5D MkIII Eye Sharpness Capibilty

5D MkIII Eye Sharpness Capability


First off I know sharpness of images is a function of many elements. The lens in particular plays a huge role in how sharp an image can be resolved. Also the AA filters, Noise reduction, and post processing all play a role. I do not want to try to explain or learn the science behind what makes an images, specific eye tack sharp.

I do however wish to hear from other 5D MkIII owners. I want to hear from them on how their 5D MKIII renders eyes specifically. Also is you were to do a portrait sitting and did a 10 shot sequence of images, how many of the files would have the tack sharp eyes that render the Iris and it's fibrous texture nice and clear.

I would love to see some images that show how, "Tack Sharp" their eye examples are as well as the lens used to make the image.

I have been pulling my hair out to make portraits that render the Iris portion of the eye that shows all of the wonderful fibers and textures that are actually present.

Here is an untouched 5D MkIII file (cropped only) of my eye 70-200 f4L at F11 Iso 800. I made more than several attampts to capture this image. Self portrait is a pita

Micro adjust your lens with something like a +5 or so. It looks like, to me anyways, to be misplacement of focus or too thin of dof.

I have micro adjusted my lenses. I thought the same thing, thanks though.

f/1.2 is no closer to the sweet spot of the lens than f/22 which is why your f/11 shot looks so good.

f/1.2 is awesome if you really need it but there's no reason to shoot that wide open if your subject needs f/4 to get tip of nose to tops of ears in focus.

IMO, the full image of the model looks fantastic.

Its the thin focal plane. But if thats what you chose to blur the models shoulders, then its the price you pay. I'd tend to go for an aperture more in the lens "sweet spot" at around f/8 or f/11 then blur out parts of the image in post processing.

AKF describe in detail how you use the autofocus points on your 5D MKIII.

If your model moves much at all when you are at f/2 with your 85mm, then the eyes may not be as sharp as you wanted. Also, with an F/4 70-200 lens, the 5D MK III and the 1D X are not using the higher precision focusing points that need an f/2.8 or faster lens

1. Thin DoF seems to be the main cause for the lack of sharpness in your lower eye shots.
2. Why do you need to view your image at 100%?

More to the point of 100% viewing...what size would you print this image? And then would you hold the print to your nose to view it? consider actual/proper viewing distance and you life may become easier.

akfreak wrote in post #15460212
I have micro adjusted my lenses. I thought the same thing, thanks though.

I think you are missing my point. Since AF isn't going to focus on the pupils, but rather the eye as a whole, eyebrows, etc and you get this behavior consistently, then push your focus back a bit, and store it under one of your Cx settings, perhaps. It would not be difficult to AF on a model's eye, then adjust the focus so that it actually backfocuses a bit.

Also, in your Nikon example, the eye itself looked to be low in contrast, and the eyeball with the bright light drew the AF to it. In your other examples, the eyeball offers no such contrast difference as the surrounding eye. Also, as shown, light and contrast plays a huge part in how you might perceive sharpness of an image. Your best examples are those where there is a large amount of light on the eye, and your worse samples are where the light is soft across the face.

Maybe just try my suggestion to see if it helps, add 5 to whatever value you have now for the lens you use, and try another modeling session doing nothing else differently. See if the results are any better. It can't hurt to try, and takes seconds to reverse back.

I also agree with the others, if you are not actually going to zoom into the eye for any kind of print or end result, then you will drive yourself crazy looking at 100% crops, no matter what you use or change. These discussions typically occur with crop bodies though due to the stronger AA filters, but the same principle holds with FF owners.

are you using spot focusing ?

Snowyman wrote in post #15460228
AKF describe in detail how you use the autofocus points on your 5D MKIII.

Well I use AF in many ways it depends on what I am shooting. For stuff like this, I wont AF lock and recompose. I will move the AF point over the eye only after I have framed the shot the way I want it to look. I am aware of the fact that AF locking and re composing can cause OOF images, especially when shooting wide open with a lens like the 85 1.2

lannes wrote in post #15460527
are you using spot focusing ?

I use Spot AF when doing portrait work. Even though the inner dot of the AF point is displayed and blocks my subject view. I wish they used a dot instead of a smaller box for spot AF. They should of called it "Tiny Box Subject Blocking AF"

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15460518
I think you are missing my point. Since AF isn't going to focus on the pupils, but rather the eye as a whole, eyebrows, etc and you get this behavior consistently, then push your focus back a bit, and store it under one of your Cx settings, perhaps. It would not be difficult to AF on a model's eye, then adjust the focus so that it actually backfocuses a bit.

Also, in your Nikon example, the eye itself looked to be low in contrast, and the eyeball with the bright light drew the AF to it. In your other examples, the eyeball offers no such contrast difference as the surrounding eye. Also, as shown, light and contrast plays a huge part in how you might perceive sharpness of an image. Your best examples are those where there is a large amount of light on the eye, and your worse samples are where the light is soft across the face.

Maybe just try my suggestion to see if it helps, add 5 to whatever value you have now for the lens you use, and try another modeling session doing nothing else differently. See if the results are any better. It can't hurt to try, and takes seconds to reverse back.

I also agree with the others, if you are not actually going to zoom into the eye for any kind of print or end result, then you will drive yourself crazy looking at 100% crops, no matter what you use or change. These discussions typically occur with crop bodies though due to the stronger AA filters, but the same principle holds with FF owners.

I agree I should try to front or back focus to move the actual AF focusing point to be slightly behind the front of the eye. The catch lights are in focus perfectly and maybe by moving the AF back slightly it will render the eyes they way I want.

I will understand about the benefits of using a sweet spot, however I didn't buy this 85 f1.2 to shoot it at f8-11. I strongly agree with "light and contrast plays a huge part in how you might perceive sharpness of an image." the Nikon point and shoot file was only an example that I had on hand, and I know it lacks contrast, however the Iris fibers are in view they way I expect if I lock AF on the front of an eye and do my part correctly.

This all started when I was peeking at my friends D4 images shot with the 70-200 @2.8. His shots are killer with respect to eye sharpness and the iris detail. He made the comment that he left Canon because, "You can always tell a Nikon File when you look at the eyes". That comment didn't mean much to me until I started to look through some of my files. At F4 with my 70-200 I don't have any files that look like his at f2.8. The EF 70-200 f4 non IS is a super sharp lens, in fact it is one of my favorite lenses.

When you say you agree with the others about not viewing at 100% , I tend to agree. Viewing distance on prints is typically never going to allow a viewer to be that close to an image to see it at 100% size. With that said, you would be amazed to see images that l saw coming from that D4. And I can see Iris Fiber detail from a foot away. I have great eyes.

It really is amazing when you can look at an image that fits the size of a screen and it looks amazing then zoom to 100% and it actually gets better because all of the fine detail that you didn't see is now revealed. I don't know how to say it any other way. My D4 friend didn't have to do anything special, the lighting was good, the eyes were lit. He was wide open hand held at a shutter speed that didn't case motion blur and the files just looked great with respect to sharpness and detail of the iris.

Now the fact that I had to go to F11 on a tripod to get a similar result, has me questioning everything. Not only my gear, but more importantly my skill.

I know that I can make a nice picture, I just want that same ability to easily make a similar image with my gear. I have been shooting for years, and use good gear. It makes me feel a little uneasy that I cant pull this off in the way I saw it done so easily with the D4

I shoot all sorts of cameras, from 645 like this to 6x7, 4x5 abd 8x10. I feel kind of silly posting my troubles with my MkIII here. Basically I was hoping that other MkIII shooters would be kind enough to share some files with me so I could see results from others that are shooting in a similar situation. I would love to see 100% crops of eyes where the images shot wide open, and lit well. I want to see how far off my files are compared to others.

Lastly I wanted to say this, the camera locks AF on a particular point that you place it. Lets say you are shooting strobes and using modeling lights, the amount of contrast the camera has to work with in order to lock focus on the Iris is a bit limited. It is not until the strobe fires is the file rendered with all of the light and contrast information. So the point where the camera locks focus is based on the contrast available in the scene from the molding lamps.

In addition, front/back focus is critical if planning to work at f1.2 because a model can sway enough to make iris OOF. I guess I am going to break out the old head rest I used to use for making 8x10 glass plates to hold the talent still.

You see, I am in the process of trying to eliminate variables in the hopes to narrow it down to an ESO problem. So can some of you MkIII owners please post some 100% crops of eyes for me, Please. It will help put my mind at east that it is not my gear. AKf

The portrait that you have posted has no EXIF info, and you have only chosen to show us the one. It appears to me to have been taken in poor light, with high ISO and is underexposed. I wouldn't recommend pixel peeping images like this and then making judgements on whether or not your camera is capable of taking sharp photos.

You want to select some photos taken in reasonable lighting conditions with correct exposure. It is easier for people to offer advice or make judgements with more photos and more exif data.

Obviously your 5D3 sensor can render the detail you want, because you have at least one photo of such. Therefore...

1) It is not the 5D3 sensor.
2) Higher ISO noise decreases detail.
3) Shooting a lens wide open rarely provides the best image the lens is capable of.
4) If the eye makeup has more contrast than the iris, then the AF will focus on that closer more contrasty object
5) Portraits where the model's noise and ears are OOF isn't that redeeming, at least to me, enough DOF to cover the model's head looks better to me.
6) You need sufficient DOF to cover any kind of movement, and if you are going so thin as to just get the model's cheeks and eyeballs, then you better open up that focal plane.
5) I doubt you are taking these pictures so that you can crop the images down to the eyes and then printing those.

So, in summary, shoot with enough DOF to cover movement and the eyes (and maybe a bit more of the model), don't shoot at high ISO, and make sure there is enough light on the subject to provide that contrast on the eyeballs, if that is what you are looking for. Finally don't pixel peep so much on a portrait, but rather process the portrait to the sizes you are going to print or supply, and see if they look great as is.

My opinion anyways... good luck!