5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Started Jun 20, 2012 | Discussions
Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,342
JPEG quality used for posted samples....

I haven't read the entire thread. But, one thing that I noticed was how small the file sizes were in your posted samples.

For example, this one is only around 73KB for a 1000x667 pixel image, which tells me that a low quality/high compression JPEG setting was being used somewhere in your workflow (perhaps how you saved the image after downsizing for web posting).

http://g2.img-dpreview.com/8663F47AFD214A7EB4ED67160C4BEE5B.jpg

So, part of what you may be seeing is JPEG compression artifacts from lower quality settings (higher JPEG compression) exaggerating any image defects.

-- hide signature --

JimC

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,378
I'm sorry to hear that the 1Dx truth insulted you.

gigamel wrote:

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

Your 1Dx attitude needs some adjustment!
Visit the site and observe what the dog is doing too the D800
http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/

What Can I Say?

Walter Sr
--
I am out to take the perfect picture, if it exits!

David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows
 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 21,391
Re: Take it back

MayaTlab0 wrote:

Does this correspond to what one can see on this graph (The D800 curve is straightforward, while the 5D MKIII curve goes up and down) ?
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III

Yes. The zig-zagging is caused by the fact that the 1/3-stop ISOs on the Canon are pushes and pulls from ISOs that have most of their read noise coming from a later stage, after amplification.

Is it possible on Canon cameras to force auto ISO to use only the optimal stops ?

Not on any that I own.

For auto-ISO, whole stops wouldn't work well with M mode, as the JPEGs and review images would have varying brightness. It is also true that 1/3-stop ISOs will not cause any extra noise in auto-ISO M because, for example, ISOs 160, 200, and 250 all have the same amount of noise with a fixed manual exposure. The 250 will have 1/4 stop less RAW highlights, though, because of the push.

-- hide signature --

John

David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

schmegg wrote:

gigamel wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You only photograph grey cards????????
ALL your pixels are exposed to 18% middle grey???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ALL normal images contain a variety of grey levels!!!

Take a look at your histograms!!!

DOHHHHH!!!!

Gee. What a mature response!

Umm ...

Yes - I expose my images correctly so that the subject is not 4 stops under. In fact, most of my histogram that encompasses my subject is usually well toward the right hand side.

Seriously - take a look at the DPR RAW images. The difference is marginal at best. Pick ISO100 and use your anal abilities to look into the very shadowiest bits. There is SFA difference. Please don't make me post the crops and make you look even more ridiculous than you already do.

You are attempting to create an issue where none exists. And it's falling flat with all of us that have actually held a 5D series camera in our hands and used it to create images (something you quite obviously haven't done).

Not only that, but in typical fashion, he has posted two unusable images and is making the argument that one is more "unusable" than the other. If he put up the same image from a D800, processed the same way, there would be significantly less noise and the image might be usable. The Sony technology is simply unbeatable in this regard, not even by Nikon's e/w non-Sony sensors. Nobody is in "denial", Sony has the best architecture for this sort of shooting scenario, if you are intent on lifting shadows 4 stops, get a Sony based camera. For the rest of us that seldom ever need to do that most any camera will do fine.

As for his hair-splitting over dBs, there is a reason that DxO puts up the SNR curve that they do and that is because (as you point out) it is representative of what a typical user will get in typical photographs. This is a fact that is also well supported by the IR and DPR tests where the images are essentially indistinguishable between all of the cameras we are discussing.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
rwbaron Forum Pro • Posts: 13,977
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

+1

A very reasonable perspective on the issue.

Bob

David Hull wrote:

Nicely put.
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/

-- hide signature --
 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +8 more
MayaTlab0
MayaTlab0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,736
Re: Take it back

John Sheehy wrote:

MayaTlab0 wrote:

Does this correspond to what one can see on this graph (The D800 curve is straightforward, while the 5D MKIII curve goes up and down) ?
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III

Yes. The zig-zagging is caused by the fact that the 1/3-stop ISOs on the Canon are pushes and pulls from ISOs that have most of their read noise coming from a later stage, after amplification.

Is it possible on Canon cameras to force auto ISO to use only the optimal stops ?

Not on any that I own.

That's what I thought

For auto-ISO, whole stops wouldn't work well with M mode, as the JPEGs and review images would have varying brightness. It is also true that 1/3-stop ISOs will not cause any extra noise in auto-ISO M because, for example, ISOs 160, 200, and 250 all have the same amount of noise with a fixed manual exposure. The 250 will have 1/4 stop less RAW highlights, though, because of the push.

Thanks for your answer.

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

schmegg wrote:

gigamel wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You only photograph grey cards????????
ALL your pixels are exposed to 18% middle grey???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ALL normal images contain a variety of grey levels!!!

Take a look at your histograms!!!

DOHHHHH!!!!

Gee. What a mature response!

Umm ...

Yes - I expose my images correctly so that the subject is not 4 stops under. In fact, most of my histogram that encompasses my subject is usually well toward the right hand side.

Seriously - take a look at the DPR RAW images. The difference is marginal at best. Pick ISO100 and use your anal abilities to look into the very shadowiest bits. There is SFA difference. Please don't make me post the crops and make you look even more ridiculous than you already do.

You are attempting to create an issue where none exists. And it's falling flat with all of us that have actually held a 5D series camera in our hands and used it to create images (something you quite obviously haven't done).

Do you seriously think that ALL pixels in a "correctly" exposed image will have the same SNR as a 18% grey card????

The whole point is that the shadow parts of the image are NOT exposed to 18% - hence have WAY more noise like in the OPs example - do you get it now?!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41837825

The SNR at 1% is

5D3 24 dB
D700 27 dB
D800 27 db (1 stop better than the 5D3)

All at the pixel level (!) making the D800 pixel just as good as the way bigger D700 pixels and both a stop (3 dB) better than the 5D3 at 1% gray

The SNR at 0,5% is

5D3 19,5 dB
D700 23,5 dB
D800 24,5 dB (nearly 2 stop better than 5D3)

The SNR at 0.1% is

5D3 6 dB
D700 10 dB
D800 15,5 dB (3 stop better than 5D3)

The SNR at 0.05% is

5D3 0 dB (noise and signal are equal)
D700 6 dB
D800 12 dB (4 stops better than the 5D3)

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

David Hull wrote:

As for his hair-splitting over dBs, there is a reason that DxO puts up the SNR curve that they do and that is because (as you point out) it is representative of what a typical user will get in typical photographs. This is a fact that is also well supported by the IR and DPR tests where the images are essentially indistinguishable between all of the cameras we are discussing.

Come on David! you don't understand either??!!

The SNR18 from DxO is the SNR of the part of the image that is exposed to 18% - middle grey - the middle of the histogram - okay?! (and actually only the green pixels - the red and the blue are more noisy) - but the shadow parts of the image ARE NOT EXPOSED to 18%, but WAY less - hence they are more noisy - GET IT?!!!

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

gigamel wrote:

schmegg wrote:

gigamel wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You only photograph grey cards????????
ALL your pixels are exposed to 18% middle grey???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ALL normal images contain a variety of grey levels!!!

Take a look at your histograms!!!

DOHHHHH!!!!

Gee. What a mature response!

Umm ...

Yes - I expose my images correctly so that the subject is not 4 stops under. In fact, most of my histogram that encompasses my subject is usually well toward the right hand side.

Seriously - take a look at the DPR RAW images. The difference is marginal at best. Pick ISO100 and use your anal abilities to look into the very shadowiest bits. There is SFA difference. Please don't make me post the crops and make you look even more ridiculous than you already do.

You are attempting to create an issue where none exists. And it's falling flat with all of us that have actually held a 5D series camera in our hands and used it to create images (something you quite obviously haven't done).

Do you seriously think that ALL pixels in a "correctly" exposed image will have the same SNR as a 18% grey card????

Did I say that?

No - I didn't.

What I did, however, say is that the subject of my image will be exposed much closer to 18% grey than it will to the figures you quote below which apply to 1% shadow.

The whole point is that the shadow parts of the image is NOT exposed to 18% - hence have WAY more noise like in the OPs example - do you get it now?!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41837825

The SNR at 1% is

5D3 24 dB
D700 27 dB
D800 27 db (1 stop better than the 5D3)

So you are admitting here that in your estimation Nikon have made no advances over the past 4 years since the release of the D700 with regards to noise - something you are denigrating Canon for.

Shame on Nikon for their abysmal lack of progress!

You are seemingly taking careful aim at your foot - LOL!

All at the pixel level (!) making the D800 pixel just as good as the way bigger D700 pixels and both a stop (3 dB) better than the 5D3 at 1% gray

LOL! Yeah - but who cares (apart from you).

Photographers care about images, not pixels.

Here are ISO 100 crops at 100% (which is largely irrelevant to the final image - something you don't seem to have a clue about) of the shadows from each of these cameras as taken by a reputable, impartial reviewer ...

If you think that there the 5D3 crop here is in any significant way more noisy then the D800 or D700 then you are simply seeing things that don't exist.

David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

gigamel wrote:

David Hull wrote:

As for his hair-splitting over dBs, there is a reason that DxO puts up the SNR curve that they do and that is because (as you point out) it is representative of what a typical user will get in typical photographs. This is a fact that is also well supported by the IR and DPR tests where the images are essentially indistinguishable between all of the cameras we are discussing.

Come on David! you don't understand either??!!

The SNR18 from DxO is the SNR of the part of the image that is exposed to 18% - middle grey - the middle of the histogram - okay?! (and actually only the green pixels - the red and the blue are more noisy) - but the shadow parts of the image ARE NOT EXPOSED to 18%, but WAY less - hence they are more noisy - GET IT?!!!

Yep... completely agree. You have to make the comparison somewhere and making it at 18% on luminance makes as much sense as anything (as long as they tell you where they measure it). Of course it will be lower in the shadows but it will also be higher in the bright areas. For the rest, that is what DR curve is for.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Kreitmann Contributing Member • Posts: 642
Two examples

I tried it, and you are totally right:

first the good one:

ISO 320, no HTP, lens stopped down (no vignetting, no wide open lens RAW gain). The shoot is a bit dark, but ok.

and the ugly:

ISO 250, HTP, lens wide open. Soft and dark (that is the 50mm 1.8 at 1.8, FF corner, 100%; aka totally normal), but the banding is impressive way up into the midtones.

I use LR 4.1 for both shots, with my usual NR. So, conclusion, wrong camera / lens setting can really mess up your image.

 Kreitmann's gear list:Kreitmann's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +12 more
gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

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.

A 747 jetliner is a tool. Should it work as expected even in the person at the controls is a clueless amateur?

If you put a person behind the wheels of a car who doesn't know how to drive, do you expect the car to work the same as when you put a skillful driver behind the wheel? Or do you blame the car when the it runs into the bridge in the first case?

time for another eye roll...

Dan

gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
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."

obsession (əbˈsɛʃən)

— n

1. psychiatry a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. a persistent preoccupation, idea, or feeling
3. the act of obsessing or the state of being obsessed

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

schmegg wrote:

What I did, however, say is that the subject of my image will be exposed much closer to 18% grey than it will to the figures you quote below which apply to 1% shadow.

But the OP was talking about SHADOWS - see the banding!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41837825

Very far from 18%

The whole point is that the shadow parts of the image is NOT exposed to 18% - hence have WAY more noise like in the OPs example - do you get it now?!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41837825

The SNR at 1% is

5D3 24 dB
D700 27 dB
D800 27 db (1 stop better than the 5D3)

So you are admitting here that in your estimation Nikon have made no advances over the past 4 years since the release of the D700 with regards to noise - something you are denigrating Canon for.

You are just too stupid - it is an incredible achievement to make each pixel on a 36 mp sensor with the same amount of noise as the pixels of a 12 mp sensor

And at lower light levels it gets even better

The SNR at 0,5% is

5D3 19,5 dB
D700 23,5 dB
D800 24,5 dB (nearly 2 stop better than 5D3)

The SNR at 0.1% is

5D3 6 dB
D700 10 dB
D800 15,5 dB (3 stop better than 5D3)

The SNR at 0.05% is

5D3 0 dB (noise and signal are equal)
D700 6 dB
D800 12 dB (4 stops better than the 5D3)

There is a very good reason why DxO give us the FULL SNR charts

At the image level - print - you should add 2 dB to the 5D3 and 4 dB to the D800 numbers!

Shame on Nikon for their abysmal lack of progress!

You are seemingly taking careful aim at your foot - LOL!

WOW, you are not very bright, eh!

Here are ISO 100 crops at 100% (which is largely irrelevant to the final image - something you don't seem to have a clue about) of the shadows from each of these cameras as taken by a reputable, impartial reviewer ...

If you think that there the 5D3 crop here is in any significant way more noisy then the D800 or D700 then you are simply seeing things that don't exist.

The Canons are ALOT more noisy as DPR showed in their test:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/26

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/23

Honestly, I think you are a Nikon troll making Canon-fanboys look like complete idiots Nobody can be that stupid!

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

gdanmitchell wrote:

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

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.

A 747 jetliner is a tool. Should it work as expected even in the person at the controls is a clueless amateur?

If you put a person behind the wheels of a car who doesn't know how to drive, do you expect the car to work the same as when you put a skillful driver behind the wheel? Or do you blame the car when the it runs into the bridge in the first case?

The OP just pushed the image 1 stop by using HTP - and the shadows completely falls apart

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41837825

Dont you think that is VERY disappointing for $3500 camera in 2012?!

And all you can do is to claim that he is a "clueless amateur" - wow you are really in denial!!

Schwany
Schwany Forum Pro • Posts: 10,169
Same old same old

Nothing brings people together like the words "noise" and "5DMk( n )"

Going further off topic:

Sure can tell when school is out of session. The servers get over loaded daily.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +14 more
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

gdanmitchell wrote:

gigamel wrote:

Denial:

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

obsession (əbˈsɛʃən)

— n

1. psychiatry a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. a persistent preoccupation, idea, or feeling
3. the act of obsessing or the state of being obsessed

Good one, wish I'd thought of that

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Snaphappykiwi
Snaphappykiwi Forum Member • Posts: 52
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

What an unusual name. Are you Greek?

Yes ! I am !

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So what you're really after is a bailout on the 5D3.

 Snaphappykiwi's gear list:Snaphappykiwi's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +3 more
jhal Senior Member • Posts: 2,178
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

@ Alexandros: return the camera for a replacement.

@ Snaphappykiwi: f... off - on behalf of the Greek, Irish, Portugese & Spanish members of this forum

Snaphappykiwi wrote:

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

What an unusual name. Are you Greek?

Yes ! I am !

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So what you're really after is a bailout on the 5D3.

 jhal's gear list:jhal's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads