5dMKIII.....taking the picture....Post Processing.....PRINT

[jks_photo]

HI guys......

Been playing around with my mkiii for more than a week now and am really happy with it.

The new AF and responsiveness, the improved high ISO performance over the mkII are all nice, but what really got me was that the pictures it takes I am able to print them on my mini lab with zero corrections. Of course some post process will be done with DPP[I try my best to do my part i.e.WB etc. before taking the shot], like I did before with the mk II, but I was not able to print them with zero corrections. With the MKIII zero correction printing is now possible and the colors look "natural".


This is a big things for me since I am in photo printing business, and I was always puzzled on why a picture which looks great on a computer monitor would look totally different when previewed on the printer monitor..... Even posted this rant here at TDP some time back. I have all sorts of pictures coming from photographers with gears mostly consisting of CANON and NIKON. All need correcting to get the picture to "look right".

Now with the MKIII I have to say I am confident that what I see on screen would be what I get when I decide to print.

Just thought I'd share it with you.............

[Keith B]

I think the MkIII is a pretty amazing camera. I think all the slammers are people upset they didn't get the high MPs they were hoping for. Even all this talk of DR and noise. For kicks and giggles I did a quick shot to test metering someone else was complaining about. Not only did I conclude they were wrong (at least not an issue that affects all mkIIIs) but the shot proved to be a good test for DR and noise.

I took almost identical shots with MkIII and MkII. Same lens, same shutter, aperture and ISO then in Aperture 3 I pushed the "brightness" slider all the way out and then pushed the "shadow" slider all the way out exactly the same way for both.

Here is the results

MkIII


MkII


I think Canon has made substantial improvements to the sensor in the sense of DR and noise. I still see a little vertical banding with some red and green but no where near the checker boards patterns of the mkII. Again this is the extreme of pushing the DR. I don't have D800 to compare with but I'm guessing any difference is pretty negligible.

I don't know where these "Testers" are coming up with the numbers but this real world, unscientific example, I think shows almost 2 stops in DR.

[Daniel Browning]

[...]in Aperture 3 I pushed the "brightness" slider all the way out and then pushed the "shadow" slider all the way out exactly the same way for both.

Aperture is obviously using different black points for each camera. That makes me wonder how much else it is doing differently in software. A much better test would be to use the *same* raw conversion on both, such as with dcraw or RawTherapee.

[Keith B]

Aperture is obviously using different black points for each camera. That makes me wonder how much else it is doing differently in software. A much better test would be to use the *same* raw conversion on both, such as with dcraw or RawTherapee.

I don't know if you have ever used Aperture, it has a default setting of 3.0 for black point (as far as I know for camera. I've used 1DsmkII, 5DmkII and 5DmkIII). This setting was left untouched when I did this questionable experiment.

[Daniel Browning]

I don't know if you have ever used Aperture, it has a default setting of 3.0 for black point (as far as I know for camera. I've used 1DsmkII, 5DmkII and 5DmkIII). This setting was left untouched when I did this questionable experiment.

Aperture, like most commercial raw converters, treats cameras differently *even when the settings are the same*. In other words, the black point of "3.0" might mean 2048 ADU on the 5D3, but 4096 on the 5D2.

[Dave Johnston]

might mean 2048 ADU on the 5D2, but 4096 on the 5D2.

5d3?

#corrections

[Daniel Browning]

Again this is the extreme of pushing the DR.

The 9 or 10 stops of dynamic range you have here is not my idea of the "extreme" of pushing the DR. Film photographers routinely use 12-13 stops of dynamic range. I'd consider 17 stops to be pretty extreme.

I don't know where these "Testers" are coming up with the numbers but this real world, unscientific example, I think shows almost 2 stops in DR.

Here is a good test:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

5D2: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/canon-mk3-2b.jpg
D800: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/nikon2b.jpg

[HDNitehawk]

@Jks_photo; what printer are you using? The two Canon Pixma Pro’s I have my pictures always looked the same as they did on the monitor if processed with DPP. But if I print a jpg from a different source, sometimes it doesn’t give the same results. My thoughts were that Canon cameras play well with Canon printers.

@Keith; I am not sure your sample testing is fair. Granted the 5D III will probably give better results. But putting two files in DPP with equal slides on the ruler to distort the picture isn’t fair. The reason is that you may only be seeing the improvements made in the software that processes the data in camera. The real test for me would be to take each file and make it the best you can in DPP, and then compare your results. You may find that the 5D III is superior, or you may find that you can get equal results with just a bit more processing on the 5D II file.

[Keith B]

@Keith; I am not sure your sample testing is fair. Granted the 5D III will probably give better results. But putting two files in DPP with equal slides on the ruler to distort the picture isn’t fair. The reason is that you may only be seeing the improvements made in the software that processes the data in camera. The real test for me would be to take each file and make it the best you can in DPP, and then compare your results. You may find that the 5D III is superior, or you may find that you can get equal results with just a bit more processing on the 5D II file.

Yeah, that is why I did it in Apple's Aperture 3, as I had stated, with identical processing. Not DPP. DPP was never part of the equation.

The only processing don was exploit the shadow detail without anything else done to the images. Both were RAW files. Aperture isn't going to recognize any Canon in camera magic.

[jks_photo]

@ HDNitehawk [QUOTE=HDNitehawk;68891]@Jks_photo; what printer are you using?
hi im using a noristsu QSS3201 , its an RA4 process digital Mini LAB. What often happens is that pictures look good or at least acceptable on its terminals but when it comes to the proprietary software that will "read" and preview the picture for the "printer" [ the person who will be printing] pictures will look way off but with the 5dIII there's little if no change, and If i did my partin achieving proper exposure then no corrections as well, which I could not do even with the 5d II.