Compare photos - Is lack of sharpness because of camera or lens?

[Brad]

Since I've had my 6d (about 2 years) I've said the photos were not that sharp. On a recent trip, comparing photos from my 6d with 24-105L, and my friend's 5D mk3 with 24-70L 2.8 it was once again really obvious.

My question is, are my photos less sharp than his because his camera is better? Or is it that the 24-70 2.8 is that much sharper of a lens? Or is it maybe that my camera or lens has something out of adjustment? I've experimented with every setting I can think of on my camera and it doesn't help.

It seems to me that the IQ of both cameras should be pretty similar, and from what I read the 2 lenses don't have any appreciable difference in sharpness, so I am just not sure why my photos are consistently less sharp and "real" looking than his.

My shot with the 6d and 24-105L

His shot with the 5d mk 3 and 24-70L 2.8

I really notice the difference on the deails of the fabric of my black jacket.

His photos are taken in L fine size jpg and mine are M fine jpg (sharpness set to max.) Yes the file sizes are different but I wouldn't expect that to affect the IQ. Another note, (I had to crop his photo in photoshop to get under the 5mb file upload size and that seems to have reduced its IQ a bit.)

Thanks for any ideas anyone might have!

[jrhoffman75]

I downloaded both images and looked at them both at 100% in DPP. Personally, I think the 6D image is very sharp and a better image. Detail in hair trands, the eyes, and lettering on clothes is sharp. Face details on 5D aren't as good.

Swap lenses on both cameras and see for yourself if that mnakes a difference in your eyes.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

I downloaded both images and looked at them both at 100% in DPP. Personally, I think the 6D image is very sharp and a better image. Detail in hair trands, the eyes, and lettering on clothes is sharp. Face details on 5D aren't as good.

Swap lenses on both cameras and see for yourself if that mnakes a difference in your eyes.

---

Thank you, John! I didn't go to the trouble you did to prove it, but I had exactly the same reaction to the two pictures. I'm grateful for the reassurance that I'm not going blind.

[cicopo]

I haven't examined the photos carefully but suggest that if you want max sharpness you need to save at the highest resolution the camera offers (large fine in a Canon) & keep the ISO low (as in under 1000). Better yet shoot in RAW & convert after fine tuning.  

[ScottyP]

I am looking on my iPhone but I can't really see a difference. The colors on the top photo actually seem better. Not that it matters but "your shot" means "your camera used by your buddy" right? (Since you are in both photos?). So we have 2 different people using the camera and the same results, so if your friend took the time to pick settings and didn't just quickly shoot the way it was set up perhaps that argues against user factors.

I have a 6d and I routinely get razor sharp shots, using several different lenses including the 24-105. Same thing a few years ago using a Rebel T3i so it is not the model of camera, nor is the more advanced 5d3 AF relevant on a still target like this.

Have you done AFMA on the lens?
Do you get better results with any other lenses?
What shooting mode is this? Could the camera have set your shutter speed too low and you are getting subject or camera blur as a result?
What AF point are you using? I virtually always pick one AF point (usually the center one) and place it over the eye of one of the subjects. I only use all active points and allow the camera to pick if I am shooting stopped down enough to have lots of depth of field (f/8 or higher) in case the camera picks the wrong AF points.
What AF mode?
I never shoot in anything other than the largest resolution. Especially if any cropping will be dome.

Just spitballing here.

[Aldente]

Pardon my intrusion, Scott, and this is a side note...

I was looking over this old thread and I noticed that it was posted on December 16 2014 and your reply came the next day, Dec. 17, 2014, hence my question:

It was announced on 25 August 2016 that Canon was coming out with 5D Mark IV and that it would be available in retail in September 2016how.

So, how is it that your listed equipment in 2014 featured 5DMk4, when it would be coming out and became available to public only 2 years later and the equipment list in the threads, I believe, is not a dynamic function and doesn't get updated once it is posted in a thread? In other words, your shown equipment list IS from 2014.

Just asking...

Tx.

[jrhoffman75]

Signature is updated to current in past posts. 

[Aldente]

Thank you, then I was incorrect in my assumptions.

Regards

[ebiggs1]

The two photos are not cpmparable for many reasons and can therefor not confirm any issues good or bad.

A short list is, 1 the exposures are different. 2 the file size is different and 3 different lenses were used.

The 24-70mm f2.8 is one of the best lenses made and the 24-105mm f4 is a good buy, being kind here!

When you get to the pixel peeping level a 5D Mk III with the 24-70mm f2.8 is going to win every time.  But what that means in real world use is highly overstated.  I would do some controlled tests to confirm your camera is working as it should.

Sometimes when you get the notion something is wrong, even if it isn't, it is hard to move one so confirmation all is well may be helpfull.

The two photos are really pretty good.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The two photos are not cpmparable for many reasons and can therefor not confirm any issues good or bad.

A short list is, 1 the exposures are different. 2 the file size is different and 3 different lenses were used.

The 24-70mm f2.8 is one of the best lenses made and the 24-105mm f4 is a good buy, being kind here!

When you get to the pixel peeping level a 5D Mk III with the 24-70mm f2.8 is going to win every time.  But what that means in real world use is highly overstated.  I would do some controlled tests to confirm your camera is working as it should.

Sometimes when you get the notion something is wrong, even if it isn't, it is hard to move one so confirmation all is well may be helpfull.

The two photos are really pretty good.

---

Just a quibble, but do we know which version of the 24-70 f/2.8 was used? My understanding is that the Mk I version was good but not great, while the Mk II version is outstanding.

John, are you able to tell that from the Exif data?