Seriously, if DP review is going to show apples for apples, they need to be using a Zeiss or similar lens that is common for all cameras. Not a crap Canon 50 f1.4 vs much newer 50 lenses available for other cams!
Upvote
0
80D Heavy AA filter?
- Thread starter K-amps
- Start date
Yeah.....cazza132 said:
First rule of running tests, control the variables.
When they can't even get the first step right, the accuracy of what follows is suspect.....
Upvote
0
Didn't read whole thread but given the HIGH priority placed on video for the 80D based on features and accessories, a heavy AA filter is a *good* thing for this camera, as moire is very apparent in video for cameras with no/weak AA filters.
In the same pricerange...
* For birding there is no better camera than the the 7D2.
* For portraits and landscape there is no better camera than the 6D.
80D is clearly aimed with video being the priority, unlike the 7D2/6D...
In the same pricerange...
* For birding there is no better camera than the the 7D2.
* For portraits and landscape there is no better camera than the 6D.
80D is clearly aimed with video being the priority, unlike the 7D2/6D...
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
What do you mean by 'reveal the effects sooner'? How does this manifest itself?
The reason I ask is that as I see it is the effect of diffraction is blurriness. So the only way the 50MP image can 'reveal the effects sooner' is by having a more blurred image.
What am I missing here?
Upvote
0
For a static shot to compare sharpness of sensor image, you use the same lens across all cameras. That way your tests are on a level playing field.dilbert said:
AF tests are the opposite. You use A canon lens on a Canon, a Nikon lens on a Nikon, and a Sony lens on a Sony. You make sure that they are dealing with the same subject matter and under the same conditions. You also compare equivalent generations of lens.... not "the latest and greatest on one body and the oldest freaking lens in the lineup on the other body.
Using bad testing methodology, I can prove that Canon is the best, that Nikon is the best, that Sony is the best, and that the micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus are the best. I can prove that FF is better than crop and I can prove that crop is better than FF. Improperly set up testing is meaningless and proves nothing.
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
I can't go through the entire optics here, but think relatively. The blur as you say is worse from a sensor unable to resolve vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction. Relatively speaking, the higher MP sensor is still filled with more detail. Or, you can down sample the 50 MP image to 25 MP to really see the difference. Either way, it's better, ignoring noise, etc.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
First, the Canon 50mm f1.4 is not "crap" at f5.6 it is as sharp as the 100mm L Macro.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Second, there is no problem.
Third, if you are going to do comparisons then the best way is to reduce variables, if the tests are not for the AF then manual focus would be used anyway so a third party lens would seem logical, trouble is few here exhibit any logic at all and convertors/adapters, even with no glass, can have a negative impact on IQ.
So what are we left with? A bunch of people who refuse to read, have no understanding, and even less interest in having the reasons explained to them without spewing out "crap" opinions and totally irrelevant drivel.
All the answers to the very relevant questions have been posted here in this thread and on this forum many times.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
Sorry to labour the point, but what are 'the effects of diffraction' that the higher MP lens is resolving (as in 'that there is diffraction, not a pixel limitation')? And if it is indistinguishable from other forms of blurriness then is this all just angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
No, it's called physics and is well understood. Then again physics is scary and many do refer to it as angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Upvote
0
Consider a test with the same lens, aperture, ISO, display size, all exactly the same. Then a 24-megapixel camera has to be compulsorily sharper than a 18 megapixel camera.Mikehit said:
If not, or the test was poorly done, or 24 megapixel camera has a problem, such as high noise for example.
Now imagine that the two images will be displayed at 100%, and the display size will be larger in the camera 24 MP. The advantage of this camera will decrease or disappear. If the camera's advantage 24 MP totally disappear in F8, the use of having more megapixel would be questionable.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
If DPR uses AF for their studio test shots, they're even dumber than your typical posts like this...and I don't believe they're that dumb. A bag of rocks isn't that dumb.
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:
But you don't look at images at 100%. You take a picture to be viewed at a specific size. And if the 24MP image becomes blurred at a larger size then the advantage of the higher MP is that you can print larger before it becomes blurred. I am not sure how that is 'questionable'.
Is this not the divide between lab freaks and people who use cameras to take photos?
Upvote
0
The image with diffraction blur is a convolution of at least 2 things:Mikehit said:
1) The perfect image with no diffraction blur
2) The Point Spread Function (PSF) of the lens system, including that arising from diffraction
Imagine you sample the image at (let's take an extreme example) 2 resolutions:
a) 1000 x 1000 pixels: Here, the diffraction blur pattern extends just, say, 2x2 pixels in (x,y) ;
b) 10,000 x 10,000 pixels: Here, we can resolve those 2x2 pixels above, into 20x20 pixels.
In case (a), it's hard to say EXACTLY where the "centre" of the blur circle is. It's "somewhere in the 2x2 pixel circle/square on the sensor".
Imagine that we're imaging an ideal point source of light. The diffraction blur in case (a) makes it hard to tell exactly where in the image the point source of light actually is.
The point source of light becomes, after convolution with the PSF, a circular pattern on the imaging sensor.
When we go to case (b) above, we can be much more precise about where the PSF/blur circle is, which in turn means that we can deduce much more precisely where the ideal point of light is: Typically at the centre of the blur circle.
So we have shown that despite a significant (but not overwhelmingly large) diffraction blur circle, we can better resolve the position of the point source of light when we sample the image at greater resolution.
So our whole image (whether consisting of unlikely ideal point sources of light, or whether a real scene) is better resolved at high sampling resolution, despite the diffraction blur being larger than the sampling pixels.
Upvote
0
Thanks, Fleetie (and sorry bdunbar! 
)
That pretty much follows my thinking. Maybe I was over-thinking this, but the bit that gets my brain spinning is when bdunbar said:
Now to me, "able to resolve the effects of diffraction" means the same as 'being able to resolve (i.e. see) the leaves on the tree'. And the effect of diffraction is blur so we would see more of it (blur) with a higher MP camera.
But your comment
To me that would mean the higher density sensor is able to resolve (see) detail despite more pixels picking up the effect of refraction.
In the former we see more blur (which would mean we are less able to see the point of light), in the second we see more detail (and more able to see the point of light).
Do you see why I am getting confused?
Maybe the term 'resolved' is being used is slightly differently ways.
)That pretty much follows my thinking. Maybe I was over-thinking this, but the bit that gets my brain spinning is when bdunbar said:
Now to me, "able to resolve the effects of diffraction" means the same as 'being able to resolve (i.e. see) the leaves on the tree'. And the effect of diffraction is blur so we would see more of it (blur) with a higher MP camera.
But your comment
To me that would mean the higher density sensor is able to resolve (see) detail despite more pixels picking up the effect of refraction.
In the former we see more blur (which would mean we are less able to see the point of light), in the second we see more detail (and more able to see the point of light).
Do you see why I am getting confused?
Maybe the term 'resolved' is being used is slightly differently ways.
Upvote
0
If the diffraction limit was a hard limit, then cell phone cameras would no work.... they far exceed the pixel densities of DSLRs.... even the experimental 200Mpixel APS-H sensor Canon had a few years back.....
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
This is true, although phone cameras are always shot wide open, which is somewhere between f/1.9 and f/2.4 these days. And even with relatively high MP counts, they resolve far less fine detail than e.g. DSLRs, and I'm sure that is in part due to diffraction (although small, plastic, moulded lens elements, and a far smaller sensor size must be very important too).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
