Show me a SHARP 5D Mark IV photo

Sort by date Sort by votes
M

Mancubus

Nov 7, 2014
143
0
1,495
#1
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.
 
#2
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
- 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#4
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Upvote 0
#8
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.
 
Upvote 0
#9
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.
 
Upvote 0
#10
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Upvote 0
#11
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/
 
Upvote 0
#12
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...
 
Upvote 0
#14
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#15
A recent fairly sharp one. I shoot raw and expect to need to sharpen the images generally.

57161-090417173045.jpeg
 
Upvote 0
#17
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.
 
Upvote 0
#18
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.
 

Attachments

  • untitled_17-01-12_58937-2.jpg
    untitled_17-01-12_58937-2.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 540
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
R5 Mark II vs BMPCC 6K G2 - dynamic range, aspect ratios etc
Replies
1
Views
357
Deleted member 399245
D
D
From 5D Mark III to R5 Mark II - photographer review - first 1 month and a half - 12k shots
Replies
31
Views
3K
Deleted member 399245
D
D
Thoughts of R6 Owners who "upgraded" from a 5D4 (or similar DSLR, or an RP)?
Replies
21
Views
18K
Aussie shooter
Aussie shooter
P
First impressions of a mirrorless late adopter, 7D2 -> R6
Replies
7
Views
8K
chik0240
C
RayValdez360
How many people think that their 5D Mark IV images are soft?
Replies
63
Views
53K
AlanF
AlanF
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu