It's official!!! 5d Mark III @ dpreview

[bentcountershaft]

Can we get this thread and the other one combined?

No, other bent. No you can't.

 

[RhysPhotograph.me]

Samples...

Flickr: Bert Stephani's Photostream

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I don't think i've seen a sharp example from the 5D3 yet..

 

[Buckster]

I don't think i've seen a sharp example from the 5D3 yet..

Just looked at Bert Stephani's shots straight out of the camera at full size and they look sharp to me, once you find where in each composition he focussed at f/2.8 that is, causing everything else to go OOF.

No doubt it would have been more valuable for analysis if he'd shot a couple of f stops more toward lens-optimal and used at least one of those many focus points on her eyes, rather than on the random elbow or dress or whatever, but the sharpness is there, nonetheless.

 

[Overread]

Hmm I don't know if those samples are worth considering, they state they are from a beta 5DMIII and that they are straight out jpegs - maybe we are simply seeing the fact that the software wasn't yet giving its best with processing - only they all look rather, well terrible when at fullsize (even compared to say a 7D they just don't look right).
edit: didn't notice that they were all at f2.8 - still looks odd and "dirty" to me in the blurred areas?

Then again the best results don't tend to appear till the cameras actually in photographers hands in the market

 

[Buckster]

Hmm I don't know if those samples are worth considering, they state they are from a beta 5DMIII and that they are straight out jpegs - maybe we are simply seeing the fact that the software wasn't yet giving its best with processing - only they all look rather, well terrible when at fullsize (even compared to say a 7D they just don't look right).
edit: didn't notice that they were all at f2.8 - still looks odd and "dirty" to me in the blurred areas?

Then again the best results don't tend to appear till the cameras actually in photographers hands in the market

Looks like he was really just interested in seeing the different ISO results, as he shot from 100 to 12,800, all in the same conditions.

 

[Overread]

You know I honestly totally missed the ISO differences in the shots (ie didn't think to pay attention to them). Checking the ISO100 shot things look much much better and the others are pushing 6500 and higher so that might be where the muddy look is coming from (that mixed with a possibly less than perfected high ISO noise control and sharpening setup).

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I don't think i've seen a sharp example from the 5D3 yet..

Just looked at Bert Stephani's shots straight out of the camera at full size and they look sharp to me, once you find where in each composition he focussed at f/2.8 that is, causing everything else to go OOF.

No doubt it would have been more valuable for analysis if he'd shot a couple of f stops more toward lens-optimal and used at least one of those many focus points on her eyes, rather than on the random elbow or dress or whatever, but the sharpness is there, nonetheless.

I'm with Overread on this one, something doesn't look right about them, and at 100%, the 5D3 looks pretty terrible. And I didn't say they were out of focus, it's just what's in focus isn't..really that sharp.

I know they're just jpegs, but this is what I mean, both at 100%:

 

[Buckster]

I don't think i've seen a sharp example from the 5D3 yet..

Just looked at Bert Stephani's shots straight out of the camera at full size and they look sharp to me, once you find where in each composition he focussed at f/2.8 that is, causing everything else to go OOF.

No doubt it would have been more valuable for analysis if he'd shot a couple of f stops more toward lens-optimal and used at least one of those many focus points on her eyes, rather than on the random elbow or dress or whatever, but the sharpness is there, nonetheless.

I'm with Overread on this one, something doesn't look right about them, and at 100%, the 5D3 looks pretty terrible. And I didn't say they were out of focus, it's just what's in focus isn't..really that sharp.

I know they're just jpegs, but this is what I mean, both at 100%:

In the 5D3 shot, he didn't focus on the eye, so you have to scan the rest of the photo to find the sharp stuff. Then take into account that he shot it at f/2.8, and you realize why the eye is not in focus.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Mine's at f/2.8 too, please, show me a 5D mark 3 example that's as sharp and clear as the image on the left. The 5D3 examples make the 5D3 look terrible. Even the High ISO examples, the NR destroys detail.

 

[Buckster]

Mine's at f/2.8 too

Your FOCUS IS ON THE EYE, so the EYE IS SHARP in yours. His is NOT focussed on the eye, so the eye is NOT SHARP. Look down at the dress or the elbow or someplace else in his photo, and you will find the point of focus he actually used, for whatever ridiculous reason.

What part of this don't you get?

 

[Derrel]

All sizes | 20120302_5D3-test_056 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


All sizes | 20120302_5D3-test_048 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


All sizes | 20120302_5D3-test_010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


First three I looked at at full size. Awful. Even the focused parts look bad. Horrible yellow skin tones. Very low acutance. Surely the camera can do better than what this one guy was able to get out of it.

 

[Buckster]

Surely the camera can do better than what this one guy was able to get out of it.

Agreed, he was seriously not in proper control of the camera with these shots, so Sw1tchFX's apparent Nikon fanboy "comparison" is ridiculous.

 

[RhysPhotograph.me]

Seem extremely soft to me...

 

[Buckster]

Seem extremely soft to me...


View attachment 3616

Obviously a horrible camera that's completely incapable of making a sharp photo, and every image ever shot with one will suck badly.