5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Started Jun 20, 2012 | Discussions
paul johe Regular Member • Posts: 271
Re: Oh boy

You said images are right out of camera initially, right? Now I read they are from LR. If you don't apply noise removal from LR, you may get more noise which might be normal. My recommendation is set all (including noise removal) normal for JPG, look at the picture and compare to your LR processing. If camera JPG doesn't give you that much noise, it is processing to me. Play with LR's noise removal and see. I still suspect you processed LR without any noise reduction for low lighted areas.

MayaTlab0
MayaTlab0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,736
Re: Take it back

I suggest you to try disabling the Highlight Tone Priority option (unless you want to keep highlight recovery potential at its maximum) and use a moderate amount of chroma noise reduction.

To be fair to Canon most sensors apart from the new Sony ones display chroma noise in the near black areas, even at low ISOs. Nothing that Lightroom can't handle. The main difference with recent Canon cameras is the pattern created by the noise, which is trickier to correct, but not impossible.

Ross Murphy Senior Member • Posts: 1,968
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Return it Dude

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...

 Ross Murphy's gear list:Ross Murphy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Nikon D810
paul johe Regular Member • Posts: 271
Re: Take it back

Which sony ones?

MayaTlab0 wrote:

apart from the new Sony ones display chroma noise in the near black areas, even at low ISOs. Nothing that Lightroom can't handle.

David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: Take it back

paul johe wrote:

Which sony ones?

Everyone is referring to the new Exmor sensors deployed in the latest Nikons like the D7000 and teh D800.

MayaTlab0 wrote:

apart from the new Sony ones display chroma noise in the near black areas, even at low ISOs. Nothing that Lightroom can't handle.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Alexandros Trichos
OP Alexandros Trichos Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: Take it back

All I want to know is if this is a flaw by design or a defective copy.

For my, quality-wise, this is a flaw either way.

But if it is by design, I can't see why the community is blind such a serious shortcoming.
Am I the only one who cares about 100% crop quality?

Hello , noise and banding from ISO100 on a nearly-flagship 3.5k product ???

Why? And where the h*ll is the fantastic noise performance it is supposed to have?

I don't know... And believe my this is not a flame war or anything, I am canon to the bone, with a good investment in gear.

I am not a liar, my 350d did better in this respect! And all I wanted was top-notch quality, thats why I hot the 5dIII...

If this is a bad copy though, things are different...

 Alexandros Trichos's gear list:Alexandros Trichos's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +2 more
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: Take it back

MayaTlab0 wrote:

I suggest you to try disabling the Highlight Tone Priority option (unless you want to keep highlight recovery potential at its maximum) and use a moderate amount of chroma noise reduction.

To be fair to Canon most sensors apart from the new Sony ones display chroma noise in the near black areas, even at low ISOs. Nothing that Lightroom can't handle. The main difference with recent Canon cameras is the pattern created by the noise, which is trickier to correct, but not impossible.

I agree. You are actually preaching to the choir here. I don't think his banding is excessive and it may be typical -- don't know for sure. However, my point was that if he finds this degree of pattern noise unacceptable, his solution is simple -- just return the camera (maybe try another one).

As for me I have looked at a lot of these sorts of test shots (I would love to have his RAW file) and have convinced myself that the degree of pattern noise in this new camera is an Improvement over the 5DII (which I DO own). Since I might buy one of these things, I am obviously interested.

I don’t think anyone who knows my posting history would ever accuse me of not being fair to Canon That’s just it, though, I DO believe that some fairness is deserved which is why I sometimes go off on some of the hyperbolic, over the top crapola that occasionally gets posted here (sadly, more than occasionally these days).

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
bobbidog Contributing Member • Posts: 894
Re: Take it back

Alexandros, this reminds me of my 5D MKII. Apparently the Mark III (at least your model) shows similar chroma noise and banding that also shows on my MKII. But this phenomenon has been disussed here oh the forum for years and month. Strange thing for sure...
--
happy fotoing :: bobbidog

Phil Hill Senior Member • Posts: 2,757
Re: Take it back

I’ve never seen anything like that from mine.

cpkuntz
cpkuntz Senior Member • Posts: 1,003
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

A bit of chroma noise at ISO 100 in the shadows is normal, but it usually looks a bit mottled and more pleasant than digital noise usually tends to be. I have never seen banding like this in images from my 5D Mark III. This is something that was seen occasionally in the 5D Mark II. I would return the camera for servicing or exchange it for a new body. In my opinion this is unacceptable at ISO 100.

Here is a recent image I took with some shadows in the background. NR was default.

birdbrain
birdbrain Veteran Member • Posts: 3,525
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Yes!
--
Phil

I wondered why the ball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/philthebirdbrain/

 birdbrain's gear list:birdbrain's gear list
Sony RX10 II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +13 more
Deorum Contributing Member • Posts: 753
Re: Take it back

Send the RAW, its easy via sendspace etc free services.

google, how to send large files.

Shadows, are being pushed much more than a result of EV Compensation. Some Blacks, some brightness, some saturation, some other color profile, you might have already pushed the shadow area 4-5 stops without realizing it.

And another thing. If there is a flaw, HOW on earth, can a flaw cause simple more shadow noise? A flaw could be a mechanical problem, or a operational problem. Not a problem with IQ, on certain noise performance situations. There is no deviation at that. It either works or doesnt. If it doesnt, its gonna have a huge difference with the normal one.

-- hide signature --
 Deorum's gear list:Deorum's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X +7 more
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

banding, pattern noise, low dynamic range, high read out noise at low iso
Canon - no way.

https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000

David Hull wrote:

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...

Sadly, you are the only one. Nobody has ever made this comment before, we have never heard of it.

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

You are probably underexposing. Are you shooting raw or jpg? If raw, do you have your raw converter set to automatically optimize exposure? If so, defeat that setting to see what you are actually capturing. Also, when you shoot are you checking your histogram display and using (more or less) and expose to the right approach?

Dan

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

Am I the only one to think that 5d MK3 has very poor performance in shadows, even in low isos like 100 or 200 ? High color noise, weird noise patterns, vertical bands/stripes all without any pushing!!!
Straight out of the box the images look terrible in the shadow areas.
Why is that? I am very disappointed. VERY disappointed ...
Even my poor old 350d did better in that domain...

Shane Pope Senior Member • Posts: 1,264
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Try turning off both Alexandros i would never use either my personal belief is they introduce alot of undesirable effects

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

I haven't pushed anything...

Could it be the Auto Lighting Optimizer or the Highlight tone priority or any other setting anywhere??? I am also using Lightroom 4.1...

-- hide signature --
 Shane Pope's gear list:Shane Pope's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance. variations

welcome to Canon world, a world full of of surprises if you look deep in the shadows because of the following reasons , unevenness from readout channels,banding, high read noise and variations from camera to camera.

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

I haven't pushed anything...

Could it be the Auto Lighting Optimizer or the Highlight tone priority or any other setting anywhere??? I am also using Lightroom 4.1...

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
Re: Take it back

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

Hello , noise and banding from ISO100 on a nearly-flagship 3.5k product ???

Basically there are three possible explanations for what you are seeing. Let me list them in order of decreasing probability:

1. The cause can be traced to some aspect of your shooting technique, most likely underexposure with consequent radical adjustments to compensate in post. You can rule this out by setting your camera at the ISO 100 setting you mention, making an exposure in raw mode, and then checking the camera histogram display to make sure that the curve reaches all the way to the right edge of the display or else very slightly (a fraction of a stop) short of it. (It is a bit more complicated than that, but this is a fine way to start.)

If the histogram curve does not look like this - e.g., it is clustered in the lower/left half of the histogram display - you are underexposing. In order to get what looks like a normal image out of this underexposed image either your camera (if you shoot jpg) or your raw conversion software are making gross adjustments to a poor exposure... and you will get awful noise.

2. There could be something wrong with your particular camera - e.g. a manufacturing or other flaw in the single unit that you acquired. This is pretty unlikely considering the nature of the problem you describe, but it isn't quite impossible. If you do the test above - shooting at ISO 100 and obtaining a good histogram on the camera LCD display - and you still see gross noise in normal subjects then you might want to take the camera back to the vendor or send it to Canon for a look. Again, this is quite unlikely to be the problem.

3. There is an inherent flaw in the design of the 5D3 camera that makes in unable to produce good image quality at ISO 100. While people could argue the fuzzy edges of what "good image quality" means and point to very marginal differences between one camera and another, the odds that the 5D3 as a breed is simply so defective that one cannot produce a photograph at ISO 100 without really awful noise of the type you describe... is basically impossible.

What I think I notice in your posting sequence here is that you seem to be starting with the assumption that the least likely (indeed, virtually impossible) third explanation is the one to go with. I think you are barking very badly up the wrong tree here, and that this is going to be a very unproductive and futile approach for you to take to the problem.

The second option is slightly less unlikely that the nearly-impossible third option, but not utterly and completely out to the question. If you really think that you somehow picked up a lemon that expresses its inner "lemon-ness" by generating horrible levels of noise at ISO 100, then you should return it or send it to Canon for service since it you would have to assume that it is your camera rather than all 5D3 cameras with the potential problem.

In my experience, the far more likely (though I'll agree, not the only) explanation likely lies with how you are using the camera. Here is one scenario that I've seen quite a few times. A new DSLR owner makes some photographs, perhaps looking at the image (but not the histogram) on the read LCD and liking the darker rendition , or else not looking there much at all... and then brings the image into the computer for conversion in DPP or even Lightroom, etc. These programs often will default to using some automatic exposure adjustments that make your images look like they are exposed correctly - but they do this even when the underlying exposure is way off. For example, the shot might be underexposed by several or even many stops, but it looks correctly exposed to you in the conversion program because the program automatically and invisibly compensated for your error. When it makes this compensation it must take very, very poor image data - especially from shadow areas - and brighten it up, with the consequence being absolutely horrible noise - just like you describe.

There are two ways to see this. First, check that histogram at the time of exposure by viewing the histogram display on the camera back. Second, disable any automatic adjustment preferences that your raw conversion app may have, allowing you to see the "actual" raw image is it was captured.

What would make the exposures be so far off? There are several common culprits. It is not uncommon for people with new cameras (and sometimes older cameras!) to accidentally switch to a different exposure mode on the camera, perhaps accidentally moving the dial to the manual setting. Or, it is possible to not realize that the an exposure compensation setting has been dialed in - either you did it by accident or you did it on purpose and forgot to set the compensation back to neutral.

Also, for an earlier poster in this thread: There is virtually never any reason to post full size images in forum threads. They take forever to load and mess up the forum display! Please don't do this. Either post a small cropped section at 100% magnification to illustrate your point, or include a link to some other place where those who are actually interesting in full images can find them if they want.

Thanks,

Dan

thelensmeister Contributing Member • Posts: 900
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Shoot a shot in RAW and Manual mode - this switches off all that gumf.

Then let us see the RAW please.

I will see if i have a similar RAW...

Shane Pope wrote:

Try turning off both Alexandros i would never use either my personal belief is they introduce alot of undesirable effects

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

I haven't pushed anything...

Could it be the Auto Lighting Optimizer or the Highlight tone priority or any other setting anywhere??? I am also using Lightroom 4.1...

octane2 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

ALO and HTP are not supported by third party reverse-engineered software that is not endorsed by Canon.

Use the software that came with your camera (Digital Photo Professional) and you won't see these problems. Furthermore, ALO, PIC, HTP, DLO and all the other Canon goodies will be honoured.

Regards,
H

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

I haven't pushed anything...

Could it be the Auto Lighting Optimizer or the Highlight tone priority or any other setting anywhere??? I am also using Lightroom 4.1...

Alexandros Trichos
OP Alexandros Trichos Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: Take it back

So here are the raws.

http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/nA3A16dCP9CjsnDtdsf2%2FQ

You can judge for yourselves!

And by the way, I see the original image. No compensation is being applied by lightroom. I acknowledge the whole histogram/curve thing, but what if I want an image to be underexposed deliberately? I don't have the right? Or shall the camera punish me with noise of some kind. I don't have the right to have shadows in my images ? Again, the images are not 'pushed' or exposure compensated, at least not as far as I can see.

On a side note though the Canon DPP displays a bit different image. Less sharp and a bit less noisy than the one in lightoom. The problem still exists tough. I guess this has to do with the default sharpening? I am not sure...

 Alexandros Trichos's gear list:Alexandros Trichos's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads