# 5D Mark III AF Expectations (Or any other camera)



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2016)

I wrestled and wrestled. So now I'm going to ask the question I should have asked a year or two ago.

If I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, or a 400mm f/5.6L (I used to have the 400mm) and I am standing 20-30 yards from the subject should I expect crispness on details at 100% crop on stationary subjects like walls or mailboxes or people? Or should a little fuzziness be expected when zooming in that far in post?

I've thrown away a lot of photos in the past that looked good straight out of the camera focus wise, but looked a little fuzzy in Lightroom or Photoshop when I magnify to 100% even after FoCal AFMA.

I am an obsessive compulsive (diagnosed, among other things) and I am wondering if I am going overboard looking at sharpness at that level.

Obviously, when I see a bird photo taken with a 600mm lens and every feather and detail is perfect I should probably realize the photo was taken in at least some decent proximity to the subject rather than towards the limits of the focal length. The bird must be filling a significant portion of the frame.

Am I correct? Should I not expect crispness when the subject takes up only 2 or 3% of the frame?

I am asking this in all seriousness because it really does bother me.

For instance, at what distance from the subject (human) at 200mm should I expect to see crisp details in the iris of the eye. maybe it should better be put: How much of the frame should be filled to expect sharp details in the eyes?

I shot a soccer game my niece played in. As far as I am concerned every photo was a throw away because zooming to 100% in post wasn't crisp. Otherwise, everything looks good.

My conclusion is that 200mm is probably far too short a focal length for a soccer game or even small birds from 50 feet. The field is huge. A 600mm or 800mm lens is obviously better suited... but would the details be crisp at 100%? Maybe crisper because more of the frame would be filled and the crop smaller?

One might say I have answered my own question, but I seriously need somebody else to tell me whether I am or am not expecting too much of myself and my equipment. I honestly do not trust myself to do so.

Most of the time in photos people don't post how far they were from the subject to get such spectacular results.

Sorry if I have rolled some eyes. I am as serious as can be with this question.

Thank you,
Charles


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 19, 2016)

Hi Charles. 
I think we expect too much of our gear and ourselves. I'm with you on this, we see shots posted here of little birds and wonder why we can't reproduce the crisp detail. I think it comes down to how close you manage to get to the target, good field craft requires lots of time, patience and practice and a willingness to crawl about in less than pleasant conditions to get close. 
I think it was Neuro (I may be wrong or misquoting so please correct me if I am) that posted saying if the subject is smaller than the AF box in the viewfinder forget it, I guess that will translate to parts of an image too, for instance an eye when the subject is a long way away. Maybe crop down to size and see how many pixels cover the target, I have tried this on planes and there are not many pixels so expecting to see detail may be unfair. 
Hopefully those that acheive the sharpness on the little birds will chime in on this. 
Looking forwards to seeing some well informed discussion here. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 19, 2016)

From my own experience, distance to subject matters a great deal. Also, the ISO setting as a big factor (lower ISO = more detail), as well as the amount of light available. Can't expect a crisp, clear shot from ANY camera if you're at ISO 6400 and/or if you're in a poorly-lit area with no spotlights. There are a lot of other variables in play, such as focus, camera resolution, sensor size, lens choice, etc. 

To get max detail, generally speaking: try to keep the ISO as low as possible, get as close as you can without being too close, and take the shot in a well-lit area (or at least make sure your subject is backlighted, or use flash). Hope this helps.


----------



## picturefan (Sep 19, 2016)

Hi Charles

I understand your question very well, cause I used to "suffer" from the same findings. When magniyfing some pics on the screen, the crissped sharpness (that I expected) lacked. 
We were talking about the solution here on the forum. After eliminating all possible technical and mechanical reasons the problem was too high expectations on sharpness when magnifying (100% and more). It came out that distances around 20-30 yards (as you wrote about) for e.g. birds are much too far away for zoom lenses (even good L-glass, like 70-200 or 100-400). All these pictures of crisp sharp feathers, birds and so on we "adore" were taken from much closer distances and also sharpened in post. I did not know that before, because all our exifs etc. or subtitles do not include distances or the degree of sharpening.
As neuro and Vb wrote, objects need to fill in a greater area of the viewfinder, otherwiswe you won`t get lucky.
Here we got the nature photographers saying "get closer, stupid". Imho, it has a much bigger meaning in digital photography than it had before ;D

Cheers, pf


----------



## monkey44 (Sep 19, 2016)

I agree totally about distance and sharpness, particularly in live subjects. The subject might be standing or perching, but still breathing and moving slightly no matter what.

In my opinion, the purpose of a zooms or high mm primes is to fill the frame from a greater distance with a longer lens ... it is not to shoot a ten percent frame and crop to fill the box. Altho, I'm sure we all do that, because if we wait, or if it's too far, then we miss that capture anyway. And occasionally one or two surprise us due to accidentally perfect conditions beyond our control.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 19, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wrestled and wrestled. So now I'm going to ask the question I should have asked a year or two ago.
> 
> If I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, or a 400mm f/5.6L (I used to have the 400mm) and I am standing 20-30 yards from the subject should I expect crispness on details at 100% crop on stationary subjects like walls or mailboxes or people? Or should a little fuzziness be expected when zooming in that far in post?
> 
> ...



Charles,

I have found that with my 5D3, I should look at 50% magification to determine if there is critical focus. To me, if the focus great at 50%, it's good enough even at the full 22Mpix. The thing is that we forget that we need to add som USM sharpening (it only took me about 5-6 years to learn after I moved past my 6Mpix 10D body).

Sure, those pics which also have that sharpness at 100% are even better, but they don't look _that_ much better when zoomed out. Maybe 5% better, and that's not enough for me to discard the 50% magnification ones.

All the best


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2016)

Thanks to all of you who have responded so far. I know it makes perfectly logical sense. I just had to see others say it too. Every now and then I'll nail focus on something probably too far away for the lens, but I do consider that just dumb luck. Especially out here in the desert it is extremely hard to get near a bird.

You folks don't know how much frustration this has relieved me of. I'm all alone out here in my community. There is no photography club so no others to ask. Canon Rumors serves that purpose for me very well and I thank you all.

On an even more positive note: Now I can justify getting a Great White one of these days!   

Honestly, thank you all very much for your responses.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 19, 2016)

Been there, done that. Uhhhh... still doing it.

I think the 50% view sharpness is very good rule of thumb to keep one's sanity with shots. I have another forum that I am on and some of the folks there do not go below a 30% crop (no more than 30% of the pixels cropped away). The photos certainly look a lot better when not pixel bashed. Less noise reduction is needed and sharpening is more effective.

Take what you can get and make it the best it can be.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2016)

If I was restricted to that 30% crop rule, then I would not be left with a single bird photo. If a bird occupies 10% of the available pixels, then I can get a really sharp image.


----------



## monkey44 (Sep 20, 2016)

AlanF said:


> If I was restricted to that 30% crop rule, then I would not be left with a single bird photo. If a bird occupies 10% of the available pixels, then I can get a really sharp image.



But how large a print can you make - that's more the issue about this kind of question. If you can cover ten percent of the frame, and get a nice 4x6, is that what you want. Most of my keeper shots are aimed at the 13x19 minimum ... I can "get lucky" with a ten percent frame fill if all the stars align - but generally at any distance that gives us ten percent fill, any tiny movement will blur it, especially small flighty birds ... Maybe, on a tripod, more often - but I don't shoot on a tripod because we move too much in the field ... chasing wildlife ... as while we spend time setting it down, sticking the feet, leveling, the image often vanishes into the wind, or walks behind a tree or a bush, or down a gully ... whatever. Patience and stealth will often get you twenty-five percent or better, rather than a ten percent maybe. IMHO


----------



## pwp (Sep 20, 2016)

I used to be a bit on the obsessive compulsive side of the ledger but over time have shifted priority to the actual quality of the image. The photograph itself. You know, the Content is King argument.

If you're making 20 x 30 inch prints then sure, it usually needs to be suitably crisp. I looked at where the vast majority of my output was ending up. Mostly web, followed by small brochures, quarter or half page adverts or editorial usage and smaller than A4 size prints. You can get away with murder when your image is being used small. Jobs that I know are headed for cross track or roadside billboards or glossy full-page magazine advert or editorial get special treatment. There's usually a bigger budget on these projects there's room for the required precision. 

As a useful point of reference, I had a look at some old scans from 35mm Velvia and 6x7cm Velvia. These were used for magazine covers, double page spreads and cross-track billboards. In 2016 they look like crap, and leaves one wondering how such low quality, unsharp images could be considered for such output. They were high priced drum-scans, and looked great at the output stage.

Quality is important and it's nice when you absolutely nail it, but it's a folly to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If your image has captured that magic moment, much can be forgiven technically. The image that won the World Press Photo Award a couple of years ago was a bit soft, crazy high iso, shot wide open and hand-held. But what an extraordinary image. http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2014/contemporary-issues/john-stanmeyer

-pw


----------



## kaihp (Sep 20, 2016)

pwp said:


> Quality is important and it's nice when you absolutely nail it, but it's a folly to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If your image has captured that magic moment, much can be forgiven technically. The image that won the World Press Photo Award a couple of years ago was a bit soft, crazy high iso, shot wide open and hand-held. But what an extraordinary image. http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2014/contemporary-issues/john-stanmeyer



Or the shot of Usain Bolt smiling as he runs during the semifinals of the 100m dash at the Rio olympics: http://cdn-s3.si.com/images/cameron%20spencer.jpg
Tack sharp? nope. Awesome picture? Absolutely!


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 20, 2016)

At 100%, details can still be crisp and sharp. If they're not, for many people, its not a big problem. But for you, it sounds like it might be.

A few points to consider: -

1. If the subject is small, make sure you're using the appropriate AF point and not focusing and recomposing;

2. If you're shooting soccer, birds, anything else that moves NEVER shoot slower than 1/1500s. Aim for 1/2000 or faster. Get that ISO up as high as needs to be. 

3. Just because you can shoot a lens wide open, it doesn't mean that you should. A smaller aperture will give you more in focus.

4. When in doubt, use Liveview AF. It is more accurate.


----------

