EOS R5 Image quality and focus issues

[thirdherd]

I have results from my R5 that are disappointing at best. I've tried changing the settings using pros advice but still not as sharp as I'd expect. I'm using an EF 100-400 lens for BIF and have sent the lens to Canon for alignment, still no improvement. I bought the camera new and so far as I know it has never been damaged. IF, I get extremely close to my subject the image is a lot sharper. 

I shoot wildlife and BIF using back button AF. Raw files and shutter release (mechanical). I use a variety of focus point settings and of course servo mode. I'm to the point I'm going to send it back to canon unless I find a miricle cure. I'm at 1.7 firmware as well. Any  suggestions or similar complaints?

[Waddizzle]

Stop using the UV filters.  You do not need them.  There is already a UV filter layer built into every digital image sensor assembly.

If you feel that you need a “protective filter”, then only use a high quality CLEAR filter.  I recommend the B+W Nano Clear filters.

[thirdherd]

Thank you for the advice. I have removed the filter from the lens. I am going to send the R5 to Canon service as a precaution. It's 89 bucks for the service and I think that's reasonable after that I have no one to blame but myself. Thanks again

[deebatman316]

I would retest the lens with the any type of screw on filters REMOVED. As what @Waddizzle pointed out the sensor stack already has a UV Filter. Also @ebiggs1 pointed out that Canon's EF 100-400mm lens lineup don't focus well with filters attached. Filters are unnecessary for this lens. Unless you want to use a clear protective filter as @Waddizzle pointed out.

 -Demetrius

Current Gear: EOS 5D Mark IV, EF 16-35mm F/2.8L III USM, EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM, EF 50 F/1.8 STM, EF 85mm F/1.8 USM, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS III USM, 430EX III-RT, 470EX-AI & 600EX II-RT

Retired Gear: EOS 40D, Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM & EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

[thirdherd]

Thanks for your comments. I have removed the filter and am looking fwd to testing it.

[ebiggs1]

"Stop using the UV filters.  You do not need them"

I repeat this. Stop using any filter. The ef 100-400mm does not like them.

[thirdherd]

I guess it's unanimous. I removed the filter and will keep trying. Thanks again to you and everyone who chimed in.

[ebiggs1]

Dennis,

I checked out your samples. It looks like you used ISO 4000 on some. That will enter a lot of grain in the photo and you might conclude that is the lens not being sharp. It is not. It is the granin factor. Also it looks like you are doing an extreme crop to the images. You can't do that and expect top IQ. There are limits to how much you can get by with. You have exceeded them. The short answer is get closer or a longer FL lens like a 600mm. Either one means you don't need to crop as  much. One is free the other is not! I hope you are using Raw and you have DPP4. Both of these are necessary to anyone that wants top IQ pictures.

[ebiggs1]

"The static test is kind of inconclusive given that it seems to focus better at shorter distances."

No its not. It is very informative. It is an excellent learning tool. Do the test. However lets add another aspect to it. Shoot at several distances but now change the ISO to 4000 from say 200. Edit the test shots in DPP4 and crop each to 100% which is about, if not less, than what you are doing. You have a couple guys here that have decades of photographic experience that recommend doing that test. Think of it as a school lesson. The more you experiment with and use your gear the more better you will become at using your gear. Remember to follow my instructions exactly.

You also have one of the most challenging AF circumstances. A subject with a bunch of limbs and twigs.

[amfoto1]

FYI: Hoya makes a bunch of different grades of filters ranging from premium quality to cheap junk. They also change the names of their different filter lines every so often, making it harder to tell which is which... but price is usually a pretty good indicator. Right now B&H Photo is showing four different Hoya UV filters in 77mm size required for EF 100-400mm...

Among those, the "77mm Hoya HD3 UV" is the most expensive at $133 and a recognized premium grade that will do little harm to images. At the other extreme is a $21 "77mm Hoya HMC UV" that would be questionable.  It could be worse, though.... there are SEVEN different 77mm Hoya Circular Polarizers!

To be fair, it might not be the filter's fault... but the combination of the filter and the lens. For some reason the original Canon EF 100-400mm push/pull zoom didn't "play well" with filters. Pretty much any filter you put on it would cause it to "go soft". AFAIK that isn't the case with the Mark II version of the lens... but I can't say from experience because in the 4 or 5 years I've been using it I don't recall ever putting a filter on my EF 100-400mm II. (The lens hood protects it quite well when shooting... the lens cap protects it when it's in my backpack.)

Looking at the sample images...

...the first three look pretty darned good considering the busy background. There's wingtip blur that's probably due to the 1/800 shutter speed, possibly some depth of field, depending upon the distance. But those three look well focused on the bird's head and body, at least in the sizes shown here. The fourth image, on the other hand,m appears to be an example of the camera and lens focusing on the background instead of the subject. Honestly, for a really demanding situation like this... a fast moving subject relatively close to an extremely busy background.. 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

The last shot is quite sharp. Against a plain background the bird is much easier to focus upon. But also the bird's orientation relative top the plane of focus and possibly less wing movement seem to make for better wingtip to wingtip sharpness. 

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

.

[thirdherd]

It has been awhile since I dealt with that issue but looking back I have to accept much of the responsibility. I know now I was asking the camera to do too much. I've since ponied another 2800 bucks for a 500mm RF lens and it has made a big difference. The R5 takes exceptional images IF you do your part, and I wasn't. I confess that prior to the R5 I used the Nikon D500 and the Canon 7D II and it seemed all I had to do with both of them was point in the general direction and somehow they got the shot. An exaggeration for sure, but it was different. Of course they lack the resolution of the R5. I continue to work with the R5 and I have gotten much better especially with RF lens and a more thoughtful approach to my settings. As Mr Biggs said, practice is the cure.