Canond 5dmk3 RAW

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jeremy_wakefield, Oct 27, 2012.

  1. Hi
    The 5D seems a great camera to me.
    The only issue I can find with it is that I'm reading a lot about the noise/banding in shadows at LOW ISO in this camera. Seems to upset some and not others. I know the files aren't going to compare with the D800 in this respect but is this noise easily removed in post or not?
    I'd really like to see it first hand and give it a try and I'm wondering if anyone could point me to somewhere I can download a few RAW files which exhibit this problem so that I can check out whether the noise is easy to deal with or not.

    If anyone can point me in that direction I'd be grateful
    Thanks
    William
     
  2. I've had a 5D3 several months, and I haven't noticed a problem with banding in shadows at low ISO. Noise is very well controlled if you expose properly. I have seen banding up at ISO 6400+. It can be pretty bad at 25,600, especially if you underexpose.
     
  3. I don't seem to shoot at much above 1600 ISO, but at that number or lower I've found no banding in my RAW files. I am converting to B&W and viewing onscreen at 75% so I'm really seeing deep into those shadow areas of my images. You might want to go to a camera store with a Flash Card, take some shots, and compare them at home. It could be your camera. Just a thought.
     
  4. Hi Williams: I have been using Canon 5DMkIII since it became available. I have taken many photos and
    videos at ISO 12800 and some at 25600. Images look very good at 12800 if exposed properly. Noise at
    25600 is visible but the images are usable although you do loose sharpness after noise reduction. Sandy
     
  5. Thanks for your replies folks. i was more interested in shadow noise at low ISO. There are several reports that this is an issue if images are pushed by as little as a stop in post. I would like to try some RAW files with this issue to check how easily they are to fix.

    William
     
  6. I don't have a 5DmkIII, so I cannot get you the RAW file. But, now that I checked, I do see some slight banding noise present in my 5DmkII and 40D images in dark areas. Supposedly, the 5DmkIII performs somewhat better than the 5DmkII in this respect. Frankly, since I almost never push my images, I've never noticed it in practice.
     
  7. Here is a 100 percent crop of an image from my 5DmkII, pushed two stops in DPP, no other major processing. If that is what you are looking for, since the complaints for both cameras are fairly similar, I could always send you the RAW from my mkII.
    00ayMd-501301584.jpg
     
  8. And here is an example in an actual shadow. Or at least, what was a shadow before it was pushed.
    00ayMk-501305584.JPG
     
  9. Joshua, the Mk III's sensor has very different characteristics when low ISO shadows are pushed, in my experience - there's little comparison between it and the Mk II's sensor in this regard.

    Also, DPP is designed to suppress banding generated by pushed shadows a lot better than most third party converters.
     
  10. Keith, do you mean that the actual type/pattern of the banding is different, or just that the 5DmkIII has significantly less?
    My logic was that, assuming the response was similar but worse on the mkII, then fixing a mkII image would still be
    instructive. I based this conclusion partially on the fact that the banding on my 40D and 5DmkII were similar, albeit with more red color noise on the 40D. However, if it is the former, I suppose it would make no sense fixing a 5DmkII image to see how hard cleaning up the banding is in real life.
     
  11. If you are pushing a shadow value two stops is it really a shadow anymore or a photographer's error?
     
  12. I have heard that this noise is visible in shadows even if pushed by less than one stop. I use the shadows control in LR4 quite often to lighten them and I'm pretty sure that would equate to a stop often enough due to contrast etc.
    I'm not sure how big an issue the noise actually is, hence my desire to find suitable RAW files to have a look
    William
     
  13. "If you are pushing a shadow value two stops is it really a shadow anymore or a photographer's error?"

    When all is said and done, the latter. If someone were really concerned about this issue, bracketing would be a better
    solution to the occasional blown exposure, assuming they shoot mostly static subjects.

    In the case of the two images I posted, those were deliberately abused for the purposes of this thread. I can't imagine ever pushing an image that much unless it was proof aliens visit Earth, or some similar essential photograph. But I bracket and shoot almost entirely static subjects.
     
  14. I'm probably asking a stupid question here but is there no shadow noise if you simply crank up the ISO at the time of shooting instead of pushing it in post? In other words if you need to use for example, ISO 3200 or thereabouts the shadow will show no more noise than a D800 or any other camera at that same speed.
    I'm assuming here that the only disadvantage the Canon exhibits is the loss of being able to push up the shadows in LR4 etc in higher contrast scenes
    Have I got this right?
    William
     
  15. If you are pushing a shadow value two stops is it really a shadow anymore or a photographer's error?​
    I honestly could not agree more with the validity of that question, Ellis - but it still seems to be the case that the only thing that matters, all of a sudden, is to be able to open up black shadows by umpteen stops, noiselessly.
     
  16. What I'd like to know is how the camera fares if you correctly expose a shot at a higher ISO rather than push it in post. If someone could tell me I'd be most grateful
    Thanks
    William
     
  17. William, the best I can give you is that I don't see this banding issue on any images shot at a reasonable, non-extended
    ISO on my mkII, when displayed at the shot exposure/shadow/highlight levels. I suspect whatever sensor characteristic
    being exacerbated by pushing in software is better mitigated internally by the camera. Hopefully, somebody will a mkIII
    can chime in and let us know.
     
  18. Thanks Joshua. If anyone with a mark 3 could clear this up it would be helpful to me. Doesn't seem likely that its going to be a deal breaker for anyone mind you

    William
     

Share This Page

1111