manual mode. I've just resorted to exposing everything by a bit and that has seemed to work but feels like a ridiculous solution for such a nice camera.


----------



## Musouka (Apr 24, 2012)

On the subject of ISO sensitivity, it seems everyone is having their own settings. As mentioned above, Canon models used to be higher than the standard and now they are actually lower.

Here is an interesting portion from a recent CNET article:



> *ISO isn't what it appears to be*
> 
> ISO, the shorthand term for the sensitivity setting of a camera, has been surging in recent years, with top-end SLRs such as the Nikon D4 and the Canon EOS-1D X able to shoot at ISO 204,800. In comparison, only unusual film reached ISO 3,200. Doubling ISO means you can shoot photos in half as much light, but at the cost of more noise in the photo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2012)

Oh no! Now the camera is completely unusable.. Damn, that's the most expensive paper-weight I have ever owned.. :

And yes, I will continue to be a bastard as long as people keeping posting useless [email protected] 

Are you seriously buying a camera to place it in a test-bench and run all possible and impossible tests just to find something wrong???

I've shot a few thousand real world shots and haven't come across anything problematic at all. I also had my 1d4's 0 ev set to a third of a stop higher, because I like a bit of head room and the old saying "expose to the right"

That can't be set on the 5d so I am considering jumping off a bridge because I can't look at the cursor placed under the +1 number anymore!!!


----------



## psolberg (Apr 24, 2012)

life said:


> Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?
> Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1
> 
> I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.
> ...



interesting because the same thing is happenig with video. for instance take a D800 set it to 1/50shutter speed and ISO400 at f/2.8. do the same scene with the canon. The D800 footage will look a LOT brighter for the same exact settings. One could attribute it to the lens f/stop roudning, but I've seen the same phenomenon repeated with other lenses. It can't be a coincidence. My conspiracy theory is that canon is overstating ISO to look good on paper. I'm sure the truth will come out as more and more people test it and if an OEM is playing tricks, there will be a s**t brewing.


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 24, 2012)

psolberg said:


> life said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?
> ...


something must be wrong with your camera, because i posted the exact opposite a few weeks ago, i had d800 on my set and a MK3 and we did tests and i was surprised by how much darker the nikon was then the canon, i had to decrease the shutter on the nikon more then half to get the stop i was getting with the canon.
maybe you are on a not very well lit set or something. i was on green screen with 4 20ks and my canon was iso 640 f4 shutter 500, and i to get the same brightness out of the nikon d800 i had to be at a shutter speed of 160 to get it to be at the same exposure. so either i have a super camera or yours is having an issue. according to other posts i see, i think its the latter


----------



## Martin (Apr 25, 2012)

Do a simple test. Put camera in AV mode, meter mode-spot. Find a white wall or paper which is evenly lit. Fill the frame with the wall or paper. Take a photo. Look at histogram and camera settings. The histogram peek should be perfectly in center. I had 5d2 and it underexposed by 2/3 EV. Ridiculous. I was used to Nikon gear and such a simple test always gave me a histogram peek in center (internal light meter gave setting identical to Sekonic). My Canon's 5d2 histogram peek was 2/3 EV off center.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 25, 2012)

My mkII and mkIII histograms for identical shots are almost identical. I have also noticed with this test mkIII's AWB is also more accurate. But I guess that is to be expected. 

In post with all things were equal the MkII looked a little brighter in center and the histogram of the mkII was slightly more spread to the right, but spiked similarly, which I'm likening to dynamic range since the mkII filled in blacks and pushed whites more (see below). Both files were raw imported to Aperture so no lens corrections were on in either.

While I was there I pushed the shadow levels and brightness to the limits and noticed the 5DIII has substantially more DR and much better noise control. Both these are ISO 400 and pushed equally. I'm impressed. the mkIII may not be the 800 in DR but I'm happy.

Disregard the fact the files say they are both from mkIII, that is the way I cropped them in the same PS file together.

mkIII





mkII


----------

