So there you have an example of that lack of sharpness I am facing with the R5

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Well, it's clearly motion blur, and as its different between the upper jaw and the lower jaw, plus the hand and plant are not affected (though not quite sharp), it implies that the subject is moving.  I've had very sharp results with my 10-400 L mkii (now sold) on the R5, with static and flying birds.  Not tried any horses though!

drsnoopy wrote:

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Well, it's clearly motion blur, and as its different between the upper jaw and the lower jaw, plus the hand and plant are not affected (though not quite sharp), it implies that the subject is moving. I've had very sharp results with my 10-400 L mkii (now sold) on the R5, with static and flying birds. Not tried any horses though!

I had not considered the possibility that the question could be a horse related issue :)))

Yes, motion blur is what I first thought, but the thing is that there's nothing in focus there. Not even the parts that are not moving (fingers for instance).

Let me guess, are you shooting with electronic shutter?

Your exif data is the same for both photos.  If the second photo was taken with the R5, it would probably be useful to be able to see the actual exif data for the shot.

Jablok wrote:

Let me guess, are you shooting with electronic shutter?

Why would that matter for this image?  Interested to know why you asked that.

While I certainly wouldn’t expect this much difference in sharpness between the 5Dsr and the R5, I would expect some difference in sharpness. The 5Dsr is equipped with Low-pass filter effect cancellation, while the R5 is not. The low pass filter reduces moire at the cost of some loss of sharpness. I believe the R5 low pass filter is not as strong as in some cameras, but it’s effect is not cancelled. The R5 is still capable of producing sharp images, but slightly less so than the 5Dsr. Your example photo, however appears to be a red herring.

Why does the exif data say you used the 5Dsr for both images?

drsnoopy wrote:

Jablok wrote:

Let me guess, are you shooting with electronic shutter?

Why would that matter for this image? Interested to know why you asked that.

It's obviously motion blur, and the real sensor scanning in electronic shutter mode may be about 1/60 or so (the reason of rolling shutter).

Jordi Seyte wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Well, it's clearly motion blur, and as its different between the upper jaw and the lower jaw, plus the hand and plant are not affected (though not quite sharp), it implies that the subject is moving. I've had very sharp results with my 10-400 L mkii (now sold) on the R5, with static and flying birds. Not tried any horses though!

I had not considered the possibility that the question could be a horse related issue :)))

Yes, motion blur is what I first thought, but the thing is that there's nothing in focus there. Not even the parts that are not moving (fingers for instance).

The flower is not showing any excessive motion blur.

hedleyw wrote:

Why does the exif data say you used the 5Dsr for both images?

Good catch.

Zeee wrote:

Jordi Seyte wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Well, it's clearly motion blur, and as its different between the upper jaw and the lower jaw, plus the hand and plant are not affected (though not quite sharp), it implies that the subject is moving. I've had very sharp results with my 10-400 L mkii (now sold) on the R5, with static and flying birds. Not tried any horses though!

I had not considered the possibility that the question could be a horse related issue :)))

Yes, motion blur is what I first thought, but the thing is that there's nothing in focus there. Not even the parts that are not moving (fingers for instance).

The flower is not showing any excessive motion blur.

While not tac sharp neither are the teeth.

Sorry, both images show the same exif data because I pasted one over the other to upload the exact same crop sized area.

Here's the R5 crop with its actual exif data.

Note: I used mechanical shutter. The giraffe 5DSR shot was not a lucky one :)), and yes, I think 1/400 shutter speed should be enough to freeze this moment, to me.

First, it is hard to tell exactly what is happening with a small image crop. Secondly, the EXIF data suggests that either they were taken with the same camera or when editing, you layered the R5 image on top of the 5D file and "picked up" the other camera's EXIF.  In cases like this, it would be helpful if you would upload a 100% image without crop. If you only shoot RAW/cRAW, then convert it to JPEG and upload it. Third, many things can go wrong with any single hand-held photograph. Two or 3 pictures show a trend.

Like some others, my first reaction was that the problem was motion blur. Motion blur could be caused by the subject, something wrong with the IS/IBIS, camera movement, and camera movement fighting the IS.

But on closer inspection, it does look like the focus is the primary problem (there may also be motion blur, but hard to tell). Also, assuming the two crops cover the same area, the "magnification" was very roughly 2x as much, which has about a square law effect on depth of focus (2x the magnification reduces the depth of focus by about 4x).

What jumped out to me (figuratively and literally) is the lower left white hair I have circled in red and, to a lesser degree, the upper right black hair circled. That one white hair appears to be sharp AND it appears to be coming out to the camera. The hairs that are further back seem more blurred than the hairs that are closer. The plant being fed appears in-between blurry.

Note the red circled white hair

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

Karl_Guttag wrote:

First, it is hard to tell exactly what is happening with a small image crop. Secondly, the EXIF data suggests that either they were taken with the same camera or when editing, you layered the R5 image on top of the 5D file and "picked up" the other camera's EXIF. In cases like this, it would be helpful if you would upload a 100% image without crop. If you only shoot RAW/cRAW, then convert it to JPEG and upload it. Third, many things can go wrong with any single hand-held photograph. Two or 3 pictures show a trend.

Like some others, my first reaction was that the problem was motion blur. Motion blur could be caused by the subject, something wrong with the IS/IBIS, camera movement, and camera movement fighting the IS.

But on closer inspection, it does look like the focus is the primary problem (there may also be motion blur, but hard to tell). Also, assuming the two crops cover the same area, the "magnification" was very roughly 2x as much, which has about a square law effect on depth of focus (2x the magnification reduces the depth of focus by about 4x).

What jumped out to me (figuratively and literally) is the lower left white hair I have circled in red and, to a lesser degree, the upper right black hair circled. That one white hair appears to be sharp AND it appears to be coming out to the camera. The hairs that are further back seem more blurred than the hairs that are closer. The plant being fed appears in-between blurry.

Note the red circled white hair

Jordi Seyte wrote:

This is a photo taken with the old 5DSR at 1/400 f7.1 with the EF 100-400 USM II

Then here's a photo taken with the R5 with the same exposition, so 1/400 f7.1 with the same EF 100-400 USM II lens.

That same story is what I am getting when photographing birds in flight. I used to get razor sharp images with the 5DSR while I am getting disappointing shots with the R5.

The problem can not be the high pixel count, since the 5DSR is a 50 megapixel dynosaur with a mere 4 fps burst at higuest speed if I recall.

I'll keep investigating and experimenting.

I understand what you mean.

The photo seen on the camera screen looks ok. Seen on photoshop at 25% size, also looks acceptable, but when inspected up close, to me it is not what I would have expected.

Here is the original image, as you suggested I only opened the Raw file and saved it as jpeg.