On second thought...I am NOT going to start a new thread. Why further embarrass myself?
I've gone through the test twice this evening. As controlled as I can make it: good test target, tripod, no IBIS, Manual mode, manual focus (using the little green triangle assistants AND magnified verification of their precision), and the two-second delay. R5 + 24-70mm at an arbitrarily chosen focal length of 60mm. I took seven shots each for MECH and EFCS (1/3 stop increments from 1/60th to 1/250th), but just picked three shutter speeds to attach, as they all show the same thing.
The target you are looking at is a 4x6 glossy print. (Which AlanF kindly pointed to for another series of tests--IBIS--which also came up negative!)
My lights were two incandescent 100W bulbs in a copy-lighting arrangement.
Attached images are just a little shy of 100% crops. I'm exporting from LR CC, so it was kind of hit-or-miss to get the right file size for CR attachments.
First, under these controlled conditions, I am seeing a consistent difference, with EFCS being ever so slightly sharper with this body + lens combination. It is possible that other lenses might show more blurring, but I can't imagine any showing less than this!
Second, and most importantly, the difference that I see, zoomed in 100% on my 4k screen in LR CC, is so slight as to be arguably negligible--unless for some reason printing very large 100% crops. The actual difference I'm seeing is nearly down at the pixel level, where some of the edges of the letters are just barely "rougher/sharper" in EFCS than in MECH. With my new reading glasses on and my nose almost against the monitor!
This is why an engineer with CPS kept saying he wasn't seeing anything.
I think I'm getting to the point where I am making peace with my R5. Where I'm tired of looking for problems, tired of testing, and ready to just have fun and profit (eventually) with a great camera, one I am extremely lucky to be able to use!
But, please, anybody else having some well controlled test shots that show more than this, share them!
I've gone through the test twice this evening. As controlled as I can make it: good test target, tripod, no IBIS, Manual mode, manual focus (using the little green triangle assistants AND magnified verification of their precision), and the two-second delay. R5 + 24-70mm at an arbitrarily chosen focal length of 60mm. I took seven shots each for MECH and EFCS (1/3 stop increments from 1/60th to 1/250th), but just picked three shutter speeds to attach, as they all show the same thing.
The target you are looking at is a 4x6 glossy print. (Which AlanF kindly pointed to for another series of tests--IBIS--which also came up negative!)
My lights were two incandescent 100W bulbs in a copy-lighting arrangement.
Attached images are just a little shy of 100% crops. I'm exporting from LR CC, so it was kind of hit-or-miss to get the right file size for CR attachments.
First, under these controlled conditions, I am seeing a consistent difference, with EFCS being ever so slightly sharper with this body + lens combination. It is possible that other lenses might show more blurring, but I can't imagine any showing less than this!
Second, and most importantly, the difference that I see, zoomed in 100% on my 4k screen in LR CC, is so slight as to be arguably negligible--unless for some reason printing very large 100% crops. The actual difference I'm seeing is nearly down at the pixel level, where some of the edges of the letters are just barely "rougher/sharper" in EFCS than in MECH. With my new reading glasses on and my nose almost against the monitor!
This is why an engineer with CPS kept saying he wasn't seeing anything.
I think I'm getting to the point where I am making peace with my R5. Where I'm tired of looking for problems, tired of testing, and ready to just have fun and profit (eventually) with a great camera, one I am extremely lucky to be able to use!
But, please, anybody else having some well controlled test shots that show more than this, share them!
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0