# Canon R5 sharpness with 100-400 ii and buffer issues



## Olivier11986 (Feb 1, 2021)

Hello everyone!
First of all, english is not my first language and I apologize for any mistake.
I've been doing bird photography for the last 10-12 years but I'm getting somewhat desperate with my new R5 these days... I got some serious buffer issues and the image sharpness is really bad compared to my old 5Dmkiii.

First, the buffer issue : whenever I do burst shots, my buffer starts around 40-45 pics available and after the first 3-4 shots it drops down to 20 before I can take maybe 10-12 shots if I'm lucky. This could be tolerable, but the buffer takes up to 90 seconds (timed it) to get transferred to the CFExpress card (Sandisk) and even when I'm up to around 13-15 shots I can only take one shot before it goes down to 0 again! I've tried this with multiple CFExpress cards, SD cards (300mbps) and the result is always the same. I shoot raw and save on a single card. The only time the problem seems to be somewhat less present is when I shoot without a lens and with the cap on and it seems to be worse when I continuously need to focus on my subjects. Needless to say, I missed a lot of shots this way.

As if this wasn't enough, picture quality with my 100-400 ii, which was super sharp on my 5Dmkiii, is really bad or at least hit or miss with mostly misses. I'll include pictures below to illustrate what I mean (100% crop). I'm also using the Canon TC1.4x iii, but was also using it before without any problem on my old camera, getting super sharp shots.
Yesterday I saw a Boreal owl (quite rare where I live), and it flew towards me before landing no more than 10 feet from me (was not baiting). With my 5Dmkiii I would have nailed that shot super sharp since it was really an easy shot. When I looked at my pictures I was really frustrated with the results since they were really not sharp at all. I tried using servo AF and one-shot AF, animal eye dectection AF, spot AF and got mostly the same results (RAW, IBIS on, ISO AUTO (2000), f/8, 1/800s to 1/1600s). Attached below is one of many "missed" shots and one of the few where the feathers are a bit sharper (less than 5% of the files). I also added a picture of a duck in a different setting, but again with the same softness problem. I was wondering if the use of the 1.6x-cropped frame mode sometimes could be the culprit, but even when using full frame I get this problem.

Stores are closed right now where I live, but I'll send the body to Canon to fix the buffer issue when they open back. However, I'm curious to see if anyone else had these problems. I'm also worried that even if they fix the buffer issues, I'll still end up taking pictures that are not sharp.



(560mm, f/8, 1/1000s, ISO 2500)


(560mm, f/8, 1/800s, ISO 2000)


(560mm, f/9, 1/3200s, ISO 1600)


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2021)

I don't have the buffer problems - they seem an obvious fault - or the sharpness problems.
Regarding the focus issues, using DPP, which shows the focus points, where was the focus on the top owl? The depth of field at 10 feet is very narrow for 560mm. The 1.4xTC on the 100-400mm II is useful at long distances but I wouldn't use it for close ups of large subjects.


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I don't have the buffer problems - they seem an obvious fault - or the sharpness problems.
> Regarding the focus issues, using DPP, which shows the focus points, where was the focus on the top owl? The depth of field at 10 feet is very narrow for 560mm. The 1.4xTC on the 100-400mm II is useful at long distances but I wouldn't use it for close ups of large subjects.


Regarding the auto focus I have absolutely nothing to say against it is since it locked perfectly on the eye(s) of the bird in each of the 3 pictures.
I know that the depth of field is quite shallow with this setup, but I never experienced this before with my 5Diii, plus the duck was quite far when I took the picture and the result is about the same.
Only a week until the store is open again, can't wait to take my camera in (after waiting so long to get it out, haha)!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2021)

Were you using back button focus?


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Were you using back button focus?


Yes. Do you think this could be a problem?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2021)

Olivier11986 said:


> Yes. Do you think this could be a problem?


Just a thought. If you have focussed and forget to keep your finger pressed on the back button, the focussing square still follows the eye in eyeAF even if the AF is not allowing for the change of distance. Then, when you press the shutter button the AF can be out.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Just a thought. If you have focussed and forget to keep your finger pressed on the back button, the focussing square still follows the eye in eyeAF even if the AF is not allowing for the change of distance. Then, when you press the shutter button the AF can be out.



To amplify this, I know that I've ruined shots because I've forgotten I need to press the back button.


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> To amplify this, I know that I've ruined shots because I've forgotten I need to press the back button.


Yeah, also ruined shots like this unfortunately, but with the owl, as soon as I saw the pictures weren't sharp I tried to take a picture and refocus every single time to no avail.


----------



## bhf3737 (Feb 3, 2021)

I don't want to be the Naked Emperor, but why the owl pictures are not sharp? In both owl pictures the focus seems to be on one eye and seems to be sharp. Depending on your distance to the subject, Narrow DoF renders the beak and chest feathers less sharp. The Mallard picture seems to be a different story and the eye-AF could not find the eye perhaps because of the distance?


----------



## badcap1 (Feb 3, 2021)

Olivier11986 said:


> Yes. Do you think this could be a problem?


If you look at the stick on the left side of the owl on the first picture it is in focus and sharp what focus mode did you use?


----------



## adigoks (Feb 4, 2021)

welcome to high MP realm. slightest missfocus will be very noticable compared to 22MP 5D MK III.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2021)

adigoks said:


> welcome to high MP realm. slightest missfocus will be very noticable compared to 22MP 5D MK III.


At the same magnification the miss-focus is no more or less visible irrespective of the mp.


----------



## adigoks (Feb 4, 2021)

adigoks said:


> welcome to high MP realm. slightest missfocus will be very noticable compared to 22MP 5D MK III.


because of that, try using faster shutter speed 1/4000 -1/8000.
the duck image suffer from slight motion blur. make sure you hold it very steady or using tripod.
2nd owl image is fine.
only the first one i think had slight front focus.


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 4, 2021)

badcap1 said:


> If you look at the stick on the left side of the owl on the first picture it is in focus and sharp what focus mode did you use?


Tried almost all of them, but on this one it was Eye detect AF (Animals)


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 4, 2021)

adigoks said:


> because of that, try using faster shutter speed 1/4000 -1/8000.
> the duck image suffer from slight motion blur. make sure you hold it very steady or using tripod.
> 2nd owl image is fine.
> only the first one i think had slight front focus.


The problem I have is that I didn't change my technique between the 5DIII and this one, and I was already at 1/3200. With the 5DIII I was able to get tack sharp images with speeds way lower than this. Maybe you're right and high MP count is not as good as I thought...


----------



## Olivier11986 (Feb 4, 2021)

Well, sending the camera to Canon first thing on Monday, I'll see what they'll tell me and how long it will take. If they can at least fix the buffer issue I'll be happy. Regretting selling my old camera now, haha.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> At the same magnification the miss-focus is no more or less visible irrespective of the mp.



When you're talking to/about pixel-peepers, this is irrelevant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> When you're talking to/about pixel-peepers, this is irrelevant.


I know, I just like there to be a counterpoint on the off chance a sane person who is still learning happens to read it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> When you're talking to/about pixel-peepers, this is irrelevant.


Like noise, diffraction, camera shake, aspects of DR, noise at high iso, focus errors etc etc etc, if you look at the same output size from the same size (in mm x mm, pixels) sensor, the magnitude of those effects is usually the same, independent of the number of pixels. But, if you are blowing up a crop from a high resolution sensor to get extra reach, then those detrimental effects are highly relevant - and that is a concern to everyone who does crop or uses a high pixel sensor to squeeze out more resolution.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Like noise, diffraction, camera shake, aspects of DR, noise at high iso, focus errors etc etc etc, if you look at the same output size from the same size (in mm x mm, pixels) sensor, the magnitude of those effects is usually the same, independent of the number of pixels. But, if you are blowing up a crop from a high resolution sensor to get extra reach, then those detrimental effects are highly relevant - and that is a concern to everyone who does crop or uses a high pixel sensor to squeeze out more resolution.



If I'm starting out with a certain field of view and doing the same _percentage _ crop it again shouldn't matter (up to a certain point). For example if I'm going to get "reach" by doing a 25% reduction, on a 6000x4000 sensor I'll end up with 4500x3000, and on a 9000x6000 sensor I'll end up with 6750x 4500. Printed at the same fairly small size (perhaps even up to 8x12in or 20x30cm) there shouldn't be too much difference. That "certain point" I mentioned above is where one starts with a low-rez sensor, so that that a 50 percent crop leaves you with not enough to work with (and it's possible 3000x2000 is below that line).

If, on the other hand, you're starting out with "whatever sensor I have I'm going to crop down to 3000x2000 because that's how I maximize the reach I've got" then you will absolutely see differences, but then, if you're doing crops to a certain pixel size you're doing the same thing as a pixel peeper, just on a wholesale level. (However--you have a good justification for doing so.)


----------



## adigoks (Feb 6, 2021)

Olivier11986 said:


> The problem I have is that I didn't change my technique between the 5DIII and this one, and I was already at 1/3200. With the 5DIII I was able to get tack sharp images with speeds way lower than this. Maybe you're right and high MP count is not as good as I thought...


i suggest you to rent R6 while you waiting your R5 back. it has the same AF system & less demanding sensor which i think would be more suitable for you. if you want to getting used to high MP camera i suggest you to rent 90D instead.


----------



## SnowMiku (Feb 10, 2021)

Hopefully the buffer and sharpness issues get fixed. When you get the camera back I would give it a good test at home with a still subject, a tripod, 10 sec self timer and Manual Focus. Then try this same test on another camera body if you have one and with the same lens, then compare the results and see if there is any big differences in sharpness, and if you want to you can resize the R5 image to the same size as the older camera and then compare the results.
Also if you have any UV filters on your lens I would remove it.


----------



## kimster (Feb 12, 2021)

Olivier11986 said:


> Hello everyone!
> First of all, english is not my first language and I apologize for any mistake.
> I've been doing bird photography for the last 10-12 years but I'm getting somewhat desperate with my new R5 these days... I got some serious buffer issues and the image sharpness is really bad compared to my old 5Dmkiii.
> 
> ...


I have serious sharpness issues with shots that look like yours. I sent my RF100-500 back to Canon. They now want the R5 body to "fine tune" them together. I am very dubious about this and so far have not sent my R5 back. Very troubling.


----------



## SnowMiku (Feb 13, 2021)

kimster said:


> I have serious sharpness issues with shots that look like yours. I sent my RF100-500 back to Canon. They now want the R5 body to "fine tune" them together. I am very dubious about this and so far have not sent my R5 back. Very troubling.


I thought the advantage of Mirrorless was no need for Microadjustment? Or I am thinking of the wrong thing?


----------



## kimster (Feb 13, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I thought the advantage of Mirrorless was no need for Microadjustment? Or I am thinking of the wrong thing?


----------



## kimster (Feb 13, 2021)

I am not sure that they know what they are doing.


----------



## MrPid (Feb 27, 2021)

I have the exact same issues and have was about to post my own thread on this.

I still have my 5D4 and have it set up identical to my R5. The images on the 5D4 are razor sharp but the R5 are just awful.

Have Canon come back to you?


----------



## kimster (Feb 27, 2021)

So I got my lens back after *4 weeks*. Put it on a tripod, used single shot. Awful, soft images. RF70-200 hand held for the same shot is sharp.
I told canon and now they have sent me a fedex label for me to send in the R5 and RF100-500. 
I have no faith and wonder how long I will be without my camera and lens this time.
At this point I wish I had not traded up from my 5DIV yet. I guess this may be my final lesson about being an early adopter. 
PS - my *RF *lens came back with two pages from the *5D* manual about lens settings!


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Feb 28, 2021)

kimster said:


> So I got my lens back after *4 weeks*. Put it on a tripod, used single shot. Awful, soft images. RF70-200 hand held for the same shot is sharp.
> I told canon and now they have sent me a fedex label for me to send in the R5 and RF100-500.
> I have no faith and wonder how long I will be without my camera and lens this time.
> At this point I wish I had not traded up from my 5DIV yet. I guess this may be my final lesson about being an early adopter.
> PS - my *RF *lens came back with two pages from the *5D* manual about lens settings!


I am interested in what 2 pages Canon sent you, can you take a shot of them and post em?


----------



## MrPid (Feb 28, 2021)

The "Advanced" manual with the R5 is just awful, a few screenshot with minimal explanation.

The 5D4 manual was great, but the 1DX manual was super detailed and explanatory.

For such an advanced camera to canon expect everyone to have a crystal ball at home?...


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Feb 28, 2021)

MrPid said:


> The "Advanced" manual with the R5 is just awful, a few screenshot with minimal explanation.
> 
> The 5D4 manual was great, but the 1DX manual was super detailed and explanatory.
> 
> For such an advanced camera to canon expect everyone to have a crystal ball at home?...


I found the 920 pages of the R5 Manual to be pretty useful a couple of times and do not really see a lot missing when compared to the 662 page 5D4 manual. 

Looks like Canon has been using the same technical writer for sometime now. 

5D




R5




What do you feel is missing from the manual?


----------



## snapshot (Mar 22, 2021)

I havent used tripod much with my r5 yet, but i had trouble with IS on the 5d4+100/400 L IS (1) combo when on tripod, and got used to turning it off. does anybody know what happens with r5 + ef100-400 L IS II?


----------



## Cog (Mar 29, 2021)

MrPid said:


> I have the exact same issues and have was about to post my own thread on this.
> 
> I still have my 5D4 and have it set up identical to my R5. The images on the 5D4 are razor sharp but the R5 are just awful.
> 
> Have Canon come back to you?


I didn't find a big difference in IQ between 5Dm4 and R5 with a 100-400 II, but R5 has a much better AF plus many other features of a mirrorless camera. So my good old 5Dm4 was sold to a happy new owner.

Apart from problems with a focusing technique, using a converter on close-ups is not justified. It will make the picture a bit softer and increase ISO in low light. The second owl image would be much better (sharper and less noisy) if shot at 400mm without a converter with a lower ISO and then cropped.

I've never used back button focusing, BTW. For some reason, I just can't make it work in terms of brain+fingers coordination.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2021)

Cog said:


> I've never used back button focusing, BTW. For some reason, I just can't make it work in terms of brain+fingers coordination.


Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one! I’ve tried to get on with BBF but just don’t. I do get on with back button turns focus off though.


----------



## JohnyT (Apr 23, 2021)

I’m a new R5 user, I have just moved away from BBF, what the point of BBF if you are using face/eye detect + tracking?
Particularly in the heat of the moment, a bird jumps up and you get one chance for a single frame.
The auto focus is so good and so fast, it just changes everything for me regarding my camera workflow.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Apr 23, 2021)

JohnyT said:


> I’m a new R5 user, I have just moved away from BBF, what the point of BBF if you are using face/eye detect + tracking?
> Particularly in the heat of the moment, a bird jumps up and you get one chance for a single frame.
> The auto focus is so good and so fast, it just changes everything for me regarding my camera workflow.


Single button BBF does not really help in that use case, however having a back button for face\eye detect and a button for single point is really useful when you want full control of the point of focus. 

I still have the shutter button mapped for focus\metering and shutter release I just use the back buttons to override to the type of focus I want.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 23, 2021)

BTW, have you updated the firmware on the EF 100-400 II? Mine was soft until I did the firmware update. I think the R5 was having a few issues communicating with the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2021)

JohnyT said:


> I’m a new R5 user, I have just moved away from BBF, what the point of BBF if you are using face/eye detect + tracking?
> Particularly in the heat of the moment, a bird jumps up and you get one chance for a single frame.
> The auto focus is so good and so fast, it just changes everything for me regarding my camera workflow.


To reinforce Ramage, eyeAF doesn't work in every situation, like when the bird is surrounded by AF distractions or the focus gets stuck on the background etc, then you need to switch from eyeAF to point focus. So lots of us here use 2 button BBF and press the appropriate BB for the type of focus. If you are just doing BIF, then you could get away without BBF.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 24, 2021)

JohnyT said:


> I’m a new R5 user, I have just moved away from BBF, what the point of BBF if you are using face/eye detect + tracking?
> Particularly in the heat of the moment, a bird jumps up and you get one chance for a single frame.
> The auto focus is so good and so fast, it just changes everything for me regarding my camera workflow.


I also moved away from BBF, but on the R5 I set one button to enable single-point AF to get the camera back on track. Last weekend I tried doing BIF with the RF100-500 and was reasonably successful:



Most of the time the R5 would track the bee, but it would get confused when it flew in between the cherry blossoms. Pressing the BBF to use small single point would get the focus back to MFD where it needs to be.

The 180L allowed me to get a bit closer, but this really needs the dual nano-USM like the RF100-500 has. Slow bumblebee at these distances gives the AF motors a good workout! The 100L was a bit faster to focus, but waaaaay to short a focal length. I hope the RF100L will get similar AF speeds as the RF100-500 does. And hope for a long-ish 1:1 macro in the 200mm F/4 range with 5 blades triple nano-USM


----------



## Peterdarcy (Aug 28, 2021)

Really late to the party, however I had the same issue, with the 100-400, II with the R5 vs my 5D IV , with Tc 1.4 III. Lots of forums with lots of the same issues. Honestly bought the RF 100-500 and it magically disappeared. I don’t care what anyone says the adaptor, from EOS to RF just does not seem to communicate with the 100-400 II


----------

