# Show me a SHARP 5D Mark IV photo



## Mancubus (Apr 8, 2017)

I've been trying to find a SHARP (not that sharp, just as sharp as a 5D3 with focus nailed and good light) 5D Mark IV photo, full sized preferably a portrait.

Every website, every review I could find, provides samples that have either:
- too high ISO
- type of photo not good for evaluating sharpness
- Sample got resized
- missed focus
- a combination of all above

I want to convince myself to buy one instead of a 5DSR, I don't want to deal with reduced battery life, huge raw files, 5fps, worse high ISO performance and no touch screen.

However, I couldn't find a single image (full sized) that convinces me that the 5D4 outperforms even the sharpness of my 5D3. From the files I've seen - real life samples from dpreview - it doesn't even outperform my first DSLR (the t3i/600D)

The files available at pixelpeeper were even more disappointing, I look at that and damn, those are BAD! 

I'd really appreciate some proof that the 5D4 can produce tack sharp files. Not that I'm a super picky pixel perfect guy, but I really don't want to spend top dollar in something that won't outperform my 5 year old 5D3.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 9, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> I've been trying to find a SHARP (not that sharp, just as sharp as a 5D3 with focus nailed and good light) 5D Mark IV photo, full sized preferably a portrait.
> 
> Every website, every review I could find, provides samples that have either:
> - too high ISO
> ...


Dustin Abbott recently reviewed the Milvus medium telephoto lenses on his 5D-IV.

If you use good lenses and (assuming you use Lightroom) you create a processing preset with optimal detail settings then you can have the images good-to-go on import. But what do I know.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 9, 2017)

5D IV 70-200L IS(version 1)
I'll just leave this here, don't ask



Fleet Week 2016 Kirsti Nichail Colleen &amp; Erin 0581 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## pwp (Apr 9, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> I'd really appreciate some proof that the 5D4 can produce tack sharp files. Not that I'm a super picky pixel perfect guy, but I really don't want to spend top dollar in something that won't outperform my 5 year old 5D3.



Of course the 5D4 will deliver tack sharp files. If not, it's either a poor lens or far more likely, user error. The files I'm generating from the 5D4 consistently knock my socks off with their sheer quality. This is rated in terms of great colour, DR, ability to impose severe global changes in post, iso performance, accuracy and speed of AF and of course sharpness. However sharpness is something I'd be more likely to attribute to my choice of lens and appropriate technique for the job at hand.

I updated from a very high mileage 5D3 to a 5D4. The differences are not enormous, rather a pleasing incremental improvement in resolution, improved DR particularly revealed in clean shadows vs 5D3, highly functional AF, improving noticeably over the already good 5D3. If you're happy with the output from your 5D3 then stay with it. 

There's nothing mystical or magical about the 5D4. It's just a good solid refresh and update from the excellent 5D3. Read every 5D4 review you can get your hands on, maybe rent one for the weekend and do meaningful tests against your 5D3. Then you can make an informed decision. Sharpness? Don't worry about it. That's a given.

-pw


----------



## sanj (Apr 9, 2017)

Funny request.


----------



## Roo (Apr 9, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> 5D IV 70-200L IS(version 1)
> I'll just leave this here, don't ask



Gold Keith! sums up the request peferctly ;D


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 9, 2017)

My 40D could produce tack sharp images for a 8x10 prints.


----------



## nc0b (Apr 9, 2017)

I don't own either the Mk III or IV, but as Keith said, I can get tack sharp portraits with my old 40D and 70-200mm f/2.8 II. I have a photo of my wife where you can count the eyebrow hairs and eyelashes. I don't see how the Mk IV could have a sharpness problem. I get sharp raptor shots with my 6D and the classic 400mm f/5.6. The cropping ability with my 5DsR is amazing, but I don't use it in low light. On a trip to London and Paris for the past two weeks I have exclusively used the 6D since I am indoors a lot and need ISO 6400 or 12800 often. I brought the 5DsR and a 16-35mm f/4, which would have been nice to have a few times, but carrying two bodies and two lenses in very heavy traffic areas just wasn't practical. 

I pointed out this afternoon to my wife a large portrait style print in a shop window of a jewelry store. The sharpness was exquisite, and the depth of field to my liking. The eyes, eyebrows and eyelashes were tack sharp, the the ear was just going out of depth of field. None of the style that I hate where one eye is sharp and the other eye out of focus. I don't even like an ear totally blurry. The point is I like sharp, and the skin pores were completely resolved. None of the facial mush I often see. This may have been shot with a medium format camera, but this can be accomplished with a 5DsR, and likely with lower resolution bodies.


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 9, 2017)

Not attaching a photo for two reasons: first, the only time I tried to attach a photo before it did not work so not feeling like trying to figure it out; second, on my first question on this forum the trolls were so negative I almost bailed on the site - so do not want to start a dialogue on whether what I see as super sharp is just average.
My only disagreement with the comments so far is that I found a significant improvement in the sharpness of my photos with the 5 D Mark IV compared to my 5 D Mark III. Some of that is the camera and some of it is going back to basics on my technique. Before spending for the new body, I went back and tested lenses to find the sweet spot, started using the tripod and timer more to get the lowest ISO possible and tried to use my best lenses whenever possible. Lo and behold, had a jump in sharpness. When I carried this over with the 5 D Mark IV, I could see a big difference in sharpness. The photos I compared were whiskers, nose and eyes on my cat, Christmas tree ornaments and branches, flowers. Originally I planned to by the 5 DSR and even upgraded my computer, monitor and software. But then I only sampled it in a low light situation and handheld. So not a good ISO, F stop or shutter speed. Decided like you that I did not want the extra size of files and what I thought were issues I would run into in all the inside shots I like to take and also the quick street shots. So was excited when I could bump up the resolution without going all the way to the level of the 5 D SR. I don't do much video, but grabbed a quick inside video of my cousin's dog going crazy and it was razor sharp on his HD TV. I ended up selling my 5D Mark III and 70 D and so cut my cost in half. I ordered and returned the kit lens since all of my tests showed it was no better than the original. So this also saved some costs. So, no photo as evidence, but my experience is that there is a really good bump in sharpness - if you use the right technique.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 9, 2017)

atlcroc said:


> Not attaching a photo for two reasons: first, the only time I tried to attach a photo before it did not work so not feeling like trying to figure it out; second, on my first question on this forum the trolls were so negative I almost bailed on the site - so do not want to start a dialogue on whether what I see as super sharp is just average.
> My only disagreement with the comments so far is that I found a significant improvement in the sharpness of my photos with the 5 D Mark IV compared to my 5 D Mark III. Some of that is the camera and some of it is going back to basics on my technique. Before spending for the new body, I went back and tested lenses to find the sweet spot, started using the tripod and timer more to get the lowest ISO possible and tried to use my best lenses whenever possible. Lo and behold, had a jump in sharpness. When I carried this over with the 5 D Mark IV, I could see a big difference in sharpness. The photos I compared were whiskers, nose and eyes on my cat, Christmas tree ornaments and branches, flowers. Originally I planned to by the 5 DSR and even upgraded my computer, monitor and software. But then I only sampled it in a low light situation and handheld. So not a good ISO, F stop or shutter speed. Decided like you that I did not want the extra size of files and what I thought were issues I would run into in all the inside shots I like to take and also the quick street shots. So was excited when I could bump up the resolution without going all the way to the level of the 5 D SR. I don't do much video, but grabbed a quick inside video of my cousin's dog going crazy and it was razor sharp on his HD TV. I ended up selling my 5D Mark III and 70 D and so cut my cost in half. I ordered and returned the kit lens since all of my tests showed it was no better than the original. So this also saved some costs. So, no photo as evidence, but my experience is that there is a really good bump in sharpness - if you use the right technique.



Default setting for noise and sharpness are OK but it really depends on your personal shooting situations and how you process. One thing I have found is that the 5D Mark IV's jpg processing is really good. Under some situations, the jpg can look better than a quick raw edit of the same image. Tailor your settings to the shooting condition for even better results. Only problem with that is remembering to change them to different situations. Trust me on that one!


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 9, 2017)

Finally found a series of photos taken with the 5 D Mark IV that includes people. You might want to check out the link below to see if these have any shots that help you decide.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/davebass5/


----------



## Viggo (Apr 9, 2017)

I hear ya, and I see where you're coming from. I've asked the same here a couple of times regarding the 1dx2. It is really not sharp, and not even close to what I got from the 1dx using the same lenses , no it's not afma issue... I even oversharpened the 1dx files and they just got sharper, the 1dx2 just gets artifacts, but not more detail. Frustrating...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 9, 2017)

Roo said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > 5D IV 70-200L IS(version 1)
> ...


Except it isn't very sharp :


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 9, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> However, I couldn't find a single image (full sized) that convinces me that the 5D4 outperforms even the sharpness of my 5D3. From the files I've seen - real life samples from dpreview - it doesn't even outperform my first DSLR (the t3i/600D)



What you are basically asking for is to see a low ISO image in good light to show how 'sharp' the body is.
This may be news to you - under those conditions I would not expect the 5DIV to be significantly sharper than the 5D3, maybe even not the 600D (which has a higher pixel density) or the 5DS(r) (ditto). Because under those conditions the sharpness comes purely from the lens. I have the 7D2 and having tried them both side by side over a weekend and 4,000 shots I would not buy the 5DIV for the image quality. 

For me, the advantage of the 5DIV shows at high ISO (for me, over 3200 compared to the 7D2, probably 1600 for the 600D) - which is probably why you see so many images at that sort of ISO. 
But for me, I would buy a 5DIV for the improved AF functions and the malleability of the images in post-processing.
Hell, if all you are shooting is studio stuff you could even make a case for not needing anything more than the 6D unless you had very specific requirements.

With film cameras, the quality of the image was driven by the film you chose - you bought the body for its functionality. I think DSLRs have essentially reached that same point.


----------



## applecider (Apr 9, 2017)

A recent fairly sharp one. I shoot raw and expect to need to sharpen the images generally.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 9, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



Not very sharp- just sharp enough.  ( click on it for full size )



Canon EOS 5D Mark IV test © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Act444 (Apr 9, 2017)

My experience between the 5D3, 5D4 and 5DSR...

If pure SHARPNESS and RESOLUTION is the goal, the 5DSR trounces both the 3 and the 4...just be sure to put a high-quality prime lens on it to ensure you're getting the most out of it. 

If the R would simply not work out for other reasons, then my experience is that the 5D4 is CAPABLE of producing a sharper, more detailed image than the 5D3. I say CAPABLE because you will *not* get that result out of camera (or at least I can't...) - it must be processed accordingly. The AA filter on the 5D4 appears to be stronger than on the 5D3 so images will be somewhat softer by default. HOWEVER, with some USM tweaking, you can squeeze out additional detail. Also remember that the 5D4 has got 30 MP vs. the 22MP on the 5D3, which is noticeable (if not significant) - and (in most cases) I've found the 5D4 to capture more detail despite the stronger filter. I also find that DPP is significantly more heavy-handed with NR on 5D4 files than with 5D3, which contributes to the appearance of a softer image. Turn back the sliders a bit and boom, much of the detail returns. 

If one _must_ have sharpness above all, there's really no beating the 5DSR. THAT will give you crisp, detailed shots OOC - assuming a steady hand and a good lens. I've put 8x12 prints side by side from the R and the 5D3 and I can actually tell the difference(!). The photos from the R look crisper and pop more. This is not to speak ill of the 5D3 - it is no slouch, and its photos are awesome too. 

ETA: The OP mentioned battery life and the 5DSR - also note that you go 5D4, you will also take a hit on battery life compared to the 3.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 10, 2017)

Here is a picture from the 5D4 at a high-ish ISO (1600); in crappy light; at a distance; with a lens that has a teleconverter on it; hand-held; significantly cropped....

Click on it if it doesn't seem sharp, and you'll get a JPG that's compressed to 60 percent the size of the full JPG. If you want sharper, I can send you the TIFF. 

This camera can not only be sharp at low ISO (what camera can't?), but you can stress it like I haven't been able to stress other cameras.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 10, 2017)

And one at ISO 100. I call this "ice cream headache."...


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 10, 2017)

dragonfly-x by Jason Witten, on Flickr


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Apr 10, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> 5D IV 70-200L IS(version 1)
> I'll just leave this here, don't ask
> 
> 
> ...



out of focus hair and etc


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



Yeah saw that in the first one you linked to, it's not what I call sharp, and it's not even close to what I got with the 1dx. It's a great picture, but if that is what is considered sharp I see why people don't get what I'm saying about this.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 10, 2017)

mycanonphotos said:


> dragonfly-x by Jason Witten, on Flickr



I would not normally comment on this, but if you are showing this image as an example of a sharp image, then I have to. The white halos around the head and legs are what you get when over-sharpening with USM. Maybe there is another reason here?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 10, 2017)

Act444 said:


> My experience between the 5D3, 5D4 and 5DSR...
> 
> If pure SHARPNESS and RESOLUTION is the goal, the 5DSR trounces both the 3 and the 4...just be sure to put a high-quality prime lens on it to ensure you're getting the most out of it.
> 
> ...



Exactly my experience. My 5DSR with its higher pixel sensor without an AA filter produces sharper images than my 5DIV under optimal conditions. But, my choice for bird photography is my 5DIV for reasons of AF and generally operating hand held at less than ideal conditions. The battery message is also true.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

The owl picture I would not have kept as it is too soft for me to like.

I find the 1dx2 to be okay with Profoto B1 as light source or in very harsh sunlight. But that's normal that all cameras are better there, but I feel the 1dx2 falls apart MUCH quicker in less than very bright light. At flatter light less crisp light, but still low iso I get no sharpness. And when increasing iso it gets much worse much faster than the 1dx. 

My 200 f2 feels like a 70-300 non L.... I've tried using different sharpening etc, but it still feels like I should put on some glasses when I view them.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

Viggo said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



It might help us to understand if you could post or link to an image you consider acceptably sharp...


----------



## meywd (Apr 10, 2017)

Viggo said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



What makes a sharp image? if the hair is sharp doesn't that make it a sharp image, or is a sharp image an image with every part in focus?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

A sharp image is where it is actually sharp where the focus plain is.

This is the sharpest I get the 1dx2 images, and let me be very clear that this is okay, but the light is as good as it gets for sharpness and the Zeiss 100 f2 mp is also extremely sharp, think this was f5.6. but in any other light it's very soft...


----------



## meywd (Apr 10, 2017)

So you mean when there is less light the sharpness is less then optimal?, if you pump the ISO its normal for the photo to be less sharp because of noise, if you keep the ISO and the light is less than enough then there will also be noise and the photo will not be sharp, you can't test sharpness with low light or high ISO, unless that is your intent from the start.

and again, you can't compare your photo to Keith's, why? because the subject in your case takes more space on the sensor (more pixels) which means more details


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

meywd said:


> So you mean when there is less light the sharpness is less then optimal?, if you pump the ISO its normal for the photo to be less sharp because of noise, if you keep the ISO and the light is less than enough then there will also be noise and the photo will not be sharp, you can't test sharpness with low light or high ISO, unless that is your intent from the start.
> 
> and again, you can't compare your photo to Keith's, why? because the subject in your case takes more space on the sensor (more pixels) which means more details



Well, that was kind of why I wrote that even with flatter light and still low iso (did of course mean the picture is still correctly exposed), it decreases sharpness drastically very quickly. It was NOT like this with the 1dx.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 10, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> I've been trying to find a SHARP (not that sharp, just as sharp as a 5D3 with focus nailed and good light) 5D Mark IV photo, full sized preferably a portrait.
> 
> Every website, every review I could find, provides samples that have either:
> - too high ISO
> ...


Perhaps you could post a full sized 5D-III image which could serve as a sharpness benchmark for others.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 10, 2017)

Thank you all for answering. I really appreciate your efforts to help, but so far I haven't got a single shot that convinced me. The only one who had that sharpness I'm looking for was posted by Viggo, but unfortunately I checked the exif and it's from a 1DX-II.

Here are the answers to some of you:

KeithBreazeal - I appreciate your effort, but a group shot in natural light isn't what I'm looking for to evaluate this

pwp - Unfortunately there are no rentals where I am at, but you're mostly right. The benefits I'm looking for on the 5D4 are the DR, the improved focus, the decent AF while on live view. I won't be disappointed if it has the SAME sharpness as the 5D3, but I haven't seen a single photo that convinces me of that.

atlcroc - I like your review, but I'm just not convinced it can do better than my 5d3. You have great photos in your flickr but unfortunately any camera will look sharp in 1920px like the photos you posted.

Mikehit - that's very off putting, I hated the 7D2 I had because it never did produce a sharp photo. Sold mine within months and never looked back. Would be a major letdown to have the same disappointment again with the 5D4. 

applecider - the duck photo is below the acceptable sharpness for me, looks a little better than the 7D2 I mentioned above but the duck itself looks quite blurry when looking at 100%

Act444 - do you think I can get extra sharpness without having to tweak too much? I mass-produce photos and if I could just sharpen the photo without leaving Lightroom it would be much better.

[email protected] - The owl is far from sharp. It is however a tough shot under very difficult lighting conditions, I love how the DR allowed you to get this shot, it would be lost on a 5D3 because you can't push shadows that much

mycanonphotos - that dragonfly looks good here, but does not have that sharpness I'm looking for when looking at the maximum size

Viggo - That's exactly the kind of show I wanted to see on a 5D4. That's the sharpness I'm looking for! Too bad it's on another camera. But you know what I'm talking about! Your 1DX might be sharper for you, but this shot totally nailed it for me

StudentOfLight - Ok, I will try to post one


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 10, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Perhaps you could post a full sized 5D-III image which could serve as a sharpness benchmark for others.



Here you go. The sharpness on her face is what I'm looking for. This is the photo before my post processing, notice that I was shooting almost wide open with her face on the edge of the frame, and the sharpness is still great even before doing anything on LR or PS.

5D3 - 70-200 2.8 IS II @F3.2 - ISO100 - 1/200s with one octabox


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

Viggo said:


> A sharp image is where it is actually sharp where the focus plain is.
> 
> This is the sharpest I get the 1dx2 images, and let me be very clear that this is okay, but the light is as good as it gets for sharpness and the Zeiss 100 f2 mp is also extremely sharp, think this was f5.6. but in any other light it's very soft...



Thanks. Now, every hair and pore in the zone of focus is clear and defined. I don't see how it could be sharper in that sense without being over-sharpened (with haloes etc). Can you provide another image that shows top-notch sharpness, from whatever camera you like? Please 



Mancubus said:


> Mikehit - that's very off putting, I hated the 7D2 I had because it never did produce a sharp photo. Sold mine within months and never looked back. Would be a major letdown to have the same disappointment again with the 5D4.



Maybe there's something wrong with your copy of the camera. If you get it replaced, and account for everything (lens, focus, processing, etc), and it's *still* unsatisfactory, then either you've had two bad copies or I'm afraid I think the problem lies with you, not the camera. That's to say, you believe there's a problem when there isn't (or your standards are somehow far removed from everyone else's). The idea that *all copies* of given camera model cannot produce a sharp image is frankly ludicrous (I'm not saying you said that, but it could be inferred).

Here's where it gets a little philosophical. It's not to say there's not an issue - after all, what we perceive is our own reality. But I don't think it's reasonable to believe everyone else is deluded. There are clearly thousands of satisfied 7D2, 5D4, and 1Dx2 users, at every level of skill.



Mancubus said:


> applecider - the duck photo is below the acceptable sharpness for me, looks a little better than the 7D2 I mentioned above but the duck itself looks quite blurry when looking at 100%



Viewing the *goose* at 100%, there's so much jpeg compression (I assume introduced by this website) that you can't really make a sharpness judgment based on it.

Oh, and the owl, which I'd missed - Viggo's idea it's an unacceptable *image* is absurd. And let's remember, it's image-level qualities that most people judge images, not pixel peeping (I know this is to some extent beside the point, but still, let's not lose sight of reality).


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

I don't have a lot of my 1dx pictures available atm, but I can post a really sharp from that when I get around to it, but the point of the shot of my little princess is to show that under optimal conditions, I am happy with the sharpness, but this kind of sharpness I got on much higher iso's and in much rougher light than I can with the 1dx2. Is it heavyer AA filter due to the video stuff or what can it be?

Why I say the owl was not acceptable to me is I know what images from my gear looks under those conditions and I would to have missed focus or motion blur to get something that soft.

Here's a shot from today; iso 1600 through a fence (obviously); so even in shade and high iso, it's still pretty sharp. It's resized a bit, and cropped, but still 4000 something on the long side. Not sure why this is sharp though.


----------



## nc0b (Apr 10, 2017)

Viggo, the picture of your "little princess" is absolutely stunning. That level of detail is what I strive for and occasionally achieve. I sometimes see posts shot at f/1.2 where one eye is in focus and nothing else. I just shake my head and wonder what is the point of paper-thin depth of field. Usually those type of photos also have horrendous chromatic aberration. Maybe the photographer is showing off the fact he has a very fast lens, but I prefer your style 1000 times over.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 10, 2017)

nc0b said:


> Viggo, the picture of your "little princess" is absolutely stunning. That level of detail is what I strive for and occasionally achieve. I sometimes see posts shot at f/1.2 where one eye is in focus and nothing else. I just shake my head and wonder what is the point of paper-thin depth of field. Usually those type of photos also have horrendous chromatic aberration. Maybe the photographer is showing off the fact he has a very fast lens, but I prefer your style 1000 times over.



Thanks! Much appriciated! It's kind of funny you pointed out the paper thin dof thing, because I usually shoot like that, but... that is outside and often with flash, and at a distance, so even at 200mm f2.0 I still have a fullbody portrait where the whole body is sharp. For headshots against my IKEA blackout curtain I like a bit more dof. And that Zeiss lets me get as close as I want and then the dof becomes way to thin at f2.0, and man that lens is sharp at f5.6.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2017)

Viggo said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > So you mean when there is less light the sharpness is less then optimal?, if you pump the ISO its normal for the photo to be less sharp because of noise, if you keep the ISO and the light is less than enough then there will also be noise and the photo will not be sharp, you can't test sharpness with low light or high ISO, unless that is your intent from the start.
> ...



Not sure how the shot of your daughter is lacking in ANY way. Demonstrates sharpness perfectly!!! But that's with the 1DX II.

This is a very fair request and topic by the OP. Part of what might be happening with the 5DIV, and the higher-res samples available is how it's being used. Many photographers are using it at higher ISO in non-studio, no tripod situations. With a higher resolution than the 5DIII, wouldn't slight, very slight issues of AF and motion blur show more at 100%?

While the 5Dsr is even higher resolution, isn't it used more in studios and on tripods?

My 5DIV is very sharp with my several lenses, stopped down or wide open. But if I crop 100%, I do see slightly more noise at ISO 400 than on my 5DIII, and that tends to mask sharpness a little.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > meywd said:
> ...



With the higher mp the output size or enlargement is greater, so at 100% a 30 mp 5DIV should appear softer than the 5DIII. When reduced to the same output size it should be the same. The more the file is reduced the sharper it will appear, so bringing a 50 mp 5Ds down to say 23 would result in a very sharp file.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 10, 2017)

> Act444 - do you think I can get extra sharpness without having to tweak too much? I mass-produce photos and if I could just sharpen the photo without leaving Lightroom it would be much better.



Hmm. I'm only getting started with LR, so can't speak too much there, but I can tell you settings I've used in Canon's DPP. For the 5D3, assuming a perfectly nailed shot, my Typical USM was 3.5 sharpness / 4 fineness / 4 threshold...occasionally going up to 4/4/4. This would result in a razor-sharp image. If there was slight misfocus, I'd most likely end up with a 5/4/3 or 6/4/2 if softer. 

For the 5D4, I often find that the default 3/4/4 doesn't cut it for me. In addition to reducing luminance NR down by one point (from the default), I find myself going to a 4/1/1 (Fine Detail equiv. setting) or 5/1/1 to try to squeeze out extra detail that I felt would have been there by default with the Mark III. 

I do note that the 5D4's somewhat more consistent AF and cleaner output at ISO > 6400 means that in reality, it's a wash and I would give the edge to the 4 over the 3. I recall having many, many 5D3 images that needed beyond 5/4/3 USM to be acceptably sharp. 

For reference: with the 5DSR I use similar settings as the 5D3, dependent on whether I hit focus or not. I don't recall needing to push farther than 4/4/4 though unless it is notably OOF/blurry and I had no other option. Used with a lens like the 100 Macro, no worries about the camera getting in your way if you want sharp - even at 6400 ISO. One thing about this camera though, you do have to watch that shutter speed.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 10, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Mikehit - that's very off putting, I hated the 7D2 I had because it never did produce a sharp photo. Sold mine within months and never looked back. Would be a major letdown to have the same disappointment again with the 5D4.



The 7D2 AF can be awkward at times but when it hits it is as good as the 5D4 from my (albeit limited) experience, but the AF on the 5DIV was far more assured and hunted much less and as a result my hit rate with the 5DIV was higher than the 7D2.
But don't let that distract you from my main point - that unless you are really pushing the camera to its limit, image quality from a well focussed shot is the last reason I would upgrade. 

You really need to separate two issues: what the camera is capable of when fully focussed (the real indicator of sensor 'sharpness') and how good the AF is. From your latest posts I am not really sure what you are looking for. 

I would suggest you look at the review by Arash Hazheghi, one of the most demanding users I have ever read. He passed on the 7D2, the 5D3 and the 5DSR. But he is more than happy with the 5D4 as a back up to his 1Dx2. Also check out his images on birdphotographers.net.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 10, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> With the higher mp the output size or enlargement is greater, so at 100% a 30 mp 5DIV should appear softer than the 5DIII. When reduced to the same output size it should be the same. The more the file is reduced the sharper it will appear, so bringing a 50 mp 5Ds down to say 23 would result in a very sharp file.



This.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 10, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Here you go. The sharpness on her face is what I'm looking for. This is the photo before my post processing, *notice that I was shooting almost wide open with her face on the edge of the frame, *and the sharpness is still great even before doing anything on LR or PS.
> 
> 5D3 - 70-200 2.8 IS II @F3.2 - ISO100 - 1/200s with one octabox



The bit I have boldened is a description of lens limitation, not sensor resolution nor even focussing accuracy. The fact you have made the comment brings me back to my previous post that I wonder if you are conflating different issues and not really breaking it down to the different elements.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 11, 2017)

Mike
I recall from memory that Arash's review wrote that the 5DIV is superior in every way to the 5DIII. I also recall from elsewhere that he passed on the 5DSR because he found a longer shutter delay after pressing the button, which is no good for him as his speciality is BIF. I have done 100s of comparisons of my 5DSR with my 5DIV and find first hand that the DSR is sharper. The superior sharpness and resolution is such that that the 5DSR + 100-400mm II at 400mm produces as good images as the 5DIV + 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC, and both are better than the 7DII plus 400mm.

Actually, Arash's photos emphasise composition and action rather than clinical pixel-peeking sharpness.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go. The sharpness on her face is what I'm looking for. This is the photo before my post processing, *notice that I was shooting almost wide open with her face on the edge of the frame, *and the sharpness is still great even before doing anything on LR or PS.
> ...



I actually mentioned it to emphasize that even on a crippled situation (frame edge, large aperture) the 5D3 still delivered a sharpness that I have yet to see on a 5D4.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> I actually mentioned it to emphasize that even on a crippled situation (frame edge, large aperture) the 5D3 still delivered a sharpness that I have yet to see on a 5D4.



Frame edge and large aperture are crippling for the lens, not for the body. The body simply records the light that the lens sends to it. 

So I will repeat my question - are your concerns about accuracy of focus or are about resolving capability of the sensor? I have not yet seen a review that says the 5DIV has less resolving capability than the 5D3.

I am starting to think that you have in mind a very specific set of criteria and people are finding it hard to frame their answer in a way that satisfies you. I suggest the best option is to rent one for a few days and see if it delivers what you need.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 11, 2017)

As an owner of both the 5DSR and 5D IV I much prefer the 5D IV.
For me it's a much better all round camera.
The frame rate is very useful and I find the image better from it.
The 5DSR I find is poor in high ISO situations. The grain on my version is a bit smudgy.
The grain on the 5D IV is much finer.
I always felt the 5DSR was over pushed to get to 50mp.

I used both side by side in Norway recently and the 5D IV performed better.
The 5DSR needs to be on a tripod with good light to match the 5DIV.

There is no doubt the 5DSR under perfect conditions is a great camera but it's not a great all-rounder.
The 5D IV is an incremental improvement on the 5DIII.
It's not remarkably better. 
The 5DIII was good (but unable to swim in sea-water unfortunately).

If I had the choice between the two I would immediately pick the 5D IV.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > I actually mentioned it to emphasize that even on a crippled situation (frame edge, large aperture) the 5D3 still delivered a sharpness that I have yet to see on a 5D4.
> ...



Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

I want to buy a 5D4, I really do. The improved focus accuracy (I hope so!) will allow me to get more keepers, the DR improvement will allow me to push shadows more, the Live view focus will actually make Live view usable and even allow me to make videos if I want.

However, I am very careful when buying a new camera because I was "very" disappointed with my 7D2 when it came out, the image quality was nowhere near as good as my 70D (at the time) and I felt cheated. I tried to find what was wrong with it, blamed myself, the lens, the situation...at one point I sent the 7D2 to Canon and they returned it to me weeks later saying there was nothing wrong.

So I sold it to the shop and added some $ to get myself a 5D3 - the difference was night and day, that quality and sharpness made me happy immediately. 

My concern is due to the fact that every image I've seen from the 5D4 looks more like my damned 7D2 than my 5D3, I couldn't find any sharp examples although there are many people here claiming that are possible. It might be the strong AA filter, I'm not sure. All I know is that I'm not happy with what I've seen so far.

If that portrait (or the feline) posted by Viggo was taken with a 5D4, I would rest my case and apologise for the inconvenience. All I see here from people defending the 5D4 are words or photos in the wrong specs (too small or wrong conditions). Thread is in page 4 and not a single photo that allows me to see real sharpness has been shown.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
> 
> I want to buy a 5D4, I really do. The improved ...
> 
> ...



Hi Mancubus! 

I've read some posts of this already 48 posts long thread and flipped through the rest of it. 
To cut a long story short I'd sum it up that way:

your GAS makes you want the new 5D4 
(i.e. GAS here also means believe in better IQ from newer products)
you know how well your 5D3 works and so you hesitate
you want us to deliver facts to justify your GAS
you don't see real differences to the better so you hesitate even more

Conclusion:
Either you rent and test a 5D4 and push it to the IQ limits, seeing if you can achieve something better within a few hours/days.
Or you stay happy with your 5D3 as long as it is serviced by Canon knowing what you can get out of it.
AND... if you're still willing (and having) to spend money for your GAS, go get a lens you've been surely already looking for


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
> 
> I want to buy a 5D4, I really do. The improved focus accuracy (I hope so!) will allow me to get more keepers, the DR improvement will allow me to push shadows more, the Live view focus will actually make Live view usable and even allow me to make videos if I want.
> 
> ...



I feel your pain! 
It is a pain in the rear when a bit of gear does not live up to your hopes so I can understand your cautions. A big problem is that everyone's standards are different and I know there are people who would say my acceptability on noise (as an example) make images unusable for them. 

If you google '5DIV raw samples' you will find review sites that post unedited files you can play with, such as

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-iv/canon-5d-ivGALLERY.HTM

But as already mentioned you will only have real peace of mind if you rent one and try it out.


----------



## leGreve (Apr 11, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



That one here... it has what I've seen some often from Canon files... dunno what it is, but it just doesn't feel completely sharp.

At our studio we have a term: "it's Canon sharp"

What it means, that it doesn't compare to our Phase One backs by a mile, by it's acceptable. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a Canon file sharper than that. And I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way.
But it's just not "perfect".

If only we could digiback quality in a small size for a reasonable price


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 11, 2017)

Not trying to be a troll here, but what is everyone really doing with all these pixel level perfectly sharp photos?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 11, 2017)

pdirestajr said:


> Not trying to be a troll here, but what is everyone really doing with all these pixel level perfectly sharp photos?



My watch is waterproof to about 250 ft. I will never go that deep, but it's nice to know I can wash my hands without having to take it off. Same with my photo's, it's not that I print it so big I can see the 100% crop from a couple of meters away, but it's nice to know that they are technically optimal for whatever use I have, because it isn't that difficult to nail focus and have fast enough shutter and sharp enough lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2017)

Viggo said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Not trying to be a troll here, but what is everyone really doing with all these pixel level perfectly sharp photos?
> ...



Is there such a thing as 'technically optimal shapness' though? How sharp isn't sharp enough, or enough, or even too much, is not agreed. It may well be (for the reasons of AA filter, though that's just a supposition, and greater magnification inherent with higher resolution images) that images from the 5D4 and 1Dx2 appear slightly less sharp OOC than the same shots taken with a 5D3 and 1Dx. The OP took this to an extreme by saying they'd never seen a "sharp" 5D4 image. I don't think that kind of outlying concern can be assuaged with real data or explanation.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 11, 2017)

leGreve said:


> What it means, that it doesn't compare to our Phase One backs by a mile,



Why would you expect to...?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 11, 2017)

pdirestajr said:


> Not trying to be a troll here, but what is everyone really doing with all these pixel level perfectly sharp photos?



In my case, cropping them heavily, sometimes to the point where that last few % of sharpness makes a real difference.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2017)

One more example, different from the others. ef 70-200mm f/4, ISO 160, f/8. Again, light processing in LR only. No crop.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 11, 2017)

There must have been something wrong with your 7DMKII for it to be worse than a 70D. I bought my 7DMKII to accompany my 5DMKIII while traveling for a year, I also bought the gf a 70D.

I have to say I don't love the 7DMKII images because when you compare them to a FF camera they just don't have that magical feel the FF sensors have, but it is leaps and bounds better than the gfs 70D but is perfectly fine for her. The focus is also awesome and I think the IQ is actually pretty impressive for a crop body.

Unfortunately my home was burgled last week and I caught them half way through the act, my studio was destroyed my Mac pro across the room my 2 27" cinema displays were thrown down the stairs and destroyed. My server was across the room like it had been thrown. They had a pillow with at least 10ks worth of my camera gear in it. Would have been absolutely devastated if it had all gone.

Fortunately with me catchin them they only got away with 2x MacBook airs an 11 and 13, ipad 2 128gb, iPhone 6s 128gb but they took my 5DMKIII which was downloading images at the time with a 100mm L Macro. Unfortunately a 4tb drive full to the brim of images thankfully backed up on my sever.

Nothing that cant be replaced but still a pretty miserable experience.

Its just stuff but ive been round the world with the camera, loads of motorsports events and weddings and it had its battle scars that were unique to me. Really attached to it, funny how you get attached to your work tools. It had just rolled over 200k so not the worth a huge amount but lots of amazing memories and of course images. 

So unfortunately I am now looking for a replacement, another 5DMKIII, 5DSr, IV or a 1DX MKI.

Thanks for the images from my perspective all the images posted are very impressive and looks like another amazing workhorse from canon, but all this pixel peeping and optimal sharpness is a bit anal. The likelihood of these ideal perfect situations cropping up in the real world are minimal unless they are staged scenes with studio light.

But is the IV worth £1000 more than a 5DMKIII at this point... I'm not sure. If this hardware update rumour is true then you would be mad to buy one in the near future? Until you can find one with this update done?


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 11, 2017)

tomscott said:


> But is the IV worth £1000 more than a 5DMKIII at this point... I'm not sure. If this hardware update rumour is true then you would be mad to buy one in the near future? Until you can find one with this update done?



Canon very rarely make great leaps forward (the 7D and the for its AF capability and the 5DR(S) for their resolution are exceptions that spring to mind), but major strongly on updating the interface items that make a big difference to the way a camera handles. So on release you often hear that the specs of the 'upgrade' is unimpressive....until the pros and enthusiasts get their hands on it a really like the overall improvement in the package. The 5DIV seems very much another step in that direction.

Whether the hardware update is real is anyone's guess...


----------



## tomscott (Apr 11, 2017)

TBH the 7DMKII feels like much snappier than the 5DMKIII, not it actual speed (FPS) but the UI feels quicker the operation seems quicker too and the updated viewfinder were all welcome features I didn't think about as pros until after I bought it. Made the 5DMKIII feel quite old in comparison so I'm sure the IV will feel similar.

Wonder if it will have a big price fall like the 5DMKIII did after the first 12 months.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2017)

tomscott said:


> TBH the 7DMKII feels like much snappier than the 5DMKIII, not it actual speed (FPS) but the UI feels quicker the operation seems quicker too and the updated viewfinder were all welcome features I didn't think about as pros until after I bought it. Made the 5DMKIII feel quite old in comparison so I'm sure the IV will feel similar.
> 
> Wonder if it will have a big price fall like the 5DMKIII did after the first 12 months.



Many photographer oriented improvements to the VF and menus, compared to the 5DIII. The AF is amazingly better. The DR seems slightly better.

Frankly, I was a bit foolish to sell my 5DIII so quickly just to step up to the 5DIV; there was no rush, so I could have waited for the price drops. (I think I paid about $200 under the initial list price). But I wanted to get as much as I could for the older camera.

It wasn't the last foolish decision I'll make, but the AF is so greatly improved, I don't feel as badly stung as I might otherwise.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 11, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> As an owner of both the 5DSR and 5D IV I much prefer the 5D IV.
> For me it's a much better all round camera.
> The frame rate is very useful and I find the image better from it.
> The 5DSR I find is poor in high ISO situations. The grain on my version is a bit smudgy.
> ...



I'll say this - if the 5D4 did not have an AA filter - or there was a way to physically disable its function - I wouldn't have even bothered with the 5DSR. 

As it stands, when I want _sharp_ and don't want the camera getting in the way of my goal I choose the R. But for all other uses, including general shooting, I find the 5D4 to be faster, cleaner and more versatile. 

I don't worry too much about shooting the R up to its max 6400 setting - enough detail is captured that noise reduction can be boosted to compensate. With the 5D4 I'm always having to turn NR down to recover detail. That said, the 5D4 is the better high ISO camera by a long shot if shooting at 12,800. Significantly less color bleeding for one.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 11, 2017)

While the 5D Mark IV could be considered an incremental improvement over the 5D Mark III, there are some areas that I find it a substantial leap forward. The color metering system is awesome and nails skin tones over a wide range of conditions. In real world conditions, the deep shadow noise and colors are much improved.
I have shot the Reno Air Races for many years starting with film, then went digital with a 40D. Over time, I grew through 50D's, the 7D,(I still have) 5D III, and now the 5D IV & 5DS. 
The old 7D is still a great shooter for good lighting with a high keeper rate.
The 5DS will produce great results shooting action but the keeper rate is lower than the 7D.
The 5D IV and 7D have about the same keeper ratio. If I need a long reach in good lighting, the 7D is the camera of choice. If I'm shooting under varied conditions, the Mark IV is the "go to" workhorse. 

The "technical" dynamic range numbers for the Mark IV are a bit better than the Mark III, but the real world performance seems to indicate a greater performance improvement when it comes to being able to process the image and control light and color.
This image was a revelation for me. Despite the light being filtered through a yellow canopy, the Mark IV nailed the skin tones. The ability to dive into the deep shadows was an eye opener.
A lot of the performance comparisons are accurate, but I think the 5D Mark IV is the strongest "all-around" contender for now.



Reno 2016 Steve working on Voodoo 4255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr



Canon 5D Mark IV test LR6 3255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr



Canon 5D Mark IV 5 stop push LR6 3379 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 11, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, with two babies to take care of, I just can't set up test scenarios this week... But I did take this shot after reading your post yesterday, hoping you'd get something useful from 180mm at f/4, ISO 640, 1/640th of a second. Best I could do, as he does not stay still. Check out the reflection in the eye, veins in the eye, the detail of tiny hairs near the upper lip and on the cheek.
> 
> This is a real world demo of the sharpness, which I'm completely satisfied with. Lightly processed for contrast and sharpness in LR. Not cropped.
> 
> The other shot is from a few month ago, cropped about 90% to show how smooth and sharp tiny details such as the chipped paint show. Taken handheld with an ef 70-200mm f/4 at f/7.1, ISO 400.



The baby shot is kinda of what I'm looking for, but at a full sized resolution and an exif that actually says it was a 5D4!


----------



## sanj (Apr 11, 2017)

Viggo.
Little angel shot is superb.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 11, 2017)

sanj said:


> Viggo.
> Little angel shot is superb.



Thanks a lot! ;D not too easy at macro distances with a bubbly girl and manual focus, lol. And indeed why I swapped it for the 135 L, for AF only. If the Zeiss had af I never would have traded


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, with two babies to take care of, I just can't set up test scenarios this week... But I did take this shot after reading your post yesterday, hoping you'd get something useful from 180mm at f/4, ISO 640, 1/640th of a second. Best I could do, as he does not stay still. Check out the reflection in the eye, veins in the eye, the detail of tiny hairs near the upper lip and on the cheek.
> ...



Sorry, I don't include exif. I think the 2560 resolution shows the sharpness and posts here without fuss or a need for a link.

KeithBreazeal has shared an impeccable shot even more generously in the way you hoped for.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 11, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Sorry, I don't include exif. I think the 2560 resolution shows the sharpness and posts here without fuss or a need for a link.
> 
> KeithBreazeal has shared an impeccable shot even more generously in the way you hoped for.



Thank you, his shot also looks sharp but once again it has a 2048 resolution, this is less than 1/3rd of the main dimension of what a 5D4 file is.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I feel your pain!
> It is a pain in the rear when a bit of gear does not live up to your hopes so I can understand your cautions. A big problem is that everyone's standards are different and I know there are people who would say my acceptability on noise (as an example) make images unusable for them.
> 
> If you google '5DIV raw samples' you will find review sites that post unedited files you can play with, such as
> ...



Thanks for the link, but I think I saw those in the past, and sadly there isn't a single photo in that bunch that allows a proper evaluation.

Those bride portraits in the bottom are horribly soft, this is exactly the kind of shot that would make me regret the purchase to my last strand of hair.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I don't include exif. I think the 2560 resolution shows the sharpness and posts here without fuss or a need for a link.
> ...



See if this is larger(better) Use the slider under the photo.



Reno 2016 Steve working on Voodoo 4255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I feel your pain!
> ...



On Keith's Flickr page is this link to the 5DIV group--over 8000 images. Surely you will get a good sense of the camera's capabilities....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 12, 2017)

Hi Tom. 
So sorry to hear about you being burgled, hoping that you catching them didn't lead to you being physically attacked, and also hoping that the scum have been or will be caught. I have to wonder about the type of person that would smash a computer or server rather than take it or just leave it behind! 
Hopefully you are well insured and can get your studio up and running again and replace all your damaged or stolen gear in short order. 
Congratulations on having a backup (I think you are implying that you have everything except the photos that were downloading?). 
I get the gear attachment thing, beat up and worn out it was still your travelling companion around the world. 
Have you registered on one of the services that search for the exif for your gear, if someone posts pictures taken with it to the web it might enable you to recover it (unless the insurance pays out on it then it belongs to the insurer). 

Cheers, Graham. 



tomscott said:


> Unfortunately my home was burgled last week and I caught them half way through the act, my studio was destroyed my Mac pro across the room my 2 27" cinema displays were thrown down the stairs and destroyed. My server was across the room like it had been thrown. They had a pillow with at least 10ks worth of my camera gear in it. Would have been absolutely devastated if it had all gone.


----------



## hbr (Apr 12, 2017)

tomscott said:


> There must have been something wrong with your 7DMKII for it to be worse than a 70D. I bought my 7DMKII to accompany my 5DMKIII while traveling for a year, I also bought the gf a 70D.
> 
> I have to say I don't love the 7DMKII images because when you compare them to a FF camera they just don't have that magical feel the FF sensors have, but it is leaps and bounds better than the gfs 70D but is perfectly fine for her. The focus is also awesome and I think the IQ is actually pretty impressive for a crop body.
> 
> ...



Hi tomscott,
I feel your pain as I also had over $10,000 worth of camera equipment stolen 2 years ago. Unfortunately, they were gone by the time I came home and I did not have an alarm system on my home at that time. Fortunately, I had a good insurance policy and did not come out of too badly. It could have been much worse.

I totally agree with you about the 7D II vs a FF camera. I love everything about it except the images. I find that to get reasonable images, I need to use lenses with an aperture of 2.8 or better and full daylight. My 6D is not nearly as much fun to use, but the images it produces are much cleaner and easier to clean up in PP.

Brian


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 12, 2017)

KeithBreazeal ok now I'm finally convinced, your airshow and especially your bird shots convinced me that the camera can actually get sharp enough. Congratulations on your photos, they look amazing.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 12, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> KeithBreazeal ok now I'm finally convinced, your airshow and especially your bird shots convinced me that the camera can actually get sharp enough. Congratulations on your photos, they look amazing.



You'll be happy. I shot with mine for a week, then sold my 5D Mark III.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 12, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Tom.
> So sorry to hear about you being burgled, hoping that you catching them didn't lead to you being physically attacked, and also hoping that the scum have been or will be caught. I have to wonder about the type of person that would smash a computer or server rather than take it or just leave it behind!
> Hopefully you are well insured and can get your studio up and running again and replace all your damaged or stolen gear in short order.
> Congratulations on having a backup (I think you are implying that you have everything except the photos that were downloading?).
> ...



Thanks for the sentiments Graham, I appreciate it.

Unfortunately there is only one exit in the house and I startled them not realising, I was more worried that they had taken the Mac Pro with a wedding I shot on it a week earlier and hadn't yet back up. Thankfully the pro was too heavy for them to take and I have back ups in 3 locations in case of fire or theft so all was ok.

I went through the smashed door and upstairs and they were trying to get out of my bedroom window which is 20ft drop as they must have heard me. Unfortunately I got to the door and was assaulted, not too badly but enough to be shaken by the incident. I fought back but then realised its one of those situations me or them and there was two so just let them go. Such a stupid situation all the stuff but the camera is pretty much useless to them and probably will end up binned.

I moved to Manchester when I returned from traveling for a year and jobless and because I was out of work and looking for work I let my camera insurance lapse. I ended up getting a job and then bought a new house and concentrated getting it all sorted so the insurance didn't get sorted. I let it lapse as it was around £550 to renew, more than the car. I have contents insurance but I hadn't itemised all the camera gear as I had a camera policy. The other thing is that I moved house yesterday and had a new policy with it all itemised just in case but I hadn't activated it as it happened 2 weeks before I was moving.

Anyway suffice to say the camera is only insured to the maximum value (which isn't much) without being itemised so I am a bit out of pocket but not to worry its only stuff and me and the gf are ok, thankfully work has been fruitful and I have plenty of work but need to replace it asap. I'm looking at it as an excuse to purchase some new gear.

Otherwise I managed to disturb them and 95% of my gear is still in my possession but lesson learned. I'm going security the new place to the max and have locked cabinets etc in the new studio as a secondary deterrent.

Thing is I have been looking at replacing the 5D as was tired but I would never have sold it I would have kept it.

Its more the path of destruction they leave took 2 days to get the house straight, thankfully its a rental and like I say I moved yesterday so feels like a fresh start.

I didn't know about the online registration so thanks for that! Although I did upload a JPG to http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/ and they didn't find any images online yet I have thousands in my flickr stream with exif so not sure how good it is. Thanks for the suggestion tho appreciate it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 12, 2017)

Regarding sharpening... 
Here is an example of a 300% crop of an image taken in cloudy weather, which as you know is not conducive to producing sharp images:



300% by Omesh Singh, on Flickr

I have applied optimum sharpening settings (for my taste) but no noise reduction yet. If this is viewed "properly" at 100% then it looks pretty fantastic. Anyway, I think it is very important to learn the *appropriate sharpening thresholds* to use for a given camera in order to compensate for the effect of the AA filter. With different pixel sizes and AA-filters the numbers will vary obviously, but once you know your camera, it's easy enough to create a preset to apply on export, or fine-tune and sync edits across a set of images.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 14, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Regarding sharpening...
> Here is an example of a 300% crop of an image taken in cloudy weather, which as you know is not conducive to producing sharp images:



That's very impressive, was that a 5D4?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 14, 2017)

My first birding experience with the 5D IV was interesting. I used the 300 2.8 and a 1.4X all day- solid performance.
Now for the "crop till your eyes bleed" test.



Canon 5D Mark IV Bald Eagle crop detail © keith Breazeal photography by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

I tried this aggressive crop and I think that's about my acceptable limit.



Eagle Tour Lake Camanche 2017 Bald Eagle Tour 1142 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Apr 14, 2017)

How can we judge the sharpness? We can't download it. It's on Flickr and the size isn't visible to me at least. What crop is it?


----------



## meywd (Apr 14, 2017)

AlanF said:


> How can we judge the sharpness? We can't download it. It's on Flickr and the size isn't visible to me at least. What crop is it?



I think thats more than 1:1


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 17, 2017)

AlanF said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > dragonfly-x by Jason Witten, on Flickr
> ...



Normally I wouldn't comment on such a comment since its probably much similar to what it may be like to pounding sand down a rat hole...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 17, 2017)

mycanonphotos said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > mycanonphotos said:
> ...



You took this image at 400mm using the 100-400mm II, which isn't the sharpest lens for testing the sensor, and you also used f/11, which is significantly above the diffraction limited aperture of f/8.6 for the 5DIV and will soften the image. Maybe they are reasons.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 17, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding sharpening...
> ...


It was taken with a 6D, not 5D-IV. Sorry if I left that out. (I forgot that the screenshot does not include EXIF.) I didn't intend to be misleading.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2017)

AlanF said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I don't understand this new, to me, fad of burning the educator. It seems people want to put their efforts into a public space but are only interested in positive reinforcement and compliments, they react unfavourably to even the gentlest of constructive comments let alone critiques. Alan was being helpful for goodness sake.

At this point in time there is a sizable subset of 'photographers' who's only criteria for an excellent image seems to be pixel level sharpness irrespective of subsequent output size or viewing distance, or indeed any conceptual understanding of comparative viewing of different pixel density or sensor sizes. That being so the result means skilled sharpening techniques are imperative (for them) and I have yet to see a single example of advanced sharpening in this thread.

Even semi skilled post processing will beat the minuscule differences between cameras now. If you want 'better', 'sharper', 'nicer' images learn post processing, not as much fun as a new toy but much more effective.


If anybody is interested in learning a little then here is an excellent tutorial on mitigating halos made when sharpening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVgfbiH4-fw

Actually Jimmy's channel is absolutely packed with editing gems. I don't buy plugins but did purchase his RayaPro panel as it saves so much time, he very recently added an advanced luminosity mask panel for free too. Anybody still doing advanced editing without a luminosity mask workflow is well behind the curve.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 17, 2017)

Thanks private for the the link. There is some great stuff by Jimmy.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Thanks private for the the link. There is some great stuff by Jimmy.



Add me to the appreciation list although I'll have to try to translate it to ON1 RAW format. So much to learn. Since purchasing ON1 RAW they continue to provide lots of new support material but I'm still stuck in the too busy rut.

There are many factors that lead children to grow into adults that don't relish criticism. Sometimes it's being the youngest and always being corrected etc., so I try to just accept it as a fact of life. Never the less, it's not the wisest choice.

Jack


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 18, 2017)

And another big thank you for the link. I also just skimmed and bookmarked articles on luminosity masks. While I've been into photography and a Canon user since 1975, I'm still a novice at this editing business. I upgraded to the 5 D Mark IV and one of the reasons was my desire for increased "sharpness" in my photos. In the past I would shoot and pick the ones I liked. Then finally was a late comer to raw and started basic edits. I did no post sharpening until this year and have been bumbling along with it. So your link opened a treasure trove of articles and videos to help me learn. I was already pleased with the improvements just from going to the higher resolution and some very basic sharpening attempts. So looking forward to learning more tips. So thanks again for the info.
And my two cents on how people react to critiques. There are many folks on this forum who are really good at offering constructive advice and it's one reason I read a lot of comments just to learn. There are some, however, who could learn a little on how to constructively teach instead of showing how brilliant they are by resorting to insults instead of trying to be helpful. It's not surprising that someone would react negatively to the latter. I might add that I have seen none of the latter on this particular thread.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2017)

atlcroc, have you used the various RAW capabilities in Canon DPP for starters. If not I'd highly recommend it as a basic starting point. I am in much the same position as you but I've found that DPP makes a world of difference assuming it's not major editing I need.

Jack


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 18, 2017)

Jack, 
I've downloaded DPP, but have used Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. When I took a basic course with my first digital camera the instructor recommended Photoshop Elements and so I have over 20,000 photos organized there and use that and the companion Premier Elements to burn AVCHD shows that I've shared with friends. So have been using it for organizing since version 3 and currently use PSE 15. The ACR version in elements is pretty good for what I try to do. I just discovered yesterday that I can then open the raw file and use unsharp mask and other tools to do further edits. I bought Lightroom but was so used to Photoshop Elements that I only go over to Lightroom for problems like chromatic aberration and some lens corrections. I did not want to get into paying a monthly fee and so have not gone to the full version of photoshop. The HD DVDS I produce are really sharp enough on my regular HD TVs and so I may be going overboard in trying to get even sharper results and it may not even show up on the TV. I print only for myself and never have done larger than and 8 X 10 and so again, I may just be guilty of pixel peeping and not really need the extra processing. But this is my hobby and it's great fun to keep learning and trying to get better.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2017)

atlcroc said:


> Jack,
> I've downloaded DPP, but have used Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. When I took a basic course with my first digital camera the instructor recommended Photoshop Elements and so I have over 20,000 photos organized there and use that and the companion Premier Elements to burn AVCHD shows that I've shared with friends. So have been using it for organizing since version 3 and currently use PSE 15. The ACR version in elements is pretty good for what I try to do. I just discovered yesterday that I can then open the raw file and use unsharp mask and other tools to do further edits. I bought Lightroom but was so used to Photoshop Elements that I only go over to Lightroom for problems like chromatic aberration and some lens corrections. I did not want to get into paying a monthly fee and so have not gone to the full version of photoshop. The HD DVDS I produce are really sharp enough on my regular HD TVs and so I may be going overboard in trying to get even sharper results and it may not even show up on the TV. I print only for myself and never have done larger than and 8 X 10 and so again, I may just be guilty of pixel peeping and not really need the extra processing. But this is my hobby and it's great fun to keep learning and trying to get better.



Not unlike me. I had and used Corel Paintshop a little but recently have purchased ON1 RAW and am really impressed with what they are determined to do with it, especially tutorials.

I believe that the lens specific sharpening in Canon DPP can't be outdone and always start with DPP for the RAW processing.

Jack


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> If anybody is interested in learning a little then here is an excellent tutorial on mitigating halos made when sharpening.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVgfbiH4-fw
> 
> Actually Jimmy's channel is absolutely packed with editing gems. I don't buy plugins but did purchase his RayaPro panel as it saves so much time, he very recently added an advanced luminosity mask panel for free too. Anybody still doing advanced editing without a luminosity mask workflow is well behind the curve.



It's a good technique to be aware of, but simply using Smart Sharpen instead of USM, and keeping the radius down to 0.3-0.5px, is a lot simpler and very effective. I'm not actually convinced that the principle of applying less sharpening to edges is a good one for most images - sharp edges contribute a great deal to making an image look subjectively sharp.

But maybe he addresses these issues himself somewhere - I've bookmarked it to take a longer look when I have some spare time.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 18, 2017)

Yes, I was surprised by having a setting that basically blurs the edge. 
I've seen one technique (maybe from one of the pages on this site) where you use the close tool, sample the colour from close to the edge on the 'white' side of the halo, use the 'darken' blend option and run the cursor over the edge. This replaces the white halo but does not touch the object itself because that will usually be darker still.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> It's a good technique to be aware of, but simply using Smart Sharpen instead of USM, and keeping the radius down to 0.3-0.5px, is a lot simpler and very effective. I'm not actually convinced that the principle of applying less sharpening to edges is a good one for most images - sharp edges contribute a great deal to making an image look subjectively sharp.
> 
> But maybe he addresses these issues himself somewhere - I've bookmarked it to take a longer look when I have some spare time.





Mikehit said:


> Yes, I was surprised by having a setting that basically blurs the edge.
> I've seen one technique (maybe from one of the pages on this site) where you use the close tool, sample the colour from close to the edge on the 'white' side of the halo, use the 'darken' blend option and run the cursor over the edge. This replaces the white halo but does not touch the object itself because that will usually be darker still.



Like all these techniques, it is just another tool to add to your knowledge. 

I have found it to be an excellent solution to troublesome images where you really need heavy sharpening to get general sharpness levels up but in doing so sharpens exposed and contrasty edges too much, it is just a way of mitigating that issue and was relevant to the specific image that initially prompted me to post the link. In the video look at the level of sharpening in the misty mountain side, that gets much sharper - the seeming raison d'être for so many photographers now - yet he controls the halos well on the contrasty ridge so it doesn't look over sharpened. I never suggested it was a technique you would need to use regularly. It's not so much 'blurring the edge' as enabling different levels of sharpening on different edges. 

It is effectively a way of refining the masking slider in Lightroom, you can sharpen the pores on the skin yet not have halos on the side of the face.


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 18, 2017)

Question for Jack or anyone. Does ON1Raw have tools for smart sharpening included? Also, the when checking the current version, it does not indicate files for the 5 D Mark IV are supported yet, so has it been updated yet for the raw files from the 5 D Mark IV? This topic has been a great learning experience so far. Since new to sharpening, I had never heard of some of these techniques. After reading some of the references and some additional research, just tried the High Pass sharpening technique for the first time and it made a great improvement over my shots of a back pond and some flowering trees. Wanted to also experiment with smart sharpening, but can not find the tools to try this in Photoshop Elements or my version of Lightroom. Right now feeling a bit of overload trying to understand all of this, but once I get comfortable with what I can do with current software, might want to add some other software to further enhance my options. Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 18, 2017)

Elements and LR do not have smart sharpen and as far as I am aware, On1 doesn't either.


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 18, 2017)

Thanks, Mikehit. The basic sharpening I can do with the latest ACR version in Elements and the High Pass filter techniques I just tried may be all I need at this stage of my learning. Already just the few attempts so far using any sharpening have made a significant difference. Time to get these basics down before spending time and $ on more tools.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2017)

atlcroc said:


> Question for Jack or anyone. Does ON1Raw have tools for smart sharpening included? Also, the when checking the current version, it does not indicate files for the 5 D Mark IV are supported yet, so has it been updated yet for the raw files from the 5 D Mark IV? This topic has been a great learning experience so far. Since new to sharpening, I had never heard of some of these techniques. After reading some of the references and some additional research, just tried the High Pass sharpening technique for the first time and it made a great improvement over my shots of a back pond and some flowering trees. Wanted to also experiment with smart sharpening, but can not find the tools to try this in Photoshop Elements or my version of Lightroom. Right now feeling a bit of overload trying to understand all of this, but once I get comfortable with what I can do with current software, might want to add some other software to further enhance my options. Thanks in advance for any help.



I'm not presently able to address questions relating to ON1 RAW because I haven't had the time to use it and have only watched a number of pretty good videos they have produced. I might have gone for PS but didn't want to be bound to their lease model. I have been quite impressed by ON1's dedication to updating and improving, but time will tell.

Looks like the 5D4 is supported but there is no smart sharpening feature. Here is a pdf manual.

http://ononesoft.cachefly.net/content/ON1-Photo-RAW-2017-User-Guide.pdf

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 18, 2017)

atlcroc said:


> Thanks, Mikehit. The basic sharpening I can do with the latest ACR version in Elements and the High Pass filter techniques I just tried may be all I need at this stage of my learning. Already just the few attempts so far using any sharpening have made a significant difference. Time to get these basics down before spending time and $ on more tools.



I think the easiest thing is to get to grips with USM (unsharp mask), high pass sharpening and maybe luminosity masks (something I am just starting to do). Then you can see what parts of the process you want to improve. If my experience is anything to go by, I find that these alternative techniques solve problems I didn't know I had and the effects are subtle in comparison but can make a significant difference, so I would say research them as and when you see something you want to solve. 

One of the biggest pieces of advice I got was that high detail areas can be sharpened and any effects that increase noise will often be hidden by the detail. And don't sharpen low-detail areas. So for example if you have a picture of a bird against a blue sky, you can sharpen the bird quite aggressively but this will make the sky pretty horrible, so you restrict sharpening to the bird. This is where things like smart sharpen come in but you can do it just as well by creating a layer in Elements, sharpen the top layer then pain in the unsharpened sky from the original. 
If you are sharpening hundreds of images, then you may well find that it is worth paying to get smartsharpen. 


Two other sets you may be (correction, should be) interested in are:
Google Nik collection: https://www.google.com/nikcollection/ this a free suite and is an excellent addition
Elements+: http://simplephotoshop.com/buy_elements+.htm This unlocks many functions that reside within Elements and add significantly to what it can do. At $12 it is well worth it.

There are also things called 'actions' which are like mini programs. You can't create them in PSE but you can download run some of them in PSE. Many 'actions' are created by keen photographers who just like doing things like this (sometimes they are free, sometimes you pay for them).


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 18, 2017)

I just took a quick look at those 2 links. Will definitely load the first one and see how the selective sharpening feature works. Probably will pay for the second one too. I've tested a few more photos today and just using the High Pass option in PSE has worked extremely well so far. I'm probably only going to go back to what I considered my best shots and not do hundreds. Will definitely add sharpening to my work flow going forward. Would love to be able to reciprocate but the one area that I've gotten better is in developing HD dvds of slides with music. Still using PSE 11 for these since Adobe took away flexibility with slide show formats after 11. Typically I buy music from street vendors locally when traveling and spend as much time on the music selection and syncing to match scenes as I do editing photos. So if you have any interest in that area I might be able to help. Again, I really appreciate all of your help.


----------



## ksgal (Apr 18, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> .....
> However, I am very careful when buying a new camera because I was "very" disappointed with my 7D2 when it came out, the image quality was nowhere near as good as my 70D (at the time) and I felt cheated. I tried to find what was wrong with it, blamed myself, the lens, the situation...at one point I sent the 7D2 to Canon and they returned it to me weeks later saying there was nothing wrong.
> ....



I know the 7D2 you had was disapointing, and I will say that I stay on single point AF with mine, I don't know that I seem to get the pretty complicated AF system it has... while it can get to 'acceptably sharp' or 'good enough' in other modes, I find my best shot is single user selected AF - and I shoot that way anyways so I'm fine with my copy. 

When paired with my 100L, this is the result I can get, when paying attention and good technique. When this combo hits, I have to remember NOT to add any sharpening. 
SOOC jpg - I had to crop it in MS Paint so the file size wasn't above 5000kb. no other edits, and no changes to the picture style or sharpening in camera. The Raw in lightroom is even sharper. 

I also have a 5D3, and aside from DOF, I find the cameras pretty equal - except for Buffer/Fps/anti-flicker and some other updates the 7D2 has. 

Exif is 
7Dmark II
F/4
1/200
iso-160
100mm L


----------



## Act444 (Apr 18, 2017)

I think that's more on the 100L than on the 7D - hands down, I think the 100 must be one of Canon's sharpest lenses. It is simply phenomenal even on the demanding 5DSR - high detail all the way to max ISO and even in softer light. The 100L was also fantastic on the 5D3, and on the 60D I had beforehand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2017)

Act444 said:


> I think that's more on the 100L than on the 7D - hands down, I think the 100 must be one of Canon's sharpest lenses. It is simply phenomenal even on the demanding 5DSR - high detail all the way to max ISO and even in softer light. The 100L was also fantastic on the 5D3, and on the 60D I had beforehand.



I'd question that. My 50 f1.4 is every bit as sharp (actually sharper) as the 100L Macro at f5.6 and my copies aren't the only ones that show that.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=115&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2017)

ksgal, nice portrait! Everyone loves that lens.

Jack


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 18, 2017)

One technique to use for tack sharp 5x7 and 8x10 prints
AFTER you have chosen a decent lens (i.e. almost ANY 
Sigma Art Series 50mm and 85mm!), is to RESAMPLE your
image to EXACTLY HALF the original horizontal and vertical 
size in pixels. YOU MUST USE the Lanczos-3 or Lanczos-5 
resampling/resizing algorithms since I have found that the
default Bicubic resize functions on most Adobe software just
doesn't cut it for me! You may have to go for a 3rd party resizer.
I use Corel Photopaint (which is part of Coreldraw) which has
a fantastic resizer. 

THEN AS THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP, you need to use an
edges-only sharpening filter. In Photopaint and in many others
it is called "UNSHARP MASK" which is a convolution filter which
is technically part of a spatial filtering algorithm.

THe DOWNSCALING of an image by one-half the 
X-axis (Width) and Y-axis (Height) creates a sort
of natural anti-aliasing and the UNSHARP MASK 
restores the contrast on the edges-only of any photo.

AND FINALLY for the BEST QUALITY hardcopy prints,
use Epson or Canon 2400 dpi inkjets and print using
ERROR DIFFUSION SET TO ON (or BEST QUALITY if 
that is the only menu option available), and print at 
2400 dots per inch. I would also suggest you print 
with the "Perceptual Color Rendering" setting which 
will try to emulate what is currently displayed on 
your monitor so that what you see is what you get!

If you already have proper display and printer 
colour matching setups than use whatever 
colourspace rendering intent that you desire
for your final printouts!

For Canon camera-originated photos, I usually increase 
overall brightness by 20% first, contrast by 5 to 10%, 
Increase saturation by 10% to 15% and boost the 
shadows by 5 to 10% BEFORE I do the downsampling 
and unsharp mask. 

My example photo below is just a little oversharpened 
BUT when printed at 8x10 on an Epson or Canon inkjet 
at 2400 dpi on Photo Glossy paper is looks GREAT because
the Error-Diffusion setting smooths out the oversharpening!
For printouts vs monitor display you need to process your
images slightly differently to take into account the differences
between CMYK printing and RGB displays.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2017)

atlcroc said:


> Question for Jack or anyone. Does ON1Raw have tools for smart sharpening included?



Yes, it is the 'progressive' sharpening option.

https://www.on1.com/blog/tech-talk-sharpening-in-on1/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 19, 2017)

HarryFilm, thanks for that, although it's presently over my head. Not sure I have enough years left to learn all the good stuff but I won't give up.

Scott, that's good to know. As I've said it seems to me the ON1 folk are trying really hard and are moving in the right direction.

Jack


----------



## atlcroc (Apr 19, 2017)

privatebydesign, that was a great link. It really helped me understand the different techniques and suggested settings to start. It also helped me understand the other posts about differences in sharpening for output vs viewing on the computer. 
Harryfilm, thanks for the detailed outline. I plan to do some further checking onOn1Raw to see what resampling algorithm is used. Hopefully it is the one you recommend and that would seem to indicate that would be a great choice for me since it interfaces with Elements.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 19, 2017)

Here are lessons by Nicolesy on ON1 RAW if anyone is interested.

https://nicolesyblog.com/zqrfng42n1bj/lesson-1/?mc_cid=cd000b3b47&mc_eid=d6cc89c3dd


https://nicolesyblog.com/zqrfng42n1bj/dfpw_lesson-2/?mc_cid=3f585f8de3&mc_eid=d6cc89c3dd


https://nicolesyblog.com/zqrfng42n1bj/rpzq_lesson-3/?mc_cid=49c4165e76&mc_eid=d6cc89c3dd


https://nicolesyblog.com/zqrfng42n1bj/tp3e_lesson-4/?mc_cid=9120ab0b05&mc_eid=d6cc89c3dd


https://nicolesyblog.com/zqrfng42n1bj/lymsk_lesson-5/?mc_cid=59068152d1&mc_eid=d6cc89c3dd

Jack


----------



## rfd78 (Apr 19, 2017)

Is this sharp enough?

5D Mark IV 
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
16mm, iso 100, f/4.0, 1/250
LR to taste


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 19, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> While the 5D Mark IV could be considered an incremental improvement over the 5D Mark III, there are some areas that I find it a substantial leap forward. The color metering system is awesome and nails skin tones over a wide range of conditions. In real world conditions, the deep shadow noise and colors are much improved.
> I have shot the Reno Air Races for many years starting with film, then went digital with a 40D. Over time, I grew through 50D's, the 7D,(I still have) 5D III, and now the 5D IV & 5DS.
> The old 7D is still a great shooter for good lighting with a high keeper rate.
> The 5DS will produce great results shooting action but the keeper rate is lower than the 7D.
> ...


I only get to use a company owned 5D MKIV, I own a 6D and 5DS. Frankly I'm a bit bemused by the argument. Most of my shots at some point are reduced to 3MB jpeg files for uploading and I find if I'm uber critical that the detail is sharper in the 5DS, followed by the 5D MKIV followed by the 6D (which was marginally better than the 5D MKIII). However I would not consider any of them to be "soft". 
The 5DS requires low ISO to be stellar and good shooting technique, the 5D MKIV is the true all rounder both it and the 5DS have the same metering system and similar AF systems. The 6D is a remarkable low light camera given its the cheapest FF camera in Canon line-up but does suffer in the wrong conditions from low level banding. 
The true acid test is the quality of the lenses and our own technique at minimising camera shake, the 5DS requires lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM or the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM to maximise the sharpness it can give, the same is true of the 5D MKIV or indeed any FF camera. 
Canon would have carried out thousands of shots with prototype 5D MKIV cameras I think they would have noticed softer shots than the 5D MKIII so I don't buy their is an issue in my experience there is not.


----------



## meywd (Apr 19, 2017)

rfd78 said:


> Is this sharp enough?
> 
> 5D Mark IV
> EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
> ...



I guess the guys want unedited photos, anyway welcome to Jordan.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 19, 2017)

jeffa4444, very true. It's called obsessive compulsive. Many, including myself, have a lifelong battle with it! 

Jack


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 19, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> jeffa4444, very true. It's called obsessive compulsive. Many, including myself, have a lifelong battle with it!
> 
> Jack



Sometime ago I began to suspect that the most successful photographers must have obsessive compulsive disorder. Of course OCD doesn't ensure success (far from it!), but I believe it applies more to photography--a constant way of viewing the world and its inhabitants, always thinking in terms of framing and lighting--than to other endeavors. Here on CR, we add in GAS!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 19, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> ....the 5DS requires lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM or the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM to maximise the sharpness it can give, the same is true of the 5D MKIV or indeed any FF camera.



That is just not true. The 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame than the 100L Macro at f5.6.

Technique and appropriate camera settings are way more important than lens choice.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 19, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> One technique to use for tack sharp 5x7 and 8x10 prints



And STILL with the weird line breaks. STOP PRESSING RETURN!


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 21, 2017)

And to show just how good Smartphones can be if you process their images correctly, I give you a version of the lit Winter Olympic Flame cauldron which Vancouver re-lit in 2015 if I remember correctly. I resized the horizontal and vertical resolution to 50% of the original pixel size after a hard crop and then I did a simple exposure and black-levels boost and some UNSHARP MASK to bring out the edges better. For a SMARTPHONE photo, it ain't bad quality in terms of sharpness!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2017)

Why shout "UNSHARP MASK" and "SMARTPHONE"? That isn't a sign of coffee in your keyboard that would be random.


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Why shout "UNSHARP MASK" and "SMARTPHONE"? That isn't a sign of coffee in your keyboard that would be random.



---

I subscribe to the personal motto of WINNING BY YELLING!
If it ain't LOUD or BBBBB IIIIII GGGGGG !!!!!!! with LOTS !!!!!!!
of Exclamation Points !!!! it ain't worth YELLING ABOUT!!!!

See this commercial on HOW TO WIN AT YELLING!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04

;-)  ;-) ;-)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why shout "UNSHARP MASK" and "SMARTPHONE"? That isn't a sign of coffee in your keyboard that would be random.
> ...



I found a better link.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 21, 2017)

Hi Harry. 
I only see two problems with this philosophy, paramedics are trained to ignore those making the most noise and concentrate on the quiet ones whilst the police are trained to concentrate on the noisy ones and the quiet ones are paid much less attention. 
Good luck on your way through life. 

Cheers, Graham. 



HarryFilm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why shout "UNSHARP MASK" and "SMARTPHONE"? That isn't a sign of coffee in your keyboard that would be random.
> ...


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 21, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Harry.
> I only see two problems with this philosophy, paramedics are trained to ignore those making the most noise and concentrate on the quiet ones whilst the police are trained to concentrate on the noisy ones and the quiet ones are paid much less attention.
> Good luck on your way through life.
> 
> ...



---

Perhaps the smiley face "Emojie" symbols got lost in translation?
I was trying to be more facetious than arrogant....plus that weblink
to the Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator commercial is utterly classic!


----------

