Canon 5D MKIII (UK Production Body) Test Images & Thoughts

George said:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33717226/HURN0011.CR2

Hmm, just downloaded the beta and looked at your file....hope that wasn't the result of this weekend.......and the detail looks pretty good I'd say...what do you think?

George.
Click to expand...

Was an accident scene shot from this morning, using a older 24-105 that is very prone to CA, the JPG (With CA Removal Turned on) is very clean, but I still find on the lowest settings the JPGs from the MKIII look over processed

Put this shot up as it gives a good chance to see how much detail can be pulled from the dark area inside the wheel arch. I thnik there is at least 2 stops better detail recovery than using the MKII

Richard, I have some Lexar pro 600x 16 gig UDMAs which I use....do you want me to send one down for you to try....I'd like it back of course!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, but I should be able to get some different cards in the morning, so will try those and see if it makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
Was an accident scene shot from this morning, using a older 24-105 that is very prone to CA, the JPG (With CA Removal Turned on) is very clean, but I still find on the lowest settings the JPGs from the MKIII look over processed

Put this shot up as it gives a good chance to see how much detail can be pulled from the dark area inside the wheel arch. I thnik there is at least 2 stops better detail recovery than using the MKII

Yes it does look excellent..I'm not overly concerned about jpegs as I shoot RAW all the time anyway, do you have a 1Ds3 to compare?

Thanks again, George.

ps look forward to the burst test info!!
 
Thanks for posting the images.

Just had a play and saved for web as JPG.



6996609629_3e99a89397_b.jpg
 
Phew all looks pretty damn good to me.
 
neilyb said:
It has to be something in camera which is enabled and slowing the buffer down, I am sure with the 7D it was highISO NR. If it really will only hit 12frames, THAT SUCKS!
Click to expand...

Not as far I can see I have been back through everything, reset everything to Factory standard Buffer then drops to (10) as Auto Lighting Optimser is on, turn that off and make sure all other Noise Reduction etc is off and buffer goes back to (12), nothing I can do to increase it. Like I stated in realy world use at 6fps that gives about 14 Frames before it chokes,. (On a 400x UDMA Card), I cannot see any other way of getting it closer to a run of 18 unless with a massively faster card.. And as it is the buffer is already flushing really quickly, Full Buffer flushes in about 7 seconds.

TBH : The 12/14 is OK by me, is the RAW/JPG Buffer of just 6 that I find the real killer, at least the 5DII had 8 for RAW/JPG and at 3ish Frames a second would run for 3 Seconds before choking, Leave the MKIII on 6fps and it choking in a second or less.!!
 
Last edited:
That is surprisingly good and better than what I can achieve with the mark 2. Banding has always been an issue for me on the mark 2 but only at lower Isos (100 and 200). It's great to see that this has been approved in the mark 3.
 
George said:
Yes, ok perhaps my comment was a bit ambiguous, really want to compare the high ISO results on the 3 bodies, I like the 7D apart from the noise above 800 iso, and hope the 5D3 is quite a lot better and the 1.6 crop is great for wildlife on the 7D.

IQ comparison on the 1Ds3 and 5D3 will be interesting, though.
Click to expand...

Same boat as me, what to do, what to do ;)
(add a 5iii anyway being the obv answer lol)
 
501cards said:
OK Below are a set of test images in controlled studio lighting across the ISO Range from the 5D MKIII (Production Body) (UK) Firmware 1.0.7 No Noise Reduction or Sharpening, Direct transfer from RAW to JPG in Photoshop

FIRST - 100 ISO STUDIO LIGHTS BASE TEST

100 (FS).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/100 (F).jpg

1600 ISO

1600 (86S).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/1600 (86).jpg

3200 ISO

3200 (87S).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/3200 (87).jpg

6400 ISO

6400 (88S).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/6400 (88).jpg

12800 ISO

12800 (89S).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/12800 (89).jpg

25600 ISO

25600 (90S).jpg


LINK TO FULL SIZE JPG

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/25600 (90).jpg
Click to expand...

Hey Hotdog321
Any RAW comparison to 5D2 and 5D3?
Thanks
 
Set_Nights said:
What process did you use to recover this image in PP? It is an amazing result! I wouldn't mind having a go with some of my own underexposed images to see how big the difference is!
Click to expand...

No Technique at all, just underexposed original image by 4 stops, opened in Photoshop and slid the exposure slider to +4 stops, there are a lot more complicated tweaks that could be done, but I just wanted to check to see what could be recovered on a laptop out in the field as a rush job in case of disaster when an image needed submitting,
 
I'd be interested to see how it handles under-exposed skin tones recovered in PS/LR. The MkII was pretty nasty.
 
onona said:
Jesus. That example that 501cards posted just blew my mind.
Click to expand...


I know he has 5D2 also yet still no RAW high ISO comparison to 5D3.
In fact there is no legitimate RAW comparison anywhere I can find on the net.
I wonder why?
 
InsaneO said:
I know he has 5D2 also yet still no RAW high ISO comparison to 5D3.
In fact there is no legitimate RAW comparison anywhere I can find on the net.
I wonder why?
Click to expand...

know of a working RAW converter for 5d3? thougth so. that is why there is not many raw images. Plus u cant upload and preview raw files on a forum mate.

raw is just raw.
 
jonneymendoza said:
know of a working RAW converter for 5d3?
Click to expand...

ACR 6.7

There's been several links posted to it already on most of the 5DIII threads.

InsaneO said:
I know he has 5D2 also yet still no RAW high ISO comparison to 5D3.
In fact there is no legitimate RAW comparison anywhere I can find on the net.
I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Richard did post a comparison to a 5DII raw file here.
Give him a break, he's got a nice new camera and it's very nice of him to take time to post comparisons for us. I know if I had a shiny new 5DIII, I wouldn't be making time to post comparisons :nuts: :D


501cards said:
OK Test Charts :razz:

Just links as no point posting small jpgs

IMAGE 1 : 5D3 Direct From RAW unsharpened (100mm 2.8 @ f4)

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/3chart.jpg

IMAGE 2 : 5D3 In Camera JPG & Processing (100mm 2.8 @ f4)

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/3chartjpg.jpg

IMAGE 3 : 5D2 Direct RAW Same Lens and setup for comparison

http://www.ebaystorage.webspace.virginmedia.com/2chart.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
InsaneO said:
I know he has 5D2 also yet still no RAW high ISO comparison to 5D3.
In fact there is no legitimate RAW comparison anywhere I can find on the net.
I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Why what is the point? I posted the images I was taking to test the body to make sure it meets my work needs, I am not faffing around with comparison to another body thats for the reviews sites to do,

My little tests proved to me that

a) it produces better HIGH ISO images than I am able to produce with a MKII

b) it has better and faster AF than a MKII

c) the dual card slot works great and having a eyefi card in the SD card slot works superbly with the 5DIIIs built in menu support

d) the silent shutter is a godsend in theatres

e) the buffer is total rubbish, and a step down from the MKII in practical use

As for detailed pixel by pixel comparison between the bodies sorry thats not my thing, the items above were all I needed,
 
501cards said:
Why what is the point? I posted the images I was taking to test the body to make sure it meets my work needs, I am not faffing around with comparison to another body thats for the reviews sites to do,

My little tests proved to me that

a) it produces better HIGH ISO images than I am able to produce with a MKII

b) it has better and faster AF than a MKII

c) the dual card slot works great and having a eyefi card in the SD card slot works superbly with the 5DIIIs built in menu support

d) the silent shutter is a godsend in theatres

e) the buffer is total rubbish, and a step down from the MKII in practical use

As for detailed pixel by pixel comparison between the bodies sorry thats not my thing, the items above were all I needed,
Click to expand...


For heaven's sake Richard, that's just not good enough. Now go back and do the job again, only properly this time!!


FWIW your comments on the buffer have raised a few eyebrows amongst some press types that I was talking to yesterday, especially as one of them had a 1Dx with them.
 
DemiLion said:
For heaven's sake Richard, that's just not good enough. Now go back and do the job again, only properly this time!!


FWIW your comments on the buffer have raised a few eyebrows amongst some press types that I was talking to yesterday, especially as one of them had a 1Dx with them.
Click to expand...

I promise to do better next time honest gov.. :D

Yeah Buffer is the achillies heel, will be interesting to see how others feel on that one.

I Might toddle on down to Jacobs in NOStreet for the BPPA/Canon do on Thursday where the 5DIII is on the menu, to see what comments are made on the buffer
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
ACR 6.7

There's been several links posted to it already on most of the 5DIII threads.



Richard did post a comparison to a 5DII raw file here.
Give him a break, he's got a nice new camera and it's very nice of him to take time to post comparisons for us. I know if I had a shiny new 5DIII, I wouldn't be making time to post comparisons :nuts: :D
Click to expand...

Link does not work.
 
501cards said:
Why what is the point? I posted the images I was taking to test the body to make sure it meets my work needs, I am not faffing around with comparison to another body thats for the reviews sites to do,

My little tests proved to me that

a) it produces better HIGH ISO images than I am able to produce with a MKII

No disrespect but I don't think you would mind if I don't believe you on this one.


b) it has better and faster AF than a MKII

It ought to have after 3 years and millions of complaints.

c) the dual card slot works great and having a eyefi card in the SD card slot works superbly with the 5DIIIs built in menu support

d) the silent shutter is a godsend in theatres

e) the buffer is total rubbish, and a step down from the MKII in practical use

As for detailed pixel by pixel comparison between the bodies sorry thats not my thing, the items above were all I needed,
Click to expand...
 
InsaneO said:
They have 5d3 raw but not 5d2 raw.
If I compare NR-OFF JPGs 5d2 wins hands down compared to 5d3 RAW with no noise processing.
Click to expand...

??
You really look like a troll...

Some quick posts in this thread and you have already shot down the 5DIII
(comparing jpg is really not a good way to base any conclusions)
Wait for the RAW or search for yourself
The link to Adobe ACR 6.7 can be found through Google... or below

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

Welcome to the forum by the way ;)
 
InsaneO said:
No disrespect but I don't think you would mind if I don't believe you on this one.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want, but it's a bit presumptuous to start demanding studio RAW comparisons. I'm sure some sites will post some up soon, but till then you'll just have to make do with honest real world use opinions ;) :D

(Apologies if I'm sounding too hostile, I get grumpy sometimes. This forum is usually a very friendly place :))
 
Last edited:
I'd guess for most people the 5d3 improved autofocus system is the main benefit over the 5d2. Although I don't have a 5d2, the main complaint seemed to be that the outer focus points were not as reliable as some would like.

Both cameras seem to produce good quality pictures at ISO-1600, which would be enough for me in 99% of situations. At the moment I have a 1dm3 which is 'okay' at ISO-1600 (in most cases gives good enough pictures of night-time sports, concerts, etc).

I'm thinking of getting either a 5d2 or 5d3 for good quality, full-frame pictures at ISO settings up to 1600 (with most probably being taken around ISO-400) and both cameras would probably do that very well. So I guess the decision really comes down to the focusing system - is it worth paying twice as much for the improved system on the 5d3?
 
Wavy C said:
I'd guess for most people the 5d3 improved autofocus system is the main benefit over the 5d2. Although I don't have a 5d2, the main complaint seemed to be that the outer focus points were not as reliable as some would like.

Both cameras seem to produce good quality pictures at ISO-1600, which would be enough for me in 99% of situations. At the moment I have a 1dm3 which is 'okay' at ISO-1600 (in most cases gives good enough pictures of night-time sports, concerts, etc).

I'm thinking of getting either a 5d2 or 5d3 for good quality, full-frame pictures at ISO settings up to 1600 (with most probably being taken around ISO-400) and both cameras would probably do that very well. So I guess the decision really comes down to the focusing system - is it worth paying twice as much for the improved system on the 5d3?
Click to expand...

In the situation you have quoted if you are happy to just use the centre focus point rather than the outers, then I reckon you would be just as happy with the MKII

Running the MKII and MKIII side by side in low light conditions I find the following

MKII, Centre point locks fast even in the lowest light and 80% of the time its an accurate lock, the other 20% it will confirm lock but it has not, on the outer points that drops to 50/50 or less

MKIII, Centre point locks fairly fast in low light, slower than the MKII by a noticable amout, but when it locks its right on, no hit or miss, it either locks or it gives up no false readings. Same with the outer points but again with a slowdown,

The MKII, seems to go for best and what the hell, The MKIII seems to go for right or not at all.

This may be down to the much more advanced menu settings in the AF Menu allowing you to choose much more detailed Focus over speed options than you can on the MKII
 
501cards said:
In the situation you have quoted if you are happy to just use the centre focus point rather than the outers, then I reckon you would be just as happy with the MKII

Running the MKII and MKIII side by side in low light conditions I find the following

MKII, Centre point locks fast even in the lowest light and 80% of the time its an accurate lock, the other 20% it will confirm lock but it has not, on the outer points that drops to 50/50 or less

MKIII, Centre point locks fairly fast in low light, slower than the MKII by a noticable amout, but when it locks its right on, no hit or miss, it either locks or it gives up no false readings. Same with the outer points but again with a slowdown,

The MKII, seems to go for best and what the hell, The MKIII seems to go for right or not at all.

This may be down to the much more advanced menu settings in the AF Menu allowing you to choose much more detailed Focus over speed options than you can on the MKII
Click to expand...


What AF setings are there in the menu and have you experimented with them ?
 
It might be worth looking on the 7D owners thread at their AF settings. I know initially there were reports of the &d being slow to focus/lock on.
 
Tugster said:
What AF setings are there in the menu and have you experimented with them ?
Click to expand...

As standard it comes set as Midrange in Focus over Speed in both the single shot mode and Servo mode

3 step menu

Speed MID Focus

Personally I want focus over speed so have set to Focus priority for all

You can adjust for Single Shot, and in Servo for 1st Shot and Following shots as seperate items.

I have not really had the time or inclination to delve too much, but I have moved all from Mid Range on the sliders to Focus Priority before shot.

Interesting if the MK III is noticeably slower to lock on than the 5D II - not what I was expecting.
Click to expand...

Only as far as I have seen in Low Light, in daylight I could not tell between the MKII and MKIII, and as stated the MKIII does seem to be more accurate % wise in Low Light (Especially on the outer points), so that lack of speed in those instances is no downside, rather a slightly slower lock and a sharp image than a camera reporting lock and producing duffers (as is the tendancy of the 5DII on outer points)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top