Show me a SHARP 5D Mark IV photo

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

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

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

out of focus hair and etc

 

[Viggo]

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

Gold Keith! sums up the request peferctly ;D

Except it isn't very sharp :

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Gold Keith! sums up the request peferctly ;D

Except it isn't very sharp :

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

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.

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

 

[meywd]

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

Gold Keith! sums up the request peferctly ;D

Except it isn't very sharp :

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Mancubus]

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.

tiggy@mac - 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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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.