5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Started Jun 20, 2012 | Discussions
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,334
Re: OK, I took a look at the RAW files

Ogjetaknight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Both are underexposed way more than they need to be. What was the intent of that? I suspect if you reshot these with a better exposure setting you would see a lot of improvement.
--

It's probably eaiser for him to just get the d800

Yep... he'll never be happy with it even if he does learn how to run it. On the one with the bucket, he has tossed out the entire upper quarter of the histogram. He is better on the other one (the flower) but he has still not made full use of the DR available. There is nothing about his exposure strategy that makes any sense to me. Of course the Sony advocates will say if you F it up, you can recover but why not get it right to start with. That’s why God gave us the histogram in the first place ;-).

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
Re: Take it back

Tried to download from your link. The service wants to install some executable file on my computer in order to download - sorry, not going there! FTP or some alliterative might be worth a try.

Dan

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

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...

Ogjetaknight Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: Take it back

gdanmitchell wrote:

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

Come on guys! This is not a matter of taste of if it bothers someone or not. A camera of this league should not demonstrate lo iso noise. This is not a super feature that I am asking, this is basics. And I hardly doubt It has to do with underexposure... Even in other decently exposed images the problem lurks in the shadows...

All digital cameras produce noise - there is no such thing as a noise-free image from a DSLR. If you go looking for noise in shadows at 100% magnification, you will find it. But it doesn't matter one bit. I print large (in-house Epson 7900) and noise from a 5D2 has never been a problem - not once is a well-exposed image.

The camera doesn't make decisions. The photographer does. If you want the lowest possible noise and the highest possible image quality you must make smart exposure decisions - no matter what camera you use and regardless of whether you shoot digital or film.

You still seem to want to go with the assumption that the 5D3 is somehow so deficient as a breed that it is incapable of producing images without terrible noise problems. If that were true, it would seem that all 5D3 images (and yours are supposedly typical in terms of ISO and subjects and so forth) would exhibit this deal-busting problem that you seem to have. Unless you can find evidence that 5D3 cameras in general seem unable to produce low noise images in reasonably challenging circumstances - and there area a lot of photographers who seem to be able to make this work - you are giving the appearance of being obsessive in your belief the Canon has produced a defective product. Let's be blunt - you aren't making a lot of sense here.

The questions are:

  • is the noise visible in your intended output format? (as opposed to when you go looking for it at 100% on your monitor)

  • what decisions does a wise photographer make who wants to minimize noise? (Such as exposing to the right and so forth.)

If you want a dark and dramatic look, do what photographs have done for many decades - capture the best possible image data regardless of what the capture itself looks like, and then apply post-processing techniques to produce the best possible print. In order to produce a dark print, there is a right way and a (usually) wrong way:

Wrong way - Expose the image to look dark in camera. This means underexposing, perhaps radically, which increases noise and creates other issues such as limiting the available dynamic range of the capture. The lure of "getting it right in camera" is powerful, but this does not mean making it look right in camera.

Right way - Expose to the right so that you capture the largest possible dynamic range and keep as much of the tonal range of the image out of the very darkest luminosity levels, thus maintaining a large signal to noise ratio. In post , modify the image in ways that get the "look" you desire. If you start with a capture that looks overly bright compared to the original scene, and you then darken in in post, you will end up with a very clean print.

(I learned this the hard way many years back with my first DSLR. I was shooting in Death Valley - at the Racetrack - at night under a full moon. I ignorantly trusted the image display in the LCD of my camera. Hey, it looked just like my surroundings - e.g. very dark. This was a terrible mistake since all of the tones were in the lowest luminosity range and I had to tremendously boost everything in post. I was barely able to salvage some of the photos, but I had to engage in tons of noise reduction shenanigans.

I learned my lesson. Since that time I have done a lot of night photography. (see http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/v/HumanWorld/NightPhotography/ ) I alway trust the histogram, and I get exactly the look I want in post.

Take care,

Dan

Your absolutely right, with all this talk of lifting shadows, I actually find myself darkening them most of the time to produce a more contrasty dramatic effect.

Ogjetaknight Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: OK, I took a look at the RAW files

David Hull wrote:

Ogjetaknight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Both are underexposed way more than they need to be. What was the intent of that? I suspect if you reshot these with a better exposure setting you would see a lot of improvement.
--

It's probably eaiser for him to just get the d800

Yep... he'll never be happy with it even if he does learn how to run it. On the one with the bucket, he has tossed out the entire upper quarter of the histogram. He is better on the other one (the flower) but he has still not made full use of the DR available. There is nothing about his exposure strategy that makes any sense to me. Of course the Sony advocates will say if you F it up, you can recover but why not get it right to start with. That’s why God gave us the histogram in the first place ;-).

Yep, I wonder if this new sensor tech is going to make us all really lazy?

tmr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Take it back

You have highlight tone priority set which increases noise (pg 146 in the manual). You also have peripheral illumination correction set which can also increase noise (pg 156). Note that with HTP disabled you can also get some noise from auto lighting optimizer. For lowest noise you need to turn that off too.

As you've noted, DPP does a much better job with the noise, at least on the first file. The banding seems totally due to the LR conversion. The second file is two stops underexposed which isn't going to help with shadow noise.

A last thing I noticed that may be relevant to your first shot is the 5d3 rendering shadow detail similar to noise. I've seen this in shots where shadows without detail were noise free but shadows with detail present looked noisy.

 tmr's gear list:tmr's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 400D Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +4 more
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,334
Re: OK, I took a look at the RAW files

Ogjetaknight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Ogjetaknight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Both are underexposed way more than they need to be. What was the intent of that? I suspect if you reshot these with a better exposure setting you would see a lot of improvement.
--

It's probably eaiser for him to just get the d800

Yep... he'll never be happy with it even if he does learn how to run it. On the one with the bucket, he has tossed out the entire upper quarter of the histogram. He is better on the other one (the flower) but he has still not made full use of the DR available. There is nothing about his exposure strategy that makes any sense to me. Of course the Sony advocates will say if you F it up, you can recover but why not get it right to start with. That’s why God gave us the histogram in the first place ;-).

Yep, I wonder if this new sensor tech is going to make us all really lazy?

Could be.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Juhn Regular Member • Posts: 189
Useless reply - I can't help it.

Don't waste your time(more than what I am doing)

gigamel Regular Member • Posts: 178
You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Here you can see the difference between the 2008, D700 and the 2012, 5D3
The 5D3 looks like crap at +4

http://dslr-check.info/2012/0511_5D3_ISO200+4EV.jpg

http://dslr-check.info/2012/0511_D700_ISO200+4EV.jpg

And that despite the read noise, DR and SNR being about equal for the two cameras, somehow Canon cant make a camera with clean ISO 100 - Nikon can, even without the use of Sony-Exmor tech

That is why Lloyd Chambers concluded about the 5D3:

"I am glad I shoot both Nikon and Canon— the Canon gear can stay in the drawer with silica gel for long term storage. Having recently reviewed the Canon 5D Mark III, the difference in color and detail isn’t even in the same league; the D800 is so far ahead that the 5DM3 simply does not merit consideration for those considering one or the other."

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120405_2-D800-examples2.html

"As for the Canon 5D Mark III, it’s no longer April Fools day. I will give Canon another chance with the 1D X."

http://diglloyd.com/articles/LensAndCameraIssues/PushingTheBlacks.html

octane2 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

There's a reason why DPP limits you to plus and minus 2 stops of exposure latitude.

If you need to push an image by 4 stops, well, that says it all, doesn't it?

Perhaps, one day, you'll make the right turn on the path that leads you to the Nikon forum. Those of us with our inferior Canon cameras will continue to make horrible photographs. :rolls eyes:

Regards,
H

gigamel wrote:

Here you can see the difference between the 2008, D700 and the 2012, 5D3
The 5D3 looks like crap at +4

ron purdy Senior Member • Posts: 2,493
Re: Take it back

Turn that Light Optimizer thing off - It causes banding. (I noticed you have that option on.) Oh, and use DPP instead of reverse-engineered apps such as lightroom to process the files. DPP does a much better job in my experience.

ron purdy dot com

gigamel Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Yeah, but it is still VERY disappointing that 2012, $3500 Canon tech cant beat 2008 Nikon tech, right?!!

And an eyeopener for the hardcore Canon-fanboys - It's NOT only because of Sony tech that Nikon does better!

octane2 wrote:

There's a reason why DPP limits you to plus and minus 2 stops of exposure latitude.

If you need to push an image by 4 stops, well, that says it all, doesn't it?

Perhaps, one day, you'll make the right turn on the path that leads you to the Nikon forum. Those of us with our inferior Canon cameras will continue to make horrible photographs. :rolls eyes:

Regards,
H

gigamel wrote:

Here you can see the difference between the 2008, D700 and the 2012, 5D3
The 5D3 looks like crap at +4

Alexandros Trichos
OP Alexandros Trichos Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

First of all I will assume this is a normal behavior of the camera, so this is not a bad copy that I have, thats how all 5dIIIs are.

Second, I can't se how some people are so blind. The camera is a tool, it should be working as expected, even if the man behind that is an amateur or a professional. This is a technical thing. There is noise at low isos where it shouldn't exist. I cannot understand why people imply that "A good photographer should not care for such things" or "we pay a lot of moony but we don't care about such things, because we are good photographers".

In that sense a good photographer should not care going to a 5d or whatever other good tool. This way of thinking just makes me crazy.

And I don't believe that the problem is the underexposed images. It has nothing to do with it. This phenomenon, as I mentioned before, also appears in other properly exposed images.

Anyway... I don't really know what to do...

 Alexandros Trichos's gear list:Alexandros Trichos's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +2 more
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

gigamel wrote:

Yeah, but it is still VERY disappointing that 2012, $3500 Canon tech cant beat 2008 Nikon tech, right?!!

Wrong. The 5D3 shoots video. It has much higher resolution. Better LCD. Much better viewfinder. More capable AF system. Wider ISO range. Dual card slots. Higher burst rate. Better buffer. Lighter body ....

Oh - but you aren't considering any of that are you. Silly me!

gigamel Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

SILLY YOU!! - The OP asked about "low ISO", Dohhh!

And that is VERY disappointing that Canon is still stuck with 2005 tech performance

And even the $7000 1Dx cant save Canon - same horrible banding as 5D3:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41684369

schmegg wrote:

gigamel wrote:

Yeah, but it is still VERY disappointing that 2012, $3500 Canon tech cant beat 2008 Nikon tech, right?!!

Wrong. The 5D3 shoots video. It has much higher resolution. Better LCD. Much better viewfinder. More capable AF system. Wider ISO range. Dual card slots. Higher burst rate. Better buffer. Lighter body ....

Oh - but you aren't considering any of that are you. Silly me!

Ogjetaknight Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

First of all I will assume this is a normal behavior of the camera, so this is not a bad copy that I have, thats how all 5dIIIs are.

Second, I can't se how some people are so blind. The camera is a tool, it should be working as expected, even if the man behind that is an amateur or a professional. This is a technical thing. There is noise at low isos where it shouldn't exist. I cannot understand why people imply that "A good photographer should not care for such things" or "we pay a lot of moony but we don't care about such things, because we are good photographers".

In that sense a good photographer should not care going to a 5d or whatever other good tool. This way of thinking just makes me crazy.

And I don't believe that the problem is the underexposed images. It has nothing to do with it. This phenomenon, as I mentioned before, also appears in other properly exposed images.

Anyway... I don't really know what to do...

Actually, it's really simple. As I have stated before, if noise in the shadows at 100-200 % is absolutly unacceptable for you and you need the cleanest low iso images possiable, then you must get the d800.

It does help in many instances though to expose for the highlights and lower the shadows if necessary.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

gigamel wrote:

SILLY YOU!! - The OP asked about "low ISO", Dohhh!

And that is VERY disappointing that Canon is still stuck with 2005 tech performance

Thing is - it's not disappointing to me because the images I get are great.

We have weirdos underexposing images by 3 stops, pushing them up 6 stops in post, then peeping at 100% and splitting hairs about perceived differences! LOL! Morons the lot of 'em!

Fact is all the 5D series cameras deliver wonderful images at low ISO in the hands of capable photographers. The fact that you fail to recognise this tell us all a lot more about your own photographic knowledge than it does about anything else.

But hey - thanks for making it so clear for us! LOL!

gigamel Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Denial:

"An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings."

It is all about NOISE! - that you chooses to be blind is your problem!

It is only fair that the OP raises the question of the EXTREMELY NOISY 2012 Canon sensors that Canon has the nerve to charge $3500 for.

schmegg wrote:

gigamel wrote:

SILLY YOU!! - The OP asked about "low ISO", Dohhh!

And that is VERY disappointing that Canon is still stuck with 2005 tech performance

Thing is - it's not disappointing to me because the images I get are great.

We have weirdos underexposing images by 3 stops, pushing them up 6 stops in post, then peeping at 100% and splitting hairs about perceived differences! LOL! Morons the lot of 'em!

Fact is all the 5D series cameras deliver wonderful images at low ISO in the hands of capable photographers. The fact that you fail to recognise this tell us all a lot more about your own photographic knowledge than it does about anything else.

But hey - thanks for making it so clear for us! LOL!

Alexandros Trichos
OP Alexandros Trichos Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

I DID NOT push anything.

Some people are blind...

 Alexandros Trichos's gear list:Alexandros Trichos's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +2 more
Alexandros Trichos
OP Alexandros Trichos Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Hmmm looks interesting....

http://colorbyjorg.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/highlight-tone-priority-htp-choice-of-iso-and-noise/

That is something. And why is that with the broken isos? I ll try it...

 Alexandros Trichos's gear list:Alexandros Trichos's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +2 more
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

gigamel wrote:

Denial:

"An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings."

It is all about NOISE! - that you chooses to be blind is your problem!

It is only fair that the OP raises the question of the EXTREMELY NOISY 2012 Canon sensors that Canon has the nerve to charge $3500 for.

Yes - in fact, according to DXO, slightly less noise at all ISO's than the D700 and all but exactly the same noise as the D800.

So by your logic, Nikon has failed to improve their own design since the D700! LOL! You need to take some reality pills!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads