Hello !

Just read through the Mk III impressions of Michael. Certainly a good camera. As a owner of the 1D MKII I think this is a impressive feature list and many improvements which make this camera more useable.
What I struggle with is the often smearing of fine detail (now with my 5D), specially with landscape shots. In some situations it got so bad, that the picture were almost unusable. I myself see this partly as an digital thing which I have to live with. But as I got a phone call from the "boss" of my stock agency a week ago who also said that this is sometimes a drawback for picture sales (curse the art directors for viewing pictures at 100 % - but this is a fact of live), I started to rethink my approach not to think so much about this digital look of the files.
If you look at the crop in Michaels article (cody-detail.jpg), I think you will know what I mean (ok thats at 1250 ISO) but please take a look at this example on my website:

http://www.christianhandl.com/Unterebene1/smearing.htm

to get an impression what can happen when imperfect light, heavy image manipulation (DXO 4.1) and the Canon 5D with the 24-70 come together (picture was made mirror prerealease, carbon tripod, 100iso, ...)

So do I have a faulty camera, wrong workflow (I doubt that, as I used a lot of different raw converters and all showed this smearing with the "right" file) or anything else ?

This is in no way a bashing of Canon, but I do have problems with a lot of files and want to improve them, if possible without buying a MFDB.

Christian

hi,

I would think this is a result of the combination of:
canon camera with aa filter
not very sharp lens,
no suitable raw-converter
with to much noise reduction

to avoid this, use:
a aa-filter-less camera (like sigmas or medium format camera)
together with a sharp lens and a converter like raw-developper.



stefan

Will post something about it later the day.

Reminds me of conversions in ACR with my 10D seen at 100%... I mentioned this in another thread, but... I wonder if the converter Michael used is not yet optimized for the MkIII, and if so, if that effect might be reduced or mostly eliminated in a version of the converter that "officially" supports the camera...???

I'm not sure that "heavy image manipulation" can be blamed on digital cameras. Heavy image manipulation results in smearing/loss of detail. So the logical question is how does the same image look without any image manipulation. Based on the settings (f/10, iso 100, tripod, etc.), this image should be very sharp and unsmeared. The first thing I would try is taking DXO out of the process, and just doing a straight conversion (no adjustments) with ACR or DPP. If it still looks bad after an unmanipulated conversion, then there may be a defect with the lens or camera (possibly something that can be repaired).

I tried Dpp, Silky Pix and ACR, but the file has the same smearing as with DXO, looks for me that I have to drive to CPS nearby in Vienna.

Christian

Go look at the Rob Galbraith review of the camera. The samples there (up to 6400) showed almost nothing like what we say in Michael's review. I wondered about that too.


http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...-8738-8908-8909