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.

[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.

[Daniel Browning]

With the MKIII zero correction printing is now possible and the colors look "natural".

I'm glad you're getting good results. There are only three possible explanations for what you see: spectral QE changes in the CFA, updated raw converter software, and/or placebo effect. According to DxO tests, the primary change that Canon made to the CFA from the 5D2->5D3 is that the blue pixels are much less blue -- now they are 25% green and 75% blue. This improves noise performance, but noticably reduces color accuracy for subjects that have blue spectra. But perhaps the blue change is more pleasing, even though it's less accurate.


I think a more likely explanation is just newer raw converter software changes. If so, it would be possible to get the exact same zero-corrections printing from the 5D2.

[HDNitehawk]

What if the in camera magic is created in to the RAW File? If all RAW files are created equally, then your test would be more accurate, but are all RAW files created equally? Part of the 1D X hype from Canon said the new faster processors allowed for much more in camera processing and that was part of the big improvements.

I just think the fair test will be to take two identical pictures under identical situations, then process them both to see which can be made better. I am sure the 5D III would win this contest, but it would be interesting to see.

[HDNitehawk]

and/or placebo effect. .

Daniel

I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?

[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.

[Daniel Browning]

I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?

No, it creates a reality distortion field. I don't just *think* it's better. It actually *is* better. But only within 10 feet of the camera. For everyone outside of the field, it's worse.

[Keith B]

Not to perpetuate this any further because 1) I am not a scientist/engineer and 2) I don't really care (I don't have to justify my purchase). But...Of the two shots above, the blacks have filled in on the 5DII's image where they have not on the mkIII's. In my opinion, regardless of how it got there (DR Fairy?) the 5DIII's has a lot more shadow detail.

Disclaimer: I am not picking on the 5DII. I still use it on a daily basis. I'm just saying contrary to most people's belief, Canon actually made the sensor in the 5DIII much better. I think if anyone is jumping ship to the D800, they should be doing it solely to have the higher MPs.

Here is the original (from mkII) without the edit. Again all that was done to the others was shadow and brightness. Exposure was left alone. This is too show what even the mkII was up against.