Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 5d Mk III Raw Files Available  (Read 1789 times)

asf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
    • http://www.adamfriedberg.com
5d Mk III Raw Files Available
« on: March 07, 2012, 07:28:12 am »

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

You'll need to download ACR 6.7 RC to open them in PS. Lightroom can't open them yet.
Logged

Brian Hirschfeld

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
    • Brian Hirschfeld Photography
Re: 5d Mk III Raw Files Available
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2012, 07:39:37 am »

ISO50 which is what I'm mostly interested in looks damn clean and the other normal range ISO's look fine to me. No plans to ever touch it, but it looks like they have come up with a nice 5D MrkII successor.
Logged
www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: 5d Mk III Raw Files Available
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2012, 08:42:36 am »

There's a lot of folks on the Canon forum at dpreview who have downloaded the RAW files and made their own comparisons. It seems the confusion continues. The difference in noise and DR is sometimes claimed to be of the order of 2/3rds of a stop, in favour of the 5D3, which is what I also estimated looking at the jpeg images on the Comparator at imaging Resource.

Some commentators in the following thread estimate the difference is closer to 1/3rd of a stop.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40829181

I'm not sure I'm motivated to go to the trouble of downloading the RAW files and a beta version of ACR when the indications are that the improvement is small.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: 5d Mk III Raw Files Available
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2012, 05:50:01 pm »

If pattern noise is gone at base ISO, that is a huge improvement indeed. High ISO it looks to me that ISO12800 is the decency limit now if ISO6400 was decency limit before, and that extra stop can from my experience make quite a big difference in low light. However noise reduction is different in the jpegs, so it is difficult to judge without having RAW support.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 01:35:20 am by torger »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up