cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EOS R5 Mark II blurry photo advice

Hillphoto
Apprentice

I recently did a photo shoot with my grand kids. I am shooting with the r5 mark 2 & 24-105 but seems a little blurry to me . Please help

 

Screenshot 2025-04-27 081645.png

10 REPLIES 10

deebatman316
Elite
Elite

What lens are you using saying "Canon 24-105mmIS NOT COMPLETE NAME. Canon has made multiple lenses with that focal length. A complete name would be RF 24-105mm F/4-7.1 IS STM lens for example. We also need RAW files too. So we can review the exposure settings also what settings are you using. Was a flash being used or no flash being used. Are you using Eye detect AF.

-Demetrius
Bodies: EOS 5D Mark IV
Lenses: EF Holy Trinity, EF 85mm F/1.8 USM
Speedlites: 420EX, 470EX-AI, 550EX & 600EX II-RT

It's in the image: RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

--
Ricky

Camera: EOS R5 II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L
Lighting: Profoto Lights & Modifiers

I was working off my phone so I couldn't tell. But I'm on my laptop and can see it now. 😊

-Demetrius
Bodies: EOS 5D Mark IV
Lenses: EF Holy Trinity, EF 85mm F/1.8 USM
Speedlites: 420EX, 470EX-AI, 550EX & 600EX II-RT

rs-eos
Elite
Elite

There was enough depth-of-field for the distance and settings you were at. 1/100 second should work as a shutter speed, especially if IS was enabled so as to remove any camera shake.

With that said, the photo is underexposed by at least a stop (in looking at the histogram).  Opening up the aperture would risk not having a good depth of field since two rows of kids to capture. You could raise ISO more (1600 and even 3200 are still very usable).  However, it would be much better to try a different location to let in more sunlight into the scene.  Or, use a reflector to bounce some additional light into the scene.

--
Ricky

Camera: EOS R5 II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L
Lighting: Profoto Lights & Modifiers

RF24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Yes i was using eye detect. No flash. I understand its under exposed but it's still blurry. I thought is was in the raw photos only that's why I used this jpg. F-10 should have been focused though out I would think.


@Hillphoto wrote:

Yes i was using eye detect. No flash. I understand its under exposed but it's still blurry. I thought is was in the raw photos only that's why I used this jpg. F-10 should have been focused though out I would think.


I can barely read the screenshot, as the image seems to have rather low resolution,1000 x 544 pixels.  I really can’t read any of the text, which also means the image lacks detail, too.

I am unable to read the aperture, but f/5.6 should have been sufficient.  This would allow for you to significantly increase your shutter speed, assuming you were using f/11.  Try to use a DOF app to get a better idea of how much DOF you are working with for a given shot.

Also, I suspect that you could be seeing the side effects of camera shake.  The IS in the lens can only do so much.  If you are using Subject Eye AF, then it becomes ever more important that you steady the camera and not rush the shot.  Tuck your elbows in, close to your body.

IMG_0107.jpeg

--------------------------------------------------------
"Enjoying photography since 1972."

p4pictures
Authority
Authority

I think your biggest cause of trouble is the shutter speed. 1/100th is on the limit for most people, and young kids I'd suggest you should use 1/200th or more to keep them sharp. Unfortunately no amount of in-camera or lens image stabilisation will correct a moving subject, and what this looks like is a little bit of motion blur and "possibly" not quite enough depth of field. 


Brian
EOS specialist trainer, photographer and author
-- Note: my spell checker is set for EN-GB, not EN-US --

The aperture was f/11 and at the focusing distance of 2.99 m, that would provide enough depth-of-field (approx 93 cm or 36 inches).

--
Ricky

Camera: EOS R5 II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L
Lighting: Profoto Lights & Modifiers
Announcements