I have a question and try not kill me for asking, it is a real concern to me. When pixel peeping (yes, sorry i am that type of person) the R5 images does not seem razor sharp, all images i have seen so far all look a little soft (when peeping). Is this caused by the fact your all still shooting Jpg (or the equivalent) and the camera does all the processing or is this due to the AA filter or simply website compression FM, Flickr. etc.
I have a question and try not kill me for asking, it is a real concern to me. When pixel peeping (yes, sorry i am that type of person) the R5 images does not seem razor sharp, all images i have seen so far all look a little soft (when peeping). Is this caused by the fact your all still shooting Jpg (or the equivalent) and the camera does all the processing or is this due to the AA filter or simply website compression FM, Flickr. etc.
Have you noticed this yourself?
Thank you so much.
You are braiver than me
Not sure if the original image is soft or there is some quality loss when presented in FM.
I have a question and try not kill me for asking, it is a real concern to me. When pixel peeping (yes, sorry i am that type of person) the R5 images does not seem razor sharp, all images i have seen so far all look a little soft (when peeping). Is this caused by the fact your all still shooting Jpg (or the equivalent) and the camera does all the processing or is this due to the AA filter or simply website compression FM, Flickr. etc.
Have you noticed this yourself?
Thank you so much.
FM is notoriously bad for softening images if you are using some kind of 4K or 5K display. Some of the posters are linking from Flickr. I'd recommend clicking through to their Flickr site to see better quality.
Thanks Rob...please share some 400DOII/2xTCIII shots when you have the time. I'd be using that combo at least 75% of the time if I splurge on the R5. My R5 purchase is basically hinging on finding a local used 400DOII to buy right now.
arbitrage wrote:
FM is notoriously bad for softening images if you are using some kind of 4K or 5K display. Some of the posters are linking from Flickr. I'd recommend clicking through to their Flickr site to see better quality.
I realize that this is the case with FM but i also see the same "issue" on flickr and even on some direct weblinks. Hopefully this is just a compression thing or the JPG (Heif? Hefie?... you know what i mean) in camera crushing the images. No matter the reason I just want to underline that everyones photos looks amazing, and i am not trying to bash anyones work. I am just trying to figure out if this camera might potentially be for me, being the pixel peeping bastard that i am
Lassep wrote:
I realize that this is the case with FM but i also see the same "issue" on flickr and even on some direct weblinks. Hopefully this is just a compression thing or the JPG (Heif? Hefie?... you know what i mean) in camera crushing the images. No matter the reason I just want to underline that everyones photos looks amazing, and i am not trying to bash anyones work. I am just trying to figure out if this camera might potentially be for me, being the pixel peeping bastard that i am
Also Sony and Nikon people posting tac-sharp images.
NissanPatrol wrote:
Also Sony and Nikon people posting tac-sharp images.
Sorry mate i am not sure i understand what you mean here. I will put this right out there, i think the Canon R5 looks like an amazing camera and i have 0% brand loyalty. A camera is a tool and i have used all brands, thats the end of it for me.
The best camera i have used so far is the D850 and i am hoping this could be its mirror-less replacement Hence the questions. I am not trying to stir up any feelings here, at all.
Lassep wrote:
Sorry mate i am not sure i understand what you mean here. I will put this right out there, i think the Canon R5 looks like an amazing camera and i have 0% brand loyalty. A camera is a tool and i have used all brands, thats the end of it for me. The best camera i have used so far is the D850 and i am hoping this could be its mirror-less replacement
I also have no brand loyalty. I was asking my self why I never seen sharp R5 photos so far.
I thought maybe the way FM present photos cause the original image to lose quality, but then even in the Nikon and Sony forum people post images directly into FM including myself and it can remain quite sharp.
I nevet said or concluded that R5 is not a good camera simply because I never owned one and I am not in a position to judge something I never experemented with.
The only thing I can judge is the image I examine on my screen.
Aside from the many excellent observations made by earlier posters, I would like to add that I am getting sharp shots at lover shutter speeds (perhaps 2 stops lower)with my 200-400 (1.4 engaged) than those I had to use with my 5DIV or 1DX. So I guess the IBIS is a keeper! I see this confirmed in earlier posts where unusually low ss's were used handheld. Along with the already confirmed accuracy of the animal eye af I believe the R5 will be a real weapon for fellow wildlife shooters. Only downside so far is inevitable slowdown in raw processing using latest DPP
I have a question and try not kill me for asking, it is a real concern to me. When pixel peeping (yes, sorry i am that type of person) the R5 images does not seem razor sharp, all images i have seen so far all look a little soft (when peeping). Is this caused by the fact your all still shooting Jpg (or the equivalent) and the camera does all the processing or is this due to the AA filter or simply website compression FM, Flickr. etc.
Lassep wrote:
Sorry mate i am not sure i understand what you mean here. I will put this right out there, i think the Canon R5 looks like an amazing camera and i have 0% brand loyalty. A camera is a tool and i have used all brands, thats the end of it for me.
The best camera i have used so far is the D850 and i am hoping this could be its mirror-less replacement Hence the questions. I am not trying to stir up any feelings here, at all.
---------------------------------------------
NissanPatrol wrote:
I also have no brand loyalty. I was asking my self why I never seen sharp R5 photos so far.
I thought maybe the way FM present photos cause the original image to lose quality, but then even in the Nikon and Sony forum people post images directly into FM including myself and it can remain quite sharp.
I nevet said or concluded that R5 is not a good camera simply because I never owned one and I am not in a position to judge something I never experemented with.
The only thing I can judge is the image I examine on my screen.
If you guys go to RobAmy's Flickr do you really not think the recent red-bellied WP and dog shots aren't tack sharp? You can view them up to 4K if you click View All Sizes or click into the image on normal view to get a larger view that way. I felt Rob's very first three shots were slightly off focus from the eye (rabbit, tanager and catbird) but the recent ones in better light look as good as anything else out there.
These look tack sharp too, until you enlarge them. Then they look like a mess. Looks to me like some sort of digital compression, they do not look soft when enlarged. But just a mess of pixels.
If you guys go to RobAmy's Flickr do you really not think the recent red-bellied WP and dog shots aren't tack sharp? You can view them up to 4K if you click View All Sizes or click into the image on normal view to get a larger view that way. I felt Rob's very first three shots were slightly off focus from the eye (rabbit, tanager and catbird) but the recent ones in better light look as good as anything else out there.
There is no argument about the dog shot, its tac sharp...
If you guys go to RobAmy's Flickr do you really not think the recent red-bellied WP and dog shots aren't tack sharp? You can view them up to 4K if you click View All Sizes or click into the image on normal view to get a larger view that way. I felt Rob's very first three shots were slightly off focus from the eye (rabbit, tanager and catbird) but the recent ones in better light look as good as anything else out there.
Its not that they look out of focus, it simply looks to me as if there is some kind of digital processing done to them. They are not pixel level sharp, none of them.
Man is that sweet! And my PC thanks me for it too!
