topic Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

EOS 5D Mark IV Poor image quality

billwestermeyer — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:22:19 GMT

Please excuse the rather basic question. I recently purchased a refurbished 5D mark IV from Canon USA. It is replacing my 6D mark I. I've been very disappointed with the image quality I'm getting from the camera and figured it was just an amateur photographer trying to figure out a new camera. But it really doesn't seem right, and I'm hoping to get some advice. I've attached an image I captured with the 5D and a Canon 100mm macro IS USM. ISO 400, 1/500, F 10, and the camera is about 3 feet away from the butterfly. I saved the image as a JPEG, but it is an unedited raw image. It seems pretty grainy to me. Does it to you? Should I have Canon check it out?

thanks

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

p4pictures — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:11:10 GMT

Can you provide a link to your RAW image? Evaluating a JPG means that we cannot see the same data as you. Furthermore different software applications convert Canon RAW images to JPG with different algorithms which can result in varied results and image quality differences.

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

wq9nsc — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:17:26 GMT

Bill,

It looks to me like the camera is back focused a little bit in this shot. 3' away at f10 with a 100mm lens gives you under 2" of depth in focus and if you are looking at it very critically (like you would with a macro setup) then the "perfect" depth is even shallower.

With macro glass I typically use a single point for AF. What was your AF setup and what was the focal point(s) on in your photo?

Have you calibrated the lens to the camera? It is easy to do and necessary to ensure that the focus is spot on as controlled by the AF system. This is particularly important with a macro lens.

The adjustment is in the camera under the AF menu. Canon's standard instructions are to take three images of an object at your typical working range and then examine them in detail (typically using the larger computer screen) and then you decide from that whether to dial in a positive or negative offset to the AF for that lens based upon whether it is front or back focusing. I modify the procedure and in one session take 3 shots each at 0, +1, 3, and 5 and then -1, 3, and 5 and examine them on the computer to determine what is perfect and if I need to interpolate between those points and make a second test.

Your 5DIV should produce excellent images at the ISO 400 setting used in that image.

Rodger

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:18:27 GMT

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12A_PexadrXVSm37sn0dtC8mkWUkxSOWj/view?usp=drive_link

As I look at these images, it seems that the leaf to the left is in better focus. I see that on others too. I have the focus point in the center though. Thanks for your help

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:27:56 GMT

Wow, How could i have missed calibration? I don't remember seeing that in a book on that camera. I'll get that done and see. In my reply to p4pictures, I wrote that the focus seems to be better on the leaf to the left. That may support your suggestion of calibration. Thanks!

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

March411 — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:38:28 GMT

Bill, do you have the Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software. If you don't the link provided will get you there and it's a free application. It gives you the ability to look at your exact focus points which let's you know if you hit the subject matter in the way you intended. It also has some decent features for post production. If you already knew this sorry for the redundancy.

Tools
AF Point Display Settings
Show all AF points

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

wq9nsc — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:44:36 GMT

You are welcome Bill and here is a Canon knowledge base article on it. I would calibrate by lens, NOT by all, since each lens will be a little different.

https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/s/article/ART136230

Rodger

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

Waddizzle — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 19:01:52 GMT

I don’t believe calibration is the issue. It could be, though. You should rule out other factors first. Your photo should not be taken as an example of how well the camera focuses with your lens.

There are other factors to consider first. Factors such as DOF and camera movements, especially forwsrd and back.

If you have never performed a lens calibration before, be warned that it’s far easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right. And almost no one gets it right on the first try.

A calibration should be a last resort, not a first option.

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 19:34:52 GMT

I don't have it. thanks. I will check it out.

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 19:46:51 GMT

Thank you, I appreciate that warning and the DOF advice.

I realize using that lens as an example was probably not the best. It's the best lens I have, so I thought that would be the best example, but macros are a little different and tricky. I've tried more than one lens I put a link here for a similar unedited RAW photo taken 70-200 L IS USM at 121 mm, ISO 160, 1/400 F8 taken at the same time. Its fairly sharp (with sharpening) but not sure if it should be better.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S2s_3opDPzINaKXy3D6hS4gEu390yvzc/view?usp=drive_link

Thanks again.

Bill

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:21:13 GMT

Bill, your posting to Google Drive requires a password to download. Please make it sharable without a p/w 🙂

I agree with Waddizzle. I wouldn't start with micro adjustment or any other kind of calibration. It's been my experience that it is rarely needed. BTW, I used the EOS 5D mark IV as my primary camera for years along with the EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro, and still use that combo when my R series are occupied with other glass (I have the RF 100mm macro). That's not to say your combo might not need some adjustment, it just wouldn't be my first suspect.

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:28:22 GMT

sorry it's accessible now.

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 22:09:58 GMT

@billwestermeyer wrote:

sorry it's accessible now.

Thank you, Bill! I just popped it open in DPP 4 and upon initial inspection (no adjustments), it looks fine to me. The focus point is on the skipper. It's a bit over exposed, but that is just a matter of taste, so no big deal.

I suspect that the program you used to edit/reduce the image is at fault. I will post my edits or a screen shot shortly. I hope that is OK 🙂

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 22:15:28 GMT

I just noticed. That is not the same image, LOL!

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 22:40:53 GMT

Woh! The Raw you posted is with a different lens! If you want help with the EF 100mm macro, that is what you need to post.

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sun, 20 Jul 2025 01:03:28 GMT

Sorry Newton, I've got a couple different conversations going on. I used two lenses on this session to compare for troubleshooting. I realize using the macro lens as an example was probably not the best for advice. It's the best lens I have, so I thought that would be the best example, but macros are a little different and tricky. That link is for a similar unedited RAW photo taken 70-200 L IS USM at 121 mm, ISO 160, 1/400 F8, taken at the same time. Its fairly sharp (with sharpening) but not sure if it should be better. Here is the original 100mm image.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12A_PexadrXVSm37sn0dtC8mkWUkxSOWj/view?usp=drive_link

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sun, 20 Jul 2025 02:46:37 GMT

@billwestermeyer wrote:

Sorry Newton, I've got a couple different conversations going on. I used two lenses on this session to compare for troubleshooting. I realize using the macro lens as an example was probably not the best for advice. It's the best lens I have, so I thought that would be the best example, but macros are a little different and tricky. That link is for a similar unedited RAW photo taken 70-200 L IS USM at 121 mm, ISO 160, 1/400 F8, taken at the same time. Its fairly sharp (with sharpening) but not sure if it should be better. Here is the original 100mm image.

Not a problem, Bill 🙂

I just ran the image taken with the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro (I think it's a Silver-spotted Skipper) through DPP 4 and for the distance, it looks OK to me. Note how sharp the leaves are within the same FOV as the skipper. The skipper was probably moving when you took the shot, so it may have some slight motion blur, but easily correctable. The FP was on the skipper.

I cropped this close to 50%, so it would only be suitable for posting on social media. You would need to be closer with the EF 100mm to get better/more detail and a larger print. The higher pixel count of the 5D IV make cropping in closer easier. I love this camera and lens combo, that's why I still use mine even though I shoot with MILC's. It is hard to beat the IQ of the 5D IV and EF 100mm when shooting macro 😁

This is from the EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM, a Fiery Skipper I think. I cropped it as close as I could and still maintain some detail. Like the other image, this would only be suitable for social media, IMO. I would have used all 200mm's, but maybe you were trying to compare to the 100mm

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sun, 20 Jul 2025 16:20:14 GMT

Wow, that's some nice work on your part. Buying a refurbished one, there was no DPP disc included and had forgotten it existed. I downloaded it and did a tutorial. Great application. Newton, that was really great of you to take the time to help me. It's good to know the camera is ok.

Bill

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

FloridaDrafter — Sun, 20 Jul 2025 17:49:17 GMT

You are welcome, Bill! Just be aware that DPP is a pretty basic program and there are other options, some free and some you have to pay for. Since the paid apps typically have more features, they are more complicated and take longer to become proficient at. Although DPP is slower to process files, it's advantage is it uses profiles for Canon cameras and lenses that are created by Canon. Other apps also have profiles, but typically, they aren't created by Canon and depend on other dedicated users and sometimes aren't as good and take some tweaking on your part. Oftentimes they [lens/camera profiles] are late to the party and you may end up waiting or creating your own. This isn't an issue if you use 3rd party lenses, like Tamron or Sigma.

Since retirement, I'm not in any hurry, so DPP being slow is of no concern to me, but I do use other Raw editors, primarily DxO when I have a troublesome image. BTW, the files from the 5D IV are pretty quick to process compared to my R5's and R6's Raw files.

Newton

Re: Poor quality 5D mk iv

billwestermeyer — Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:26:53 GMT

I don't need anything too sophisticated. just a hobbyists taking a lot of bird images. I had a version of Photoshop elements from a decade or so ago and I liked it. I forgot to transfer the license when I changed computers, so Adobe made me buy a new subscription. I really don't like the new version, especially the sharpening. I've tried RawTherapee too.