Home Forums Gear Photography Having a tough time with new Canon Camera....opinions solicited

I've been a serious "hobby level" photographer most of my life and have hit a speed bump this year with respect to my photos. A few years back I sold my Canon EOS 5D Mk II to upgrade to a Mk III. Prior to the Mk II I had a 40D. With each upgrade came a very obvious upgrade in picture quality. Obviously because of increased megapixels and general improvements in hardware, construction...whatever. Seven months, or so, ago I upgraded the Mk III to the 5DS R, one of their top of the line models at the time.

I was jumping from 22.3 mp to 50.2 mp......Holy moley I was ready to challenge the Hubble telescope for pics now I thought. To date it has been a disappointment. Using my previous lens EF 24-70L and their new EF 100-400 IS ii, I see zero improvement and maybe some decrease in picture quality compared to the Mk III !

I shoot in JPEG and RAW formats. Looking at pictures taken with both cameras in JPEG, my files say something along the lines of 12.4 mp in size for both the Mk III and the 5DS R. I've gained nothing apparently in picture quality. I certainly cant see any difference. My iPhone shoots @ 12 mp also and its pictures are just as good. I figured with my 100-400 lens the camera would really show off on my wildlife shots in RAW mode. Nope.....file data shows the pictures to be in the 50 mp range but detail is lost if I zoom the pic up even a small bit. I shoot off a tripod, and have the image stabilization turned off on the lens and the pics are just blah. Its RAW files are really no better than my Mk III's JPEG shots on animals and such.....its really confusing.

Any suggestions? I'm all ears....

Thanks in advance.

Well I guess nobody has an opinion. Thanks anyway

I'm not up on their models, but might your new unit be a full frame model? If so, one is not getting a multiplier effect with his lenses.

Cookie has several Canons, and I know one is a full frame unit. I think the other two are a bit older and have about a 1.6 multiplier effect due to their smaller sensors. I.e. A 100 mm lens will produce images equivalent to a 160 mm lens on a full frame model. A 100-400 zoom is the equivalent of a 160 to 640 mm on a crop unit. A 500 mm on the same body will generate images equivalent to an 800 mm on a full frame. One will have to move in closer with a full frame to get images equivalent to those he secured with his crop sensor.

Full frames units are favored by those doing landscapes and images that might be blown to huge proportions due to their higher pixel count. Those wanting to reach out with their lenses at smaller targets favor the units with smaller sensors.

Edited: Just did a little surfing. Your newer unit has a full frame sensor.

The 5D line are full frame sensors. I'm going to assume your dissatisfaction is arising from lack of sharpness? And working under the assumption that you're a serious photographer you're gtg with the basics (adequate shutter speed, steady camera hold etc).

With that out of the way... I'm not familiar with your specific model, but in your position, I'd be looking at the in camera settings for sharpening, contrast, saturation etc. If you're using LightRoom, I'd check if there's a specific profile that you can apply for your camera model. FYI Raw needs to be properly processed to be ready for "prime time". Straight OOC Raw files are unsuprisingly humble.

EDIT:
Out of curiosity, I looked up the 5DS R and see that it's a 5D with the AA filter removed. Images should be sharper, but at the expense of added digital artifacts (Moire). Looks like there's internal crop modes (1.3 and 1.6 crop) so you might check if you inadvertently set it up for crop (but I can't see it making enough difference to cause complaints)... If I were still struggling with IQ, I might even try a focus test.

I'm seeing that your model has been out from 2012ish...did you buy a used model? That would add a whole 'nother dimension to your experience.

This review raises the issue of the 5DS R perhaps needing an extra couple of stops of shutter speed. Doesn't make sense to me either...but here you go;
https://www.deepgreenphotography.co...-take-sharp-pictures-with-the-canon-5dsr

...and one reviewers take on initial setup of the 5DS R;
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15331

Post some of your pics.

Shooting in RAW will not produce good results unless you process the files using the proper software.

Also you can't expect to get better photos using the same old lens.

Bought new in the box. The lens I use are high end lens…not the starter lens.

I use Photoshop to process my photos but purchased Lightroom just this fall. For a program supposedly user friendly the learning curve is steep! Need to find an instruction manual or something quickly. The YouTube videos on Lightroom aren’t too good.

You haven't really shared what specifically you're dissatisfied with. I'm inferring lack of sharpness, but is it that, or do your photo's lack "pop"? Contrast, Saturation? Sharing a representative photo might help get you better advice.

Pretty much every serious photographer I know uses Lightroom. CameraLand was sending emails promoting LightRoom classes not long ago.

Lack of sharpness. Been reading since my original post and it’s noted that at high ISO’s the 5DS R is good but could be a smidge better for some reason. That might figure in to a Milky Way shot later on.

That being said what stood out to me was on my elk hunt this past October. After I got my bull I went out snapping pics. One shot off the tripod on a herd of elk at ~ 400 yards just absolutely defeated the camera. IS switched off on the lens of course. Using my 100-400 L lens….easy shot. All were not clear at all when zoomed up. Same thing with a bald Eagle at less that 100 yards. That’s just a couple of examples.

The camera is a dang good camera…..I know it’s probably me but …

A thought came to mind as I read your post. How is your autofocus set up? Are you using “area” or “zone” with multiple points…or are you using a single point? You might get away with area for close shots, but at distance the focus gets much more critical. I’d be using “point” and shooting for the eye.

BTW, your 5D is well capable of Astro photography. It doesn’t take as much ISO as you think to shoot the Milky Way. I’d use only as much ISO as I need to keep the shutter at around 30sec.

Godogs57:
Cookie has a couple of the Canon 100-400's. One is the first edition sliding telescope model and the second the newer screw model. Regardless of body, they both generate great images across bodies. Her 500 mm works well across the same units. She also has a couple kit lenses, and I know they're not to be used on her newer full frame unit due to some mechanical issues. Those are fine too on both of her crop bodies.

Quality or not, one might post up a couple images here with your assessment or concerns listed. The old picture equals a thousand words ......

Might also go out his back door and set up some test shots of some subjects close in and far out to assess how the finest of details are rendered. We usually keep her stabilization on for both hand-held and tripod shots. One might shoot some test shots as well with that feature on/off. About the only time we turn IS off is when trying some star shots and we don't see much difference there either.

One mentioned some distant elk/eagle shots. Is one using a single point focus or perhaps one of the more regional multi-point SPORT settings? We find the regional settings rather poor for nailing focus on specific points and go for a single center point trying for an eye if one is near enough. Even then, an intervening branch or blade of grass might get the camera's attention and cause issues. If there's a lot trash in the frame, it's best to switch off the auto focus and go totally manual. See example pheasant below. Near and far are blurred, but the eye looks good. We will use the regional settings on occasion for things like birds in flight when the sky is the background. Down on the level, the camera really can't sense what one wants when both the background and subject are in motion.

Low light and extreme ISO's are also prone to introducing noise regardless of ones camera generation. Yes, the newer models are a little better, but I don't see quantum leaps in quality there.

Also, any filters involved? Years back we tried some skylight filters (mostly for lens protection) and images were good, but just seemed to lack that super pop out effect. Flat glass in front of a well-engineered lens just takes something away. Despite cost, they went to the round file. It took some test shots with the filters on and off to make that determination and it was a loss of the really fine detail that came to light in that instance.
Last, we for the most part find RAW files to be quite good. Yes, some can stand a little tweaking perhaps for brightness, sharpness, etc. The Canon software (Digital Photo Professional), Photoshop, Topaz, all seem to be equally functional for handling RAW files as well as their conversions to tif, bmp, jpg, or whatever. We do everything in RAW and never overwrite the originals.

If one has some nearby acquaintances with similar gear he might touch bases with them. Even Nikon folks might know what one is talking about. On the slight chance that one has accidently tweaked some setting, one might also go into the setup mode, put back to the factory defaults, and start anew from there.

Keep at it and do come back with your findings please,

1Minute: I’ll load a few pics later this afternoon. Hitting the shop to complete some knife orders right now.

I’m going to check my focus later as well. I do believe I had it set to single point focus because of that very fact stated by you guys.

I always turn off image stabilization if on tripod. That’s how I was taught a long time ago. The IS will continue to “try” to stabilize the image even if it’s already stabilized on the tripod resulting in a loss of sharpness…..that’s all I’ve ever read on that subject and have never seen anything to the contrary.

Back later on and thanks so much for everyone’s help. It’s very much appreciated.

Yes. I too have seen that suggestion from several sources. Probably 95% of our stuff is handheld (mostly leaning on something for support though), so we just leave IS on. Even on a tripod there's a little jump due to shutter activation and mirror activity. Never tried anything with the mirror locked up.

Knife order? Sounds like you're a Forged in Fire guy? Looks to be a neat challenge I'd like to try, but probably too cheap to gear up here. Do enjoy the TV show though.

Here's a couple. One is the Rockies pic that the file info showed to be 70.1 mp in size. Note the Rockies are not in focus. Neither is the treeline a few hundred yards away. Just a crappy pic. Makes me sick.


Bald Eagle pic. Not one item is in focus. As we say down here in SW GA, Not nary a thang...



If you were to zoom up on either pic you'd see the image so degraded from zooming you could hardly tell what it was....

I'll post pics from my old Mk III to show difference in the next post

Same mountains with the Mk III back in 2015. Not an entirely amazing pic but it looks much better than the 5 DS R this year.


Elk herd at over a quarter mile, enlarged, cropped and processed in Photoshop:



Not an amazing pic but nice. Taken at a quarter mile at sunrise. Also enlarged, cropped and processed in Photoshop.

Godogs57:
Looking at those first two images, I think it's just case of the camera not being able to figure out exactly where one wanted the focus to nail down. The clouds/snow portions don't really have definitive edges the system can lock on to. As to the eagle, the array of branches also presents a challenge. Focus there looks to be slightly behind the bird on the pines, and with a telephoto stretched out with a wide-open aperture, one has a shallow depth of field.

Even with a tripod, camera shake might be an issue too, especially with a stretched-out telephoto. With a stout tripod, I still really lean on the entire setup to help it remain steady.

Your earlier images do look spot on.

Below is one of Cookie's images from this past fall. It was taken about 1/2 hour after sunset with a ton of smoke in the air due to a regional wildfire. Really horrid conditions. Camera was EOS 5D Mark iV, with one of her 100-400's stretched out to 400mm at F5.6 and 1/320 sec. ISO was on auto at 2000. So it was wide open and running a little slow too. Targets maybe a little over a 100 yds out. Depth of field there looks to be maybe 5 or so yards ranging from the small center most buck's butt to maybe just past the 2 by 3's antlers. Subjects in front of and behind get pretty hazy and definition of the standing dead grass stems also gives one a bit more grasp of depth of field.

Cookie has taken to doing multiple frames (I think 3 shots) with a single shutter depression hoping one or two are sharp. When one gives them a cursory look, they appear identical, but a close examination reveals the camera does a refocus between each frame. One of her buddies does 7 or 8 shots with each depression. They both get some good shots, but also rapidly fill their cards, have thousands of images to review, and toss a ton at the end. Camera must get pretty heavy at the end of the day too. That was the case in the below instance. She probably took 100+ deer images, but only 4 or 5 were retained.

My approach, if I get to hold a camera, is to repeatedly play with the shutter focus until i think it's nailed and then finally hammer the shutter for a single shot. The issue with that is one must focus specifically on his subject and not move the camera to recompose. If one does recompose, the camera will do a final refocus before tripping the shutter and it may be off. The only way I know of to defeat this is to find something that's exactly the same distance away as ones target and rest the focal point there. Not always possible on an open plain.

Another option with most DSLR's is to reassign a seldom used button dedicating it strictly to focusing work. I think the term most used is called "back focusing". That process is handy if one wants to focus on a subject and then move the camera to recompose the image. One aims at his target, sets the focus, then moves the camera to place his target off center, and snaps his shot. Shutter depression has no effect on focus. A lot of the pros seem to like this, but I've stayed with shutter button focus. With the back focus option, one has his thumb on one of the rear focus buttons and his index finger on the shutter. Pretty much just using two fingers of the right hand to hold that side of the camera. I like to use the thumb and all of my remaining fingers to hold things as still as possible.

My guess is your camera is fine, and those were just a couple of challenging situations.

Again, I'd suggest some trial runs at subjects with some fine definition followed by a look at all of the detail and info that accompanies each image. That data certainly helps one figure out what does and does not work. I'd also be inclined to do away with the JPG option. One can always generate those from his RAWs in post processing.



If everything comes together, it's amazing how much detail they can capture.
Here's some local elk on a cloudy evening about 600 yds out. A good image, but one still can't crop or zoom in for portrait quality definition. Again too, it's a fair example of depth of field with fore and backgrounds out of focus. Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure this was with the 500 prime on one of her crop bodies, so equivalent to 800 mm glass.


Keep at it, stay in touch, and good luck.

In a nutshell,you're a CLUELESS Fhuqking Idiot and the camera is simply superb. Hint.

Shoot AV,disconnect focus/metering,drive centerpoint AF,dump ISO,heed shutter speed,rock back button focus,dabble AWB and pay some fhuqking attention. You are obviously in FULL Retard Mode and it fhuqking shows. Hint.

Roll some EXIF and all will slap you in the face. Hint................

Well, I believe Stick covered most of my shortcomings . Thanks folks. I’ll work on it some more.

Aside from the focus goofiness from the camera -

It’s been said - but the higher density sensors are more sensitive to shake / movement than the lower ones … so the tripod can be part of the issue as well. Some people notice it when they jump from 15 to 50 meg pic’s.

I haven’t used back focus but need to start, I started with a Pentex K1000 back in the day so I tend to run Ap and do my own focusing for key shots, but I need to get used to these “camera thinks for itself” with any newer camera.

I’m eyeing a D850, or Z9 - Nikon guy… but considering Cannon - Frankly Nikon was in big trouble until they popped the Z9 out….
Cannon just got to big headed cutting out shutters too soon….
Both of them have lost sooo much market share due to smart phone cameras they need to be really careful so it’s important to pick wisely…
But if you want landscapes and Zoom quality full body cameras are still the best.

'7,

As per PM:

You want it in AV Mode,AI Servo,Single Point(center) AF,Case #1,high speed continuous drive,Manual ISO(in native values),AWB & [bleep] and highlight tone priority will keep clipping down. Hint....................




TwatShooter,

On said body,with glass cited,shutter speeds are fhuqking Nuclear,given the body's ability to bolster ISO. Hand holding is therefore a fhuqking breeze and easier than ever before,due the inherent splendors of same. Hint.

It is fascinatingly fhuqking HILARIOUS,that you are sooooooooo amazingly fhuqking STUPID,about soooooooooo fhuqking much. Hint.....................

Spotshooter:

I sure agree with the phone camera comment grabbing the low-end portion of the market. One sees thousands of phones held in the air at major events, but I haven't seen the professionals selling their Nikon body and lens so they could buy a new Samsung Galaxy S22 yet. Met a young couple 2 seasons ago with pro aspirations packing a nice spotting scope and digiscoping the world. The lady has some serious composition talents and showed up last fall with about $12K in new gear. Made a quantum leap in her image quality and I think she'll make a good living now

My start was a Nikon F purchased in about 1969. Manual everything. Still have it, but the abilities of our modern digital units are absolutely amazing now that the pixel count is approaching infinity. The gear is for sure expensive, but developing and printing are minor costs now. With probably a 100 different aspects of their performance that one can tweak though, they are extremely complex machines letting one do serious magic in studios and with stable scenes. When one's out chasing the dynamics of nature though there's not much time to tweak things if the sun's in your face one minute and seconds later we're running with the light. All the auto features are sure a benefit letting us pretty much whirl around and shoot with ease and post processing can rectify a lot of errors as well.

I'll be seriously pissed though when some dime sized phone lens comes up with the same capabilities as the softball sized objectives on today's expensive glass.

Have a good one,