# How many people think that their 5D Mark IV images are soft?



## RayValdez360 (Sep 27, 2016)

I have a 5D3, 5dsr, and a 5D Mark IV. I dont know if I just got used to my 5dsr more or that my 5d mark IV just has soft images. I don't remember images being this soft with my 5d3. I am seeing quite a few people saying this. Now I am one of them after owning the camera for a couple of weeks. Some images are really sharp but a lot of them seem softer than the sharp ones. I only use manual mode, turned down NR, and use single focus point focusing.


----------



## TM (Sep 27, 2016)

I've never shot with a 5DSR but own a 5D3 and very recently the 5D4, paired up with a few L lenses. My experience thus far is the images have been sharp, although my initial impression is I may need to employ a steadier hand technique at lower shutter speeds vs. the 5D3. Overall I'm very pleased with it!


----------



## JoFT (Sep 27, 2016)

What??? 5DIV Soft????
Cannot agree at all. I have mine since 2.5 weeks: I am blown away from the image quality. The body examines lenses.... Yes. 


But I cannot compare against the 5Ds ones...


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 27, 2016)

RayValdez360 said:


> I have a 5D3, 5dsr, and a 5D Mark IV. I don't know if I just got used to my 5dsr more or that my 5d mark IV just has soft images. I don't remember images being this soft with my 5d3. I am seeing quite a few people saying this. Now I am one of them after owning the camera for a couple of weeks. Some images are really sharp but a lot of them seem softer than the sharp ones. I only use manual mode, turned down NR, and use single focus point focusing.



50 MPIX and no AA filter is simply addictive. Sharpness is unrivaled. And your lenses perform better. Only people who have not tried it can seriously say it does not make a difference. 

I feel with you because I know with myself I would hardly ever pick up the 5DIV instead of the 5DS/R - its too good on the picture quality side - so I have given the current price level for now decided to pass. 

However, I'm sure the 5DIV is a great tool too and your pictures are probably only relatively - not absolutely "soft".


----------



## Act444 (Sep 27, 2016)

Soft out of camera, yes. But with some PP work, the end result often matches or even surpasses that of the 5D3. 

I will ALWAYS reach for the 5DSR though if detail and resolution is of prime importance.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 27, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Soft out of camera, yes. But with some PP work, the end result often matches or even surpasses that of the 5D3.
> 
> I will ALWAYS reach for the 5DSR though if detail and resolution is of prime importance.



Often matches or even surpasses the 5D3??? With a 25%+ increase in megapixels, not having better detail and resolution would be very surprising. Do you own the 5DIV?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2016)

The increase from 22 to 30 mpx is only an increase in 16.7% in terms of linear resolution. My 5D IV has equal acutance and slightly more resolution than my old Mk III. The 5DS R is still the king for resolution.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> The increase from 22 to 30 mpx is only an increase in 16.7% in terms of linear resolution. My 5D IV has equal acutance and slightly more resolution than my old Mk III. The 5DS R is still the king for resolution.



Alan I'm curious where the 7D II now sits in your scheme of things? Have you managed many shots lately?

Jack


----------



## Doctorfrag (Sep 29, 2016)

I am a bit worried about some softness in raw files from the 5D Mark IV: never tried a Mark III, and I only own a 7d old...so I really expect a great bump in resolution once I'll see my first raw


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 29, 2016)

Have you done AFMA on your 5DIV or checked your diopter setting if manually focusing? Also, it could be the lens your using or the RAW processor's default settings for your body since the camera is so new. If you're basing it on the rear LCD, it could be the Picture Style setting. I think the 5DSR comes with Fine Detail as the default IIRC which makes it even sharper than normal. Also, as others have said, the 5DSR does spoil you.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 29, 2016)

You say some images are really sharp. Are you using a different lens for the really sharp ones? If so, it may be an AFMA issue as previously noted. If not, then I don't see how it could be a camera issue if some are really sharp, unless it is an AF issue.


----------



## applecider (Sep 29, 2016)

Ray and all a discussion about soft images might be better with some well you know image examples.

;D


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2016)

dak723 said:


> You say some images are really sharp. Are you using a different lens for the really sharp ones? If so, it may be an AFMA issue as previously noted. If not, then I don't see how it could be a camera issue if some are really sharp, unless it is an AF issue.


It might be the lens because it seems like my 24-70 ii images are the soft ones. On my 5DSR all my lens seem sharp and of course on my 5D3 as well.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2016)

5D Mark IV images should not be soft. I do find that there is less aggressive sharpening to the RAW files, but they can also bear more sharpening and the end result is superior to anything I could get out of the 5D3 or the 6D (I'm going to release a resolution video next week sometime on it).

The 5DsR is obviously a different story, though I personally found that amount of resolution overkill for most of my own work. It's amazing, though.

I did some tweaking to the JPEG engine as I found there was too much smoothing out of the box...even in the Fine Detail picture mode. I turned off all of the noise reduction settings. I don't know if that fixed it or if there was something in the new firmware, but suddenly my JPEGS look much better than my initial few weeks.

Here's a screenshot from a controlled comparison - 6D vs 5D4. No sharpening, just RAW straight from camera. Tripod mounted, and the new Zeiss Milvus 135mm f/2 (one of the sharpest lenses in the world). You can definitely see more resolution from the 5DIV - even without sharpening and at a pixel level (this is 1:1).

If you don't feel like your images are as sharp as the 5DIII out of your 5DIV something else is the problem.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2016)

RayValdez360 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > You say some images are really sharp. Are you using a different lens for the really sharp ones? If so, it may be an AFMA issue as previously noted. If not, then I don't see how it could be a camera issue if some are really sharp, unless it is an AF issue.
> ...


Have you tried to do AFMA?


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2016)

Dustin thanks for all the information regarding 5D4. I am thinking about it but I think maybe it is too early and at the same time cannot see parting with my 5D3 cameras. But since they replaced my 5D2 we can guess what will happen eventually...


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 30, 2016)

It's razor sharp. Hitting focus and the lens used makes all the difference as you'd expect and this translates across all the bodies. The 5DSr has what I call a micro sharpness with the AA filter gone, not insignificant but not a big difference between that and the 5D4.


----------



## DootsHK (Sep 30, 2016)

Hi everyone,

I bought a 5D4 two weeks ago, and i was really disappointed, the images were soft, i tried with Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses, but still, very soft images, especially in low light conditions. I think I got 80% of soft images, 10% ok, and 10% very sharp. 

I was jumping from a 50D (yes... i know, that's a old camera ...) to a 5D4, so I didn't really know what to expect at the beginning, or even if it was just me not using it correctly, but i returned the camera for exchange after two days. I received a new one last week, and magic happened, the images are way sharper than with the first body. 

I just found out this new body already has the firmware 1.02 installed, i don't know if it is related in any way, or if the first body simply had a defect, but the difference is very impressive.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 30, 2016)

DootsHK said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I bought a 5D4 two weeks ago, and i was really disappointed, the images were soft, i tried with Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses, but still, very soft images, especially in low light conditions. I think I got 80% of soft images, 10% ok, and 10% very sharp.
> 
> ...



Interesting. If you haven't done anything differently then you made have had a defective body in some way.

I've got my video up on the dynamic range from the camera. See it here if you are interested: http://bit.ly/2dB2W6f


----------



## chauncey (Sep 30, 2016)

Assuming that you have micro-focused that lens on both cameras and assuming they are both tripod mounted at
the same place and camera settings are the same...you should not be getting soft images from either camera, period.

When you post comparative images...post only 1000 pixels crops.


----------



## DootsHK (Oct 1, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Interesting. If you haven't done anything differently then you made have had a defective body in some way.
> 
> I've got my video up on the dynamic range from the camera. See it here if you are interested: http://bit.ly/2dB2W6f



Hi Dustin,

You are right, the body was probably defective, the first one had too big softness issues for it just to be firmware related.

Thank you for sharing the link, i watched your video, I found the comparison with the 80D and 6D very instructive. I am looking forward to see the next episodes , especially about high ISO capabilities / noise.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 1, 2016)

Another "eye roll" post....is this another one of those "all the gear and no idea" threads?


----------



## turtle (Oct 1, 2016)

It's amazing how respondents ask 'have you done AF Micro Adjustment (AFMA)' again and again and there is no confirmation from those with soft images. I remember a big rant ages ago from people saying the same with the 7D II and most had *not* done AFMA.

Very small amounts of AFMA (+ or -) can make an epic difference to pixel level sharpness. If you are, say, 6 points out on a 24mm lens, your focus point will be a country mile out. You will definitely see 2 points as a clear change in 'bite' at 24mm.

AFMA is required on every single lens you own on every body you own. Many will require zero alteration, but some will require quite a lot. Now, there may of course be some issues with 'bad' 5D IV bodies out there, but with nobody confirming or denying that they have done AFMA, or at least used live view focus (which takes focus directly off the sensor of course), one can only suspect AFMA as the culprit in most cases.

My first 24-70 f2.8 L II had a heavily damaged package as if the courier people had dropped it out of a plane. The result was left side softness with the image and focus problems using any left side AF points (presumably because the image did not generate the contrast for effective AF). On centre it was bitingly sharp wide open with zero AFMA. Out of the box, the replacement lens was fair, but clearly lacked the same bite on centre. Two points of AFMA and it was in razor blade territory at 24mm.

I think Dustin Abbott's example shows precisely what the sensor is capable of and its clearly a very significant advantage in resolution over the 6D.

FWIW, I also own both A7 and A7R. With the best lenses, at the best apertures the A7R has fractionally better pixel level sharpness (as well as having more of them), but you really do have to be at the right apertures on top lenses to see this. Most of the time, once carefully sharpened, the A7 images look roughly the same as the A7R files at the pixel level, despite the presence of a (not mild) AA filter. Unless Canon has gone mad with the AA filter (why would they, especially as the higher MP count will allow the filter to be less aggressive than on the 5d III), the only likely explanations are:

1. AFMA
2. Software
3. 'bad' bodies floating about.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 1, 2016)

turtle, good comments. Of course as you get too higher and higher pixel levels many factors are involved that make getting a sharp photo challenging and AFMA does become critically important. However, if it's an AFMA problem then there still should be a plane of sharp focus, albeit not where you want it and at least in some cases, i.e. a bird, one should see feathers rather than an eye in sharp focus. FWIW.

Jack


----------



## turtle (Oct 1, 2016)

Absolutely. However, if people test against a planar subject then they may not see sharpness anywhere. This would be true for shooting a wall or distant landscape. Sometimes people miss that area of sharpness, because it is nowhere near where they might expect it to be. 

Hopefully AFMA some of those reporting softness can check AFMA, or at least use a tripod, live view and a lens they know is a good'un. This will hopefully shrink down the area of concern. It may turn out that there are multiple factors at play, but it would be nice to rule out AFMA. 

If you're one of the ones who has noted softness, it would be hugely appreciated by everyone (I think) if you could rule out AFMA. Not everyone know about micro adjustment of the AF system so I have no interest in humiliating anyone who is unaware. I do have an interest in getting to the bottom of what is going on. A 5D IV may be in my future, if I can get one at a sensible price!





Jack Douglas said:


> turtle, good comments. Of course as you get too higher and higher pixel levels many factors are involved that make getting a sharp photo challenging and AFMA does become critically important. However, if it's an AFMA problem then there still should be a plane of sharp focus, albeit not where you want it and at least in some cases, i.e. a bird, one should see feathers rather than an eye in sharp focus. FWIW.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Act444 (Oct 1, 2016)

On the subject of AFMA, and all this talk of softness...I know for a fact the 5D4 body I was using last weekend was front-focusing slightly with the 70-200 and I figured it needed + adjustment - but even with the 24-70, I still wasn't blown away by the images - I knew the 5D4 images need more sharpening out of the gate, but I was finding I had to apply a LOT more to get them to match with the 5D3...

So...after going back, setting MA to +1 on 5D4/24-70 combo made a noticeable improvement with indoor test shots over 0 (no MA). NOW it's sharp (relatively speaking), although there remains the issue of more aggressive NR stripping extra detail relative to the 5D3 - but that's fixed with a few tweaks. Will need to work the 70-200 in at a later date... I hope it's simply an MA issue. And hopefully the rain clears up so I can test outside again...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2016)

I've just posted a couple of shots in the Bird Portrait thread. The 5D IV plus 400mm DO II are giving me a level of sharpness I have never been able to achieve previously. (I am fastidious about AFMA).


----------



## Mancubus (Oct 1, 2016)

My honest opinion: I think there are a lot of lemons in this first 5d4 batch, and some unfortunate buyers actually have cameras that will give soft images.

The exact same thing happened on the release of the 7d2. I was one of the unfortunate ones, mine was SOFT no matter what I did (my previous t3i/600D was WAY sharper). I blamed myself, the lens, the AF adjustment...I tried every possibility to avoid the sad truth: my 7d2 was a lemon.

Canon didn't do anything about it when I sent it in for repairs, they said it was working just fine. After a while I gave up, picked a 5d3 and was immediately blown away with the sharpness and image quality. The same shop took the 7d2 as part of the payment for a 70-200 and I've never looked back.

This is precisely why I'm not buying the 5d4 until I'm sure they have (secretly) updated the version. The chance of getting a sh***y one is quite high at the moment in my opinion.


----------



## tron (Oct 2, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> My honest opinion: I think there are a lot of lemons in this first 5d4 batch, and some unfortunate buyers actually have cameras that will give soft images.
> 
> The exact same thing happened on the release of the 7d2. I was one of the unfortunate ones, mine was SOFT no matter what I did (my previous t3i/600D was WAY sharper). I blamed myself, the lens, the AF adjustment...I tried every possibility to avoid the sad truth: my 7d2 was a lemon.
> 
> ...


I am skeptic too. I cannot tell if it's the camera settings, the firmware (Dustin's pics come sharp now) or the hardware. So I set some milestones in a non-scientific but practical (for me) way:

1. To wait some time to make sure that cameras are shipped with 1.02 firmware.
2. To wait a little more time waiting for the kit with 24-105 II (I have the version 1 that I could sell to prepare for the kit).
3. To wait for Christmas.
4. To wait for my birthday (February)

These milestones mean nothing scientifically but they allow time to pass just in case there is a hardware problem. But they may mean literally nothing in the sense that the hardware may be 100% OK (the most probable case) and I am just losing time. The later has a positive side effect that price may decrease and I have no immediate (hobby) photo task to do. 
The negative side effect is growing G.A.S ;D

I was lucky to get 7DII by the mid of 2015 where the issues were solved. But I didn't delay on purpose. Only recently I started shooting birds in a vacation that I had used a 5D3 with 100-400 II.

After I returned from it I ordered a 7DII . So initially I didn't care about 7DII. But I am interested in 5DIV so waiting is a little difficult :-[


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 2, 2016)

Waiting is always difficult but it's a character builder and a no lose proposition. I know, I'm repeating this to myself daily. 

Jack


----------



## DootsHK (Oct 2, 2016)

turtle said:


> It's amazing how respondents ask 'have you done AF Micro Adjustment (AFMA)' again and again and there is no confirmation from those with soft images. I remember a big rant ages ago from people saying the same with the 7D II and most had *not* done AFMA.
> 
> Very small amounts of AFMA (+ or -) can make an epic difference to pixel level sharpness. If you are, say, 6 points out on a 24mm lens, your focus point will be a country mile out. You will definitely see 2 points as a clear change in 'bite' at 24mm.
> 
> ...



Hi,

I didn't get the question was for me but for the previous poster. But to reply on that specific matter, no i didn't do any micro-adjustment. I just tested the camera with various lenses, hand-handled and on a tripod. In my case most of the images were very soft (more than this, some were almost blur). 

Being new to FF and 5D cameras i was wondering if it was just me not handling the AF settings correctly. So i went back to the store for them to test it. The camera was tested with 2 additional lenses but same result. So I received a new body as replacement one week later.

With the new body, pictures are very sharp and in focus. It doesn't mean it won't require any micro adjustment, but so far I didn't have enough time to use the camera. As said earlier the first body i got was probably defective.


----------



## sanj (Oct 2, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Another "eye roll" post....is this another one of those "all the gear and no idea" threads?




hahahahaha. TRUE


----------



## DavidTam (Oct 2, 2016)

My 5DIV is quite soft at ISO 6400+ especially around the red zipper (see photos). And when compare with my 6D, I can't say high ISO is better in the shadows. Anyone why?

- mirror lockup
- 1/125
- 50mm





- ISO 6400
- RAW
- tripod
- 10 second timer


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 2, 2016)

can you provide the RAW files? The shots are quite horrible technically. I am sorry to say that.. unless this is some kind of joke...


----------



## turtle (Oct 2, 2016)

Hi, it sounds like the camera was either at one extreme of tolerances (and would probably have required a significant AFMA correction on almost all lenses, or was completely out of tolerance (and therefore not correctable using the AFMA system). In simple terms, this would mean the sensor and AF system were not working to anywhere near the same point of focus.

Did you focus any shots using live view and see what they were like? Live View means you focus off the sensor and therefore bypass the main AF system. If live view focused shots were truly blurry, something catastrophic would be wrong with the sensor itself (though I cannot imagine what). 

What you are describing sounds like a large tolerance error on the body. I had a friend with a large tolerance + or - on one lens (her others only needed small (if any) AFMA tweaks on her 5D III), yet when the right AFMA was dialled in the lens became a mainstay of her wedding photography business. Without AFMA, front focus was so dramatic as to be difficult to find the plane of focus in the photos at all. They just looked a soft mess. It was front focusing to a huge extent, but became nice and sharp after dialling in a fairly large amount of adjustment for the 24mm end and a slightly smaller one for 70mm.





DootsHK said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how respondents ask 'have you done AF Micro Adjustment (AFMA)' again and again and there is no confirmation from those with soft images. I remember a big rant ages ago from people saying the same with the 7D II and most had *not* done AFMA.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 2, 2016)

This is now an old post, but none the less true (and always will be)

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts/

Basic message: if the lens is bad send it back. If the lens is in tolerance and is 'slightly out' then micro-adjust. And if you spend hours finding the perfect match of body to lens, then never, ever update your body because if you are that fussy the chances are you will have the same issue because the next body is unlikely to be in the same range of tolerance as the first one and you will end up disappointed again.
Same if you buy a new body and it doesn't match your current lenses.


----------



## tron (Oct 2, 2016)

DootsHK said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how respondents ask 'have you done AF Micro Adjustment (AFMA)' again and again and there is no confirmation from those with soft images. I remember a big rant ages ago from people saying the same with the 7D II and most had *not* done AFMA.
> ...


I believe that is helpful information. Could you tell us the first half of the serial number of the two cameras? Other members with similar problems could contibute that and we could see if this leads to anywhere. Also, had you upgraded the firmware in the first camera?


----------



## DavidTam (Oct 2, 2016)

I should clarify a bit more. The attached photos are crops of the right bottom corner of a larger test shot. The lens have been micro-adjusted and has the latest firmware. My concern is not so about whether the red spot is focused as I did not focus on it. My concern is how red color bleeds.

My bad photography skills should yield equally poor result, but obviously, the 5D is much worth. 





DavidTam said:


> My 5DIV is quite soft at ISO 6400+ especially around the red zipper (see photos). And when compare with my 6D, I can't say high ISO is better in the shadows. Anyone why?
> 
> - mirror lockup
> - 1/125
> ...


----------



## applecider (Oct 3, 2016)

Chose to eat breakfast at Fat City Caffe, a mild portland landmark for the last 30+ years. Since they are very well decorated it seemed to be a chance to take some 5d4 test shots.


So here are two examples of images coming out of one 5d4 body with a 40mm f2.8 lens. The First at f 5.6, the second to bring out softness at 3.5. The first began life as a cr was "processed"only to adjust exposure and to convert to medium quality jpg. The second shot at 5.6 also began as a cr but did have a bit of P P done to sharpen adjust exposure and then it was converted to jpeg, both at iso 1600 due to dimmer indoor venue I don't see any softness for sure here, either in the unsharpened jpeg, or in the second raw which was sharpened before conversion to jpeg.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2016)

I always bolt a new camera down to my light table and capture some very controlled images that are taken with manual focus using high magnification. This will show if there is a camera issue.

If I am not getting sharp images following that, I can look at other variables like lenses vibration, autofocus errors, etc.


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 3, 2016)

I currently shoot with the 5 D Mark III and am thinking of getting the 5 D Mark IV. I took some sample photos inside a camera store with the 5 DSR and found them lacking in sharpness because I was not able to shoot with a very high shutter speed. From reading this forum and others my conclusion was to get the most benefit of the extra pixels I should be using a tripod in the lower light. My assumption that with the number of pixels in the 5 D Mark IV this should not be as big of an issue. So those with the 5 D Mark IV, any issues of softness or blur from indoor shooting hand held?


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 7, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> I took some sample photos inside a camera store with the 5 DSR and found them lacking in sharpness because I was not able to shoot with a very high shutter speed. From reading this forum and others my conclusion was to get the most benefit of the extra pixels I should be using a tripod in the lower light.



Well, you were wrong. Your 5DS/R pictures will be *at least as sharp* in spite of possible motion blur a*s anything you will ever shoot* with the 5DIII.

If you are lucky, shoot high(er) shutter speeds or use a tripod etc. your pictures will be much sharper than anything your 5DIII can achieve. 5DS/R pictures will *never *be softer (all things being equal) than 5DIII pictures.

Due to the improved shutter its may even be safe to claim that 5DS/R pictures will *always have less motion blur * than a 5DIII picture but I'd have to test that to be sure.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 7, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> atlcroc said:
> 
> 
> > I took some sample photos inside a camera store with the 5 DSR and found them lacking in sharpness because I was not able to shoot with a very high shutter speed. From reading this forum and others my conclusion was to get the most benefit of the extra pixels I should be using a tripod in the lower light.
> ...



While this is true it wouldn't make sense to be dealing with double size files to just get equal quality so maybe there is a slight negative in this debate depending on how a person perceives they will be using the camera.

Jack


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 7, 2016)

DavidTam said:


> My 5DIV is quite soft at ISO 6400+ especially around the red zipper (see photos). And when compare with my 6D, I can't say high ISO is better in the shadows. Anyone why?
> 
> - mirror lockup
> - 1/125
> ...



First if you wish to truly minimize camera shake then you do not use mirror lockup. To truly minimize it use live view with silent shutter mode 2. This uses first curtain electronic shutter and completely removed any chance of shutterstock. Do this with the 10 second timer. Second confirm you are actually focused on what you think you are focused on by zooming in in live view. Last you want to have enough light to shoot at base ISO. You are at 1/125 so shutter shock should not be an issue.

Unfortunately Silent shutter mode 2 really limits your flash modes so bright external lights or daylight should be used. You could of course to the above then switch to mirror lockup defocus your lens and repeat the test with the autofocus system. This could tell you if you need to AFMA.

Last thing ISO 6400 you will be getting quantization noise. Regardless of what sensor you are using. Your perceived softness is likely just noise. On older Canon cameras there would be a lot of red or green pixel noise that would need removal. This is not the case with the newer Canon Cameras or Sony. Instead noise just seems to reduce detail and micro contrast. That is just the nature of light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> While this is true it wouldn't make sense to be dealing with double size files to just get equal quality so maybe there is a slight negative in this debate depending on how a person perceives they will be using the camera.



Similarly, dealing with triple the cost of a camera (more if you consider lenses) for a full frame camera if you generally shoot in good light and don't want ultra-shallow DoF could be a negative, for some.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > While this is true it wouldn't make sense to be dealing with double size files to just get equal quality so maybe there is a slight negative in this debate depending on how a person perceives they will be using the camera.
> ...



That's why "best" is always very subjective. Often it's just bragging rights that some are after. Even "best for me" is still subjective because I may be too ignorant to even judge whether I'm in an optimal situation. Often it's, "this is how I've always done it and it's the best way so don't bother me with your newfangled ideas". 

This disinterest in change is evident in the persistence of certain features of body layout that clearly are not optimal - the 5D4 feels just like the 5D3, so it's instant love. It's just human nature, some love change while others don't and Canon can't please everyone but they do well pleasing many.

Jack


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 7, 2016)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26773.msg528620#msg528620

Seems we have conflicting reports. I was referring to the link above where someone indicated motion blur was a bigger issue with the 5 D SR than another model. Looks like there are varying opinions and I was going with the one in this link. I did not directly compare the two models, just did some test shots with the 5 D SR and maybe my technique was the issue. Did not do a one to one comparison of the 2 bodies and maybe would have seen in that lighting the 5 D SR was better. Just know that I did not like what I saw. So I'm no expert, just asking if motion blur is more of an issue with higher pixel cameras or not? No need to get testy.


----------



## chauncey (Oct 7, 2016)

> Seems we have conflicting reports


Ya think...the opinions offered herein are just that...opinions.
If ya give a superlative camera to a mediocre photographer you're gonna get mediocre pictures...period. 
All cameras have a learning curve associated with them.


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 7, 2016)

Talk about mediocre. That would be your response. I asked a simple question. Do higher pixel cameras increase the chance of motion blur? If you are too ignorant to know the answer, just keep your rude opinions to yourself.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 7, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> Talk about mediocre. That would be your response. I asked a simple question. Do higher pixel cameras increase the chance of motion blur? If you are too ignorant to know the answer, just keep your rude opinions to yourself.



My own view is that if you are using the same lens from the same position the movement of the subject will result in the same linear measurement of movement across the sensor. The number of pixels does not change that.

The confusion comes when people are often not specific about the conditions of taking the photo nor viewing. For example if the person uses 7D2 and 5DSR and 5D3 the 5DSR and 5D3 will look very similar when printed to the same size (the 7D2 is being magnified more), the 5DSR and the 7D2 will look very similar when looking at 100% on a computer screen (they have the same pixel density). 

I have not seen any demonstration that that is not the case.


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 7, 2016)

Thank your very much for your answer. That helps. I took exception to the implication of my being a mediocre photographer from someone who has no idea of my skills. I'm on my 10th canon camera and have been shooting as a serious hobbyist since 1975 from my FTB days. Lots of practice, reading, courses and not a pro, but pretty good. Trying to decide on whether to upgrade to the IV. I'm sure the 5 D SR is the best for sharpness but I do not need the extra resolution for what I shoot. While it would be great for landscapes, I do a lot of inside shooting. For me it's really simple, you have good light, you get a good photo. In challenging light is where I do my testing to see what I need to do. When I get a new camera I will typically do more controlled shots and vary settings one at a time and take notes to see how I want to shoot. Since I was just borrowing a store camera inside, could not be that detailed. So it was a quick grab and shoot several angles and at a few different ISO settings. So I really did not keep any specifics. Again, I appreciate your response a lot.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 7, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > Seems we have conflicting reports
> 
> 
> Ya think...the opinions offered herein are just that...opinions.
> ...



Hey chauncey, that'll be me on Wednesday, but I'll sure be having fun!  And I won't be able to blame the camera for my results. 

I think the testy often complain about the testy and perhaps should just relax and not take things too personally. CR threads often generate snarky remarks and those that can't handle that should probably find a safer place to frequent. This is not directed at anyone in particular just a general comment representing my opinion.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2016)

I use both the 5DS R and 5D IV for bird photography, and today did a lot of comparisons with the 400mm DO II +1.4x and 2xTCs to make up my mind what combinations of lens, TCs and bodies to use under different conditions. The results are as you would expect: the 5DS R is the king of resolution whereas the 5D IV has better acutance with the same lens and TC. I am continuing to use the 5DS R for optimal resolution and sharpness and the 5D IV for its superb AF for birds in flight.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 7, 2016)

So Alan, where does the 7D II now fit in all this for you?

Jack


----------



## chauncey (Oct 8, 2016)

> the 5DS R is the king of resolution whereas the 5D IV has better acutance


I am truly puzzled when acutance is defined as "the sharpness of a photographic or printed image."
Is that not basically the same as king of resolution?


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 8, 2016)

First, I must agree with Jack that this is probably not a good idea to be posting here. I've followed this site for several years because there are a lot of smart people here and I've learned a lot. I've also seen the snarky, sophomoric exchanges that are infantile at best and look here, I'm now involved in one. So let me apologize for my knee jerk testy response because usually I am not a testy person despite the assumption that one comment makes you one. I tried to initiate a new thread days ago but there is a silly rule that you have to have some unknown number of posts to be able to ask a new question. So I slipped one in here. I sincerely appreciate the one answer to my question that was able to actually answer a question without insulting the person asking it. It's great that you long time posters stick together, but maybe you could actually try being polite to someone trying to learn from you instead of suggesting: they are mediocre, they are testy, they blame their equipment, they are overly sensitive, etc. Being old school where it's better to try to help out others and not be demeaning or insulting is the better way. So again, my apology to my insult earlier. So instead of trying to get enough posts to be able to ask a new question, I'll go back to researching my questions in other forums. Peace.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 8, 2016)

atlcroc, there is nothing wrong with your reasoning and of course decent polite behaviour is what we should all strive for. Unfortunately, like it or not we are stuck with the vulgarity, insults and whatever else in this modern "I come first, I have a right ...." society we live in. Sadly, that is not going to change. 

So, yes, the decision is to determine to not be phased by the low life comments and benefit from the generally great CR contributors, or bow out.

Many threads are exemplary, generally where photos are posted and the odd comment is involved. Gear threads tend to attract more of the trolls etc. I love CR in spite of the negatives.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 8, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> First, I must agree with Jack that this is probably not a good idea to be posting here. I've followed this site for several years because there are a lot of smart people here and I've learned a lot. I've also seen the snarky, sophomoric exchanges that are infantile at best and look here, I'm now involved in one. So let me apologize for my knee jerk testy response because usually I am not a testy person despite the assumption that one comment makes you one. I tried to initiate a new thread days ago but there is a silly rule that you have to have some unknown number of posts to be able to ask a new question. So I slipped one in here. I sincerely appreciate the one answer to my question that was able to actually answer a question without insulting the person asking it. It's great that you long time posters stick together, but maybe you could actually try being polite to someone trying to learn from you instead of suggesting: they are mediocre, they are testy, they blame their equipment, they are overly sensitive, etc. Being old school where it's better to try to help out others and not be demeaning or insulting is the better way. So again, my apology to my insult earlier. So instead of trying to get enough posts to be able to ask a new question, I'll go back to researching my questions in other forums. Peace.



Without making judgements on your skill level, Chauncey's comments do hold some merrit. My first passion when I first went digital was macro handheld. Really fast you learn how well your hand holding technique is, camera shake is very easy to see on an insect. The same is true with the 5Ds R, if you have poor technique you will notice it easier than you might with a 5D III and the same lens, this is because of the larger file and image. But to me this has always been a non issue with the 5Ds R. I would say overall my 5Ds R images hand held are sharper and have no more camera shake than any other body.

However, the caveat, I do not like the noise over ISO 1600 from the 5Ds R. The 5D III I would have pushed to ISO 3200. Because of a one stop difference you have to make up somewhere, often it is shutter speed. One stop of shutter speed can definitely show a bit more camera shake.


----------



## atlcroc (Oct 8, 2016)

My original themes were bugs and sunsets. I used a bellows for macros and would get 3.25 to 1. Always used tripods and crazy eyepiece attachments. There is a chance I was sloppy that day since I was in a hurry not to take up too much time in the store since I had no intention of purchasing right then. The last 2 years was lucky enough to hike parts of the Camino in Spain and besides beautiful scenery outside, tons of inside church photos so for me the Mark III and IV series is probably better than the 5 D SR because there were a lot of high ISO shots. It was the several pages on the other question that I linked that led me to believe that higher pixels created more chances to exaggerate poor technique. So starting off from the conclusion from that thread I was just checking to see if that were also true with 30 megapixels. Apparently if I just tighten up and use good technique, should not be an issue. My hike this year was over 250 miles with an accrued elevation of over 3 and a half miles. Lugging water, the 5 D Mark III, lens, filters, snacks, rain gear, etc. - no way I was going to also bring a tripod and having to cover about 16 miles a day when I did take photos, it was pretty quick. I shared an AVCHD with a local guide who has seen many photos and his comments were those were the sharpest photos he had seen of the walk. They should be since I was the only one lugging heavy equipment and others were using point and shoot. Probably do not need a new camera but when I went from point and shoot to 40D, big improvement. Then from 40 D to 5 D Mark III, enormous improvement. Seems to be enough good things about the Mark IV that I would see some more improvement. Just had that one concern which collectively ya'll have answered. Thanks for your post.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 8, 2016)

Every new camera has these threads... 5d III
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40825286
1DS III
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=587848
6d
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1337555
Check your software settings on your raw converter first, technique, are you shooting the DLA..etc
Each and every new camera needs practice to get the best out of it.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 8, 2016)

chauncey said:


> > the 5DS R is the king of resolution whereas the 5D IV has better acutance
> 
> 
> I am truly puzzled when acutance is defined as "the sharpness of a photographic or printed image."
> Is that not basically the same as king of resolution?



Acutance in simple terms refers to the edge sharpness of a transition from say dark to light. Resolution depends on distinguishing finely spaced details. Larger pixels in a lower resolution sensor give the illusion of a sharp transition and can make an image appear sharp whereas finely spaced small pixels in a high resolution sensor smooth out transitions. The finely spaced small pixels resolve small features better. In a similar fashion, downsizing makes images look sharper although at the same time losing resolution.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > > the 5DS R is the king of resolution whereas the 5D IV has better acutance
> ...



So you are talking about micro contrast by a different name then?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > chauncey said:
> ...



Here's a really good site in general and in particular to this topic.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2016)

cambridgeincolour. Cambridge = Cambridge, colour = British spelling. Therefore, it must be an excellent site. Joking apart, it really is a superb site for good explanations and for learning.


----------

