5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

Started Jun 20, 2012 | Discussions
Ogjetaknight Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

Hey gigamel, you still haven't convinced me to swich to Nikon. LOL.

Snaphappykiwi
Snaphappykiwi Forum Member • Posts: 52
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

jhal wrote:

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

You forgot the Italians.

 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.

they are not ( yet) in the bailout....

Snaphappykiwi wrote:

jhal wrote:

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

You forgot the Italians.

 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
Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
Re: Take it back

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.

Both RAW files are about 2 stops underexposed when looking at the RAW histogram. With Lightroom 4 you can even with automatic highlight recovery clipped one channel in some areas and have all fully recovered. This will give you slightly more. Also shoot at ISO 100 when possible rather than ISO 200 although this is not a bigger contributor.

You can complain that Canon should have as much noise, but this is the case and you can largely avoid this by optimal exposure. So bracket with one stop between and or watch the histogram carefully although this is not accurate for clipping.

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
Re: Maybe next time, avoid the hyperbole and provocation

Rick Knepper wrote:

and you'll probably avoid the fanboi counter-insurgency (as some of the subject lines in the replies would suggest).

I can't comment on your tech problem as there is no real information provided here.

RAWs were posted and about 2 stops underexposed which is not good on a Canon

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Same old same old yep same old tech since 2003

an old sensor technology and old readout that can not keep up in today's context = Canon sensors

canon fan boys have trouble distinguishing between Canon's other positive attributes and the sensor technology

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

a tool with an old sensor technology and canon fan boys have trouble distinguishing between Canon's other positive attributes and a old sensor technology

madre mia

MayaTlab0 wrote:

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".

People aren't blind, they just thought you were looking for advices to minimise this and they gave you plenty. But apparently you're not here to improve what you can do with the 5d mark III but just complain about its sensor DR at low ISO. I'm with you on that one, but then either make it a specific thread with clearly stated intentions or go to another forum.

Now, noise at low ISO exists on every single camera. Even the D800 (shoot a deep blue sky with it, open it in Lightroom, and you'll see). What you dislike is the fact that the 5d mark III has slightly more read noise (which is a specific type of noise) than the average for non Sony / Nikon sensors and that it produces patterns, which is indeed a shame, but can minimised given the right technique.

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.

It's sometimes true. But properly exposing your pictures and switching HTP off will always help minimise it.

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

First, let me tell you what you SHOULD have done. Before spending that much money on a camera, it's common sense to do your homework and get as much information as possible about. The simple fact that you're able to post on DPreview tells me that you know how to use internet. That's a good thing, because there are plenty of websites talking about Canon's sensors read noise at low ISO, which cameras are affected (basically all of them), and how to minimise it. Then, drawing from your own experience and needs, you should have taken the right decision and NOT buy a Canon camera.

Second, if that is a deal breaker for you, just sell it, and buy a Nikon D800, which is undoubtedly better at dealing with read noise at low ISO, and not in a subtle way. But I suppose you bought the Canon for some reasons, and you might not find the equivalent functionnalities on the Nikon. Do also understand that the 5D mark III's sensor isn't "noisy" in general, in fact it's slightly cleaner than the D800's sensor at high ISO and doesn't exhibit as much colour shift in the shadows (something just as painful to correct as banding), so a D800 won't produce better pictures at higher ISOs. the 5D mk III just has poor read noise figures for a camera of this class.

BTW, it's not because it has poor read noise figures and ugly pattern noise that its sensor is "lagging behind" as a whole. As I said, I believe it is, with the 1DX, the only full frame sensor with an electronic first curtain for example. And it may have some innovation here or there that we don't directly see.

I'd love Canon to improve their sensors read noise figures, but unfortunately that's out of our hands. So the only things you can do are :
1 - do your homework before buying a camera.
2 - be rational in your purchase decisions.

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
Re: Same old same old yep same old tech since 2003

Mikael Risedal wrote:

an old sensor technology and old readout that can not keep up in today's context = Canon sensors

canon fan boys have trouble distinguishing between Canon's other positive attributes and the sensor technology

And you repeat forever the same Why not post on the Nikon forum?

Useful here is to advise on the best use of the technology in our hands. All technology has weak areas and until Canon makes a different sensor there really is no point in repeating the same over and over.

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

John Sheehy have already answer, it is night mare for Canon with their old sensor tech.
high read out noise, uneven read out points, banding etc

gigamel wrote:

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!!

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Al_10D Senior Member • Posts: 1,798
So why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

I wonder, if Canon DSLR performing so poor, why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

 Al_10D's gear list:Al_10D's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon Pixma Pro9000
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Maybe next time, avoid the hyperbole and provocation

nope because of a poor read out from Canon with high read out noise

Is it to blame others who can do the read out much better and even if the motive is under exposed ? as Nikon/Sony?

I LOVE to see 1dx raw files and from low iso. The last nail in the coffin of Canon's sensor junk?
This is 2012

Hans Kruse wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

and you'll probably avoid the fanboi counter-insurgency (as some of the subject lines in the replies would suggest).

I can't comment on your tech problem as there is no real information provided here.

RAWs were posted and about 2 stops underexposed which is not good on a Canon

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Same old same old yep same old tech since 2003

Why?

Im also a Canon owner, why would I be happy with Canon's old sensor technology FROM 2003 IN THE YEAR 2012 ?

Hans Kruse wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

an old sensor technology and old readout that can not keep up in today's context = Canon sensors

canon fan boys have trouble distinguishing between Canon's other positive attributes and the sensor technology

And you repeat forever the same Why not post on the Nikon forum?

Useful here is to advise on the best use of the technology in our hands. All technology has weak areas and until Canon makes a different sensor there really is no point in repeating the same over and over.

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: So why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

EQUAL INTELIGENT THAT WHY FLIES LIKE COW SH...
I CAN SHOW YOU FIGURES THERE NIKON IS OUTSELLING CANON

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

Al_10D wrote:

I wonder, if Canon DSLR performing so poor, why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

studio311 Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance.

"logic" , dpreview forums, that's funny.

Ferrari_Alex wrote:

This comments is strange. For 3500 usd you can have it. But what is wrong with the fact that somebody is reporting an issue with the canera? Does it mean you need to pay crazy money and be super happy with everything you get, even if it has issues?
Strange logic

Ogjetaknight wrote:

If you don't want your 5d3 I'll take it.

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: 5d Mark III low iso poor performance. NO YOU ARE NOT

SENSOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED PRIMARILY OF MOBILE CAMERA MANUFACTURERS.

Canon has not kept up with these developments, their sensor technology is old, their lines is old and they still live in the past.

Alex

andros 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...

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

studio311 Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Re: Maybe next time, avoid the hyperbole and provocation

Mikael, imo, you're "right" overall but you're going way "over the top". Canon does not make "junk", far from it.

Mikael Risedal wrote:
nope because of a poor read out from Canon with high read out noise

Is it to blame others who can do the read out much better and even if the motive is under exposed ? as Nikon/Sony?

I LOVE to see 1dx raw files and from low iso. The last nail in the coffin of Canon's sensor junk?
This is 2012

Hans Kruse wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

and you'll probably avoid the fanboi counter-insurgency (as some of the subject lines in the replies would suggest).

I can't comment on your tech problem as there is no real information provided here.

RAWs were posted and about 2 stops underexposed which is not good on a Canon

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: You dont need Sony-Exmor tech to have clean shadows

The homework with under exposed motive has noting to do with an inferior Canon tech who not can handle a under exposure like Nikon/Sony sensor can because of the low read noise and freedom from banding, pattern noise

Alexandros Trichos wrote:

1 - do your homework before buying a camera.
2 - be rational in your purchase decisions.

I will do my homework teacher, please don't tell mom.

Thanks for the good and useful advices though.

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,333
Re: Maybe next time, avoid the hyperbole and provocation

studio311 wrote:

Mikael, imo, you're "right" overall but you're going way "over the top". Canon does not make "junk", far from it.

That's where the fanboy Hyperbole comes in

Mikael Risedal wrote:
nope because of a poor read out from Canon with high read out noise

Is it to blame others who can do the read out much better and even if the motive is under exposed ? as Nikon/Sony?

I LOVE to see 1dx raw files and from low iso. The last nail in the coffin of Canon's sensor junk?
This is 2012

Hans Kruse wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

and you'll probably avoid the fanboi counter-insurgency (as some of the subject lines in the replies would suggest).

I can't comment on your tech problem as there is no real information provided here.

RAWs were posted and about 2 stops underexposed which is not good on a Canon

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Maybe next time, avoid the hyperbole and provocation

I know I'm right, and that provocation can get people to wake up . No Canon is not doing any "junk" but they act like they are still the leader
I have showing the differences several times.
It is time now for Canon to wake up.

studio311 wrote:

Mikael, imo, you're "right" overall but you're going way "over the top". Canon does not make "junk", far from it.

Mikael Risedal wrote:
nope because of a poor read out from Canon with high read out noise

Is it to blame others who can do the read out much better and even if the motive is under exposed ? as Nikon/Sony?

I LOVE to see 1dx raw files and from low iso. The last nail in the coffin of Canon's sensor junk?
This is 2012

Hans Kruse wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

and you'll probably avoid the fanboi counter-insurgency (as some of the subject lines in the replies would suggest).

I can't comment on your tech problem as there is no real information provided here.

RAWs were posted and about 2 stops underexposed which is not good on a Canon

-- hide signature --

Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti

Al_10D Senior Member • Posts: 1,798
Re: So why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

Canon DSLR sales worldwide is about 8 billion euro, Nikon sells less than one quarter of that, 1.9 billion. Amazon sales #s means no more, than any Mom-n-Pop camera store #s.

Mikael Risedal wrote:
EQUAL INTELIGENT THAT WHY FLIES LIKE COW SH...
I CAN SHOW YOU FIGURES THERE NIKON IS OUTSELLING CANON

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

Al_10D wrote:

I wonder, if Canon DSLR performing so poor, why Canon DSLR outsell Nikon's 4:1?

 Al_10D's gear list:Al_10D's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon Pixma Pro9000
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads