# 80D Heavy AA filter?



## K-amps (Apr 24, 2016)

I have been wanting to get a nice Canon APS-C sensor to go with my 100-400mm for Casual Birding. I waited for an improvement in sensor tech, and I think we are there.

There is a lot to like about the 80D. However, for Birding a sharp output is desired. Looking at the footage and comparison of the 80D with other bodies, it seems a bit softer. South of the 5Ds, this is the highest MP sensor that Canon offers , which should be able to provide reach and detail. I am a bit disappointed, it seems they used a heavy handed AA filter on this. Even compared to the 5D3, which already had a heavy AA filter, the 80D seems noticeably softer.

I then proceeded to compare it to the 20mp 70D, and again found it soft. Details are being smudged and might not be able to be recovered via post sharpening. 

See the attached comparison to the older 70D (Image resource) on the left, looks quite sharper at base iso compared to the 80D.


----------



## -1 (Apr 24, 2016)

As IR states: "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera". 

That that you percive as softness could be the result of a more conservative sharpening as much as a strong AA filter in the 80D. You got to compare RAW files to make an estimation of the cameras potential.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 24, 2016)

-1 said:


> As IR states: "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera".
> 
> That that you percive as softness could be the result of a more conservative sharpening as much as a strong AA filter in the 80D. You got to compare RAW files to make an estimation of the cameras potential.



What now?


----------



## -1 (Apr 24, 2016)

K-amps said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > As IR states: "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera".
> ...



If you look at the siemens stars in the link below you can see that the 80D matches the 70D pixel by pixel and will thus produce a sharper image at base ISO. 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos80d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=canon_eos7dii&attr13_3=canon_eos7d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.19950986012382493&y=0.2897634562617333

http://tinyurl.com/h3fa4ko


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 24, 2016)

K-amps said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > As IR states: "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera".
> ...





What now is that dpreview is rather unprofessional and makes a lot of dumb mistakes- such as using one of canon's softest lenses to test camera sharpness.
Try this out: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=1044&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
The extra resolution offers an increase of a healthy 4lp/mm in the 80d vs the 70d before reaching the nyquist limit.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 24, 2016)

I see little difference in Bryan's shots... and that little advantage goes to the 70D, which seems to have a little more micro-contrast, even before DLA sets in.

IR uses jpegs which were no good (even though it uses jpegs for the 70D as well) , and DPR uses bad lenses for only the 80D, seems like a conspiracy against the 80D. I can't see it better the 70D in apples to apples comparison in 3 different tests. 

I must be glass eyed.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 24, 2016)

K-amps said:


> I have been wanting to get a nice Canon APS-C sensor to go with my 100-400mm for Casual Birding. I waited for an improvement in sensor tech, and I think we are there.
> 
> There is a lot to like about the 80D. However, for Birding a sharp output is desired. Looking at the footage and comparison of the 80D with other bodies, it seems a bit softer. South of the 5Ds, this is the highest MP sensor that Canon offers , which should be able to provide reach and detail. I am a bit disappointed, it seems they used a heavy handed AA filter on this. Even compared to the 5D3, which already had a heavy AA filter, the 80D seems noticeably softer.
> 
> ...


Both shots were taken at 70mm but the 70D shot was taken at f/4 while the 80D shot was taken at f/8. (You can see the difference in depth of field by how sharp the wall looks in the 80D shot) But of course at f/8 on the 80D is into diffraction limited territory. For max sharpness I'd hesitate to use higher than f/5.6. (f/6.3 is borderline for max sharpness.)

If you are using a big white lens then keep to f/4 or f/5.6 for max sharpness on pixel level. By f/8 ultimate sharpness will be lost (you can skillfully sharpen to compensate)


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 24, 2016)

K-amps said:


> I see little difference in Bryan's shots... and that little advantage goes to the 70D, which seems to have a little more micro-contrast, even before DLA sets in.
> 
> IR uses jpegs which were no good (even though it uses jpegs for the 70D as well) , and DPR uses bad lenses for only the 80D, seems like a conspiracy against the 80D. I can't see it better the 70D in apples to apples comparison in 3 different tests.
> 
> I must be glass eyed.



Lol, indeed


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 24, 2016)

FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=1044&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=1044&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

Look what happens to centre sharpness at f/8.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 24, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=1044&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=1044&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
> 
> Look what happens to centre sharpness at f/8.


Wow !.
Diffraction is a huge damage in F8, and you can already see his influence in F5.6 ... 

Canon, please I DO NOT want more than 24 megapixel on APS-C cameras. :-\


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
> ...



Diffraction is only 'more noticeable' if you enlarge bigger, ie 100% view. If you compare same sized output the higher MP will never look worse and can oftentimes look better.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
> ...



The AA filter itself causes as much degradation as going from f/2 to f/8. I am not buying another camera with one. See:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=980&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
> ...



What privatebydesign said. You need to compare apples to apples. Besides, if you play with the comparison tool even the 60D 18Mpix sensor shows clear diffraction blur at f/8. If anything, the 80D sensor will probably yield sharper pictures when downsampled to 18Mpix.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > FYI comparison between f/2 and f/8 from TDP:
> ...



The idea that diffraction is making the image worse than it would have been otherwise is a false perception. Sensors with less resolution just look that bad all the time.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

Photography forums run rampant with misunderstanding of diffraction and this thread is no exception. Diffraction is present in all apertures with all lenses on all sensors. Higher pixel density sensors can resolve diffraction at wider apertures than a lower density one, all else equal. So what's the problem? That does not equate to poorer IQ and if you think it does, then you have absolutely no clue about the topic.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Photography forums run rampant with misunderstanding of diffraction and this thread is no exception. Diffraction is present in all apertures with all lenses on all sensors. Higher pixel density sensors can resolve diffraction at wider apertures than a lower density one, all else equal. So what's the problem? That does not equate to poorer IQ and if you think it does, then you have absolutely no clue about the topic.



Going back on topic, does the 80D have a heavy handed AA filter? Why is it softer than the 760 as well. 

Would sticking a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 mk.ii make it worse on the 80D vs. 70d or 7d2?


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 25, 2016)

I don't think anyone here would really know the answer.

FWIW, I don't think Canon have ever released a camera that was significantly less sharp/worse than its predecessor. Yet every new release is tested (and marred) by the same online "authorities" who create the same level of doubt and uncertainty. My first DSLR was a 30D so I've taken an interest in the line. Trust me when I say the every successive model has been panned as being less sharp and more blurry than its predecessor. According to the experts, the 20D was better than my 30D. The 40D was generally liked, but didn't have quite the same clarity as the 30D (the 40D had more pixels). The 50D had the worst sensor ever in a Canon camera and nowhere near as good as the 40D (the 50D had more pixels). The 60D - piece of junk - it had even more pixels than the 50D. The 70D, like the 40D seemed to be liked, still, nowhere near as good as the competitors... And now we have the 80D, which according to "tests" seems ordinary (once again, too many pixels).

I think it was the introduction of the 50D when I realised that (most) of these comparison / testing sites are just there to make money for the owners. For those who don't know, Canon went from 10mp in the 40D to 15mp in the 50D. Some mathematician somewhere did some calculation to work out the pixel density. And the number was so high that it proved that the 50D could never outperform a 40D. After all, as we all know, APS-C sensors are most optimal at 10mp...

IMHO, almost every claim made by testing / comparison sites about most cameras are debatable, and often clearly wrong. They don't have much relevance to most people's real world photography needs. You are much better served reading reviews / viewing images by people who use that camera for the same purpose than looking at test charts. Start following some 80D birders and hear their actual feedback on whether the images are detailed and clear. (I'd also be curious on their opinion of the camera's AF performance - which I'd view as significantly more important than minor sensor differences.)

So clear your head of the noise. If the 80D has the specs that you need, and its in the right price range and gets favourable reviews from people who actually use the camera for birding - it will be fine.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 25, 2016)

Hillsilly - I so wish I could give you 50 upticks for that piece of commonsense! 

I recall a long discussion I had with a professoinal bird photographer who was convinced that the pictures from a 50D was noisier than pictures from his 40D. It turned out he had never used the camera, merely basing his argument on the myriad idiot reviewers and their prejudices.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 25, 2016)

I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given. The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 25, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given. The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.


Diminishing returns. Only that.

I stated that NO desire APS-C cameras with more than 24 megapixel because the benefits are restricted to diaphragm openings larger than F5.6.

A hypothetical APS-C camera with more than 30 megapixel, lose the benefit of additional sharpness in F4 openings, and this would make it limited to the use of wide landscapes. It would not be a worse camera than 70d, but would diminishing returns.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 25, 2016)

Hi Folks. 
Not withstanding Hillsilly's informative post, didn't we go through all this with the 7D when it was new, no predecessor to compare to and everyone convinced that it was soft especially when compared to cameras with the same sensor that followed? 
Weren't people saying it was a heavy AA filter due to the idea that it would be a more video orientated camera? 
Do manufacturers (Canon) intentionally put a heavier AA filter than is needed for a particular sensor, or is it more likely that the AA filter is as strong as is believed (calculated) to be needed for a new sensor until proven otherwise in real world scenarios and then it gets fine tuned? 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given. The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.



I totally agree with this. I'll further add that at f/8, an 80D with 24 MP vs. a 7D with 18 MP, the 24 MP sensor, all else equal, will still yield more detail, however slight.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 25, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given. The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.



You seem to change tack halfway through your comment. I am not sure if the first part of your comment:


> I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given.


was comparing 18MP to 24MP. 
How do you define 'potential benefits' as opposed to 'actual' benefits?
How do you compare 'potential benefits' with what you actually see? It all sounds like theorising mumbo jumbo. 
As has been said above diffraction is the same on both bodies so if you view both at 100%, why would diffraction 'erode the potential benefits' of a higher density sensor? 
The 18MP sensor has diffraction which will reduce performance, the 24MP sensor will have diffraction that reduces the performance. The 24MP still gives higher resolution, diffraction or nay. 
What problems do you foresee?

Then in the second part you seem to be comparing apertures on the same sensor:


> The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.


You are saying that on the 80D, diffraction will be worse at f8 than at f4? Of course it will. Just like it will be worse at f5.6 than f4. Or worse at f4 than f2.8. 
The question is, is it noticeable. People hear 'diffraction' and start freaking out - what they really mean is 'diffraction limiting' and even then, people far more experienced than I (including landscape pros) have said they have never had problems with diffraction below f16. Irrespective of camera body.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 25, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I was not not saying that the higher res body would be worse than the lower res body, but when shooting at f/8 on 24MP APS-C you'd be shooting at settings which erode the potential benefits (in fine detail) that the higher number of smaller pixels would have given. The 80D at f/8 would be worse than the 80D at f/4, assuming you had sufficient dof in both cases. Basically, f/8 - f/32 would be sub-optimal camera settings for the 80D if you are interested in retaining fine detail.
> ...



So are you saying that if you put the same lens on a 15MP APS-C and on a 30MP APS-C and print to 12x20, you will see more diffraction on the 30 MP body?


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

Let us present a matrix bottom line:
A) The more pixels - the better the resolution even beyond diffraction limits.
Remember that most sensors have a Bayer array, so you need to expand the theoretical per pixel diffraction limits proposed by text by at least SQRT(2) = 1.41 each direction = double MP. The more MP you can throw at a target, the higher resolution you can achieve. We will probably need to hit 40MP (APS-C) before the AA filter becomes useless. Unless Sigma's Foveon sensor is involved.
I have recently seen that B&W film still out-resolves all current sensors at f8 - including the 5DsR - by a long way.
B) Higher DR - Provided all photons are utilized for high QE, the more pixels - the greater the dynamic range as long as the random noise of photon capture is less than the read noise per pixel to maintain SNR. We are getting close to ISO-less capture (eps with Canon sensors now - just one step behind Sony - an impressive leap), so this will hold true for well over 100MP for an APS-C sized sensor. Just look at the 5Ds compared to other Canon sensors with the old tech.
Bottom line - a large number of pixels is not going to diminish image quality. Sub-sampling the airy disc of confusion is still a long way off - even at f8 with 24+ MP APS-C sized sensors. Higher MP sensors will keep giving you better res (yes diminishing returns, but still better) with a higher dynamic range!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Yes, if you have a 15 MP sensor and put on a 50mm lens at f/8, and then you have the same lens at f/8 on a 30 MP sensor, the image from the 30 MP sensor will show more absolute diffraction, in that the sensor was able to resolve more diffraction than the 15 MP sensor. But that's where things go awry in this thread. The total amount of detail gained from the 30 MP sensor will still be greater than the image from the 15 MP sensor, yes, even despite more diffraction. You will never ever do worse, all else equal, with a higher pixel density sensor. If you keep the same lens and the same aperture, relatively speaking there is always something to gain with a higher resolution sensor with regards to detail. The misconception here is that you can have a 40 MP sensor at f/8 performing worse than a 10 MP sensor at f/8. That will never happen.


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


Absolutely! ++++


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

At f8 with a 50mm lens - the airy disc isn't fully resolved - actually, far from it with a 24MP sensor.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Yes, if you have a 15 MP sensor and put on a 50mm lens at f/8, and then you have the same lens at f/8 on a 30 MP sensor, the image from the 30 MP sensor will show more absolute diffraction, in that the sensor was able to resolve more diffraction than the 15 MP sensor. But that's where things go awry in this thread. The total amount of detail gained from the 30 MP sensor will still be greater than the image from the 15 MP sensor, yes, even despite more diffraction. You will never ever do worse, all else equal, with a higher pixel density sensor. If you keep the same lens and the same aperture, relatively speaking there is always something to gain with a higher resolution sensor with regards to detail. The misconception here is that you can have a 40 MP sensor at f/8 performing worse than a 10 MP sensor at f/8. That will never happen.



So how do you tell the difference between the lower pixels (18MP body) and higher diffraction (24MP body)? I am not aware of a characteristic that defines the two. 
I am intrigued because diffraction is an optical effect of the lens arrangement. Using an analogy from my long-distant physics lessons, diffraction on a pinpoint source of light causes rings and those rings are a fixed size for any given circumstances. The number of pixels does not change that. Take an image of those rings and the 18MP will still see the same spread of rings, those rings will just be a bit more blurry than with the 24MP. The edge of a leaf in a landscape will be just as blurry in both sensors when it comes to diffraction. In fact on those 'diffraction rings' you could argue that the greater blurriness of the 18MP means the spread of the diffraction ring is more smeared with the 18MP adding to diffraction problems not lessening them.

But overall I think you can only talk about 'resolving diffraction' if you able to look at an image and say 'See that, there. That is a diffraction pattern as opposed to fuzziness due to limitation of number of pixels'. So how do you know the difference?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 25, 2016)

cazza132 said:


> Let us present a matrix bottom line:
> A) The more pixels - the better the resolution even beyond diffraction limits.
> Remember that most sensors have a Bayer array, so you need to expand the theoretical per pixel diffraction limits proposed by text by at least SQRT(2) = 1.41 each direction = double MP. The more MP you can throw at a target, the higher resolution you can achieve. We will probably need to hit 40MP (APS-C) before the AA filter becomes useless. Unless Sigma's Foveon sensor is involved.
> I have recently seen that B&W film still out-resolves all current sensors at f8 - including the 5DsR - by a long way.
> ...



Why? The Bayer array means colour is dithered, not resolution. The AA filter will reduce outright resolution, but in a reasonably predictable manner so is generally comparatively accurately counteracted. Hence the reason final output resolution difference between worked 5DS and 5DSR files is not that noticeable most of the time, OOC yes, but not after optimal processing.

As for B&W film, I have seen no evidence to support that resolution claim. I have seen overly sampled B&W scans that illustrate grain structure, but not more detail/resolution. If you can point me to examples I'd be interested to see them.

Here is a link to the last B&W film high resolution thread I was involved in.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2016)

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge on affects of diffraction on higher density sensors. 

Granted...

But why in the examples I showed real life shots, from different sources ,is the 80D visibly softer? I am not imagining that softness nor theorizing it ..... It's there in plain sight for all to see... What is going on with them.... ?


----------



## 2n10 (Apr 25, 2016)

Possibly a bad sample for the camera. Poorly adjustment of the lens and camera. AF was botched by the photographer. Many issues with review sites because they are using one camera only.

I agree with seeing what actual users say versus review sites.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 25, 2016)

K-amps said:


> But why in the examples I showed real life shots, from different sources ,is the 80D visibly softer? I am not imagining that softness nor theorizing it ..... It's there in plain sight for all to see... What is going on with them.... ?


I read several interesting theories, but the facts are:

24 pegapixel APS-C gives better sharpening results with F5.6 apertures or more open.
24 megapixel APS-C has its canceled sharpness advantage (largely) with F8 or more closed apertures.
24 megapixel APS-C without an AA filter is capable of higher sharpness, although with a higher incidence of moiré and other artifacts.

Given these facts, I see very little advantage in having an APS-C sensor with over 30 megapixel, while using a bayer array.


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > But why in the examples I showed real life shots, from different sources ,is the 80D visibly softer? I am not imagining that softness nor theorizing it ..... It's there in plain sight for all to see... What is going on with them.... ?
> ...


You are highlighting my first point regarding the Bayer filter array:
'24 megapixel APS-C without an AA filter is capable of higher sharpness, although with a higher incidence of moiré and other artifacts.'
This means that we are far from out resolving the airy disc with a *Bayer* 24MP sensor!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 25, 2016)

K-amps said:


> Thank you all for sharing your knowledge on affects of diffraction on higher density sensors.
> 
> Granted...
> 
> But why in the examples I showed real life shots, from different sources ,is the 80D visibly softer? I am not imagining that softness nor theorizing it ..... It's there in plain sight for all to see... What is going on with them.... ?



Because you are comparing them at 100%, which means the 80D image, and any and all aberrations, are being magnified more.

It is the standard issue with comparisons, what are you actually comparing? Like for like (same sized view) or 100% view? Down sample the 80D to the 70D size and the difference in sharpness disappears, or print a set picture size, or look at them on screen at the same size.

Why do people not get that if you look at two different things, one magnified more, the one that is magnified less will look 'sharper', 'cleaner', 'have less noise', etc etc. Comparisons need to be normalised to be of any _comparative_ value.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, if you have a 15 MP sensor and put on a 50mm lens at f/8, and then you have the same lens at f/8 on a 30 MP sensor, the image from the 30 MP sensor will show more absolute diffraction, in that the sensor was able to resolve more diffraction than the 15 MP sensor. But that's where things go awry in this thread. The total amount of detail gained from the 30 MP sensor will still be greater than the image from the 15 MP sensor, yes, even despite more diffraction. You will never ever do worse, all else equal, with a higher pixel density sensor. If you keep the same lens and the same aperture, relatively speaking there is always something to gain with a higher resolution sensor with regards to detail. The misconception here is that you can have a 40 MP sensor at f/8 performing worse than a 10 MP sensor at f/8. That will never happen.
> ...



I understand your question. Of course don't lose sharpness to diffraction by increasing pixel density, because I agree with you in that the SIZE of the diffraction effect is strictly determined by the lens used. The airy disks are the same with any camera sensor so long as the same lens and aperture are used. If I have 50 MP sensor and a 25 MP sensor, all else equal, the 50 MP sensor will be able to reveal the effect of diffraction sooner. I'm saying that and NOT that the effect is stronger in the higher pixel density sensor. The effect is the same it's just the higher pixel density sensor is able to reveal its effect sooner (at wider apertures).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

To add on, that is simply a consequence of having more resolving power. You may discern diffraction sooner but the detail gained simply outweighs any "diffraction limitation." So as I said, there is always something to gain and diffraction should not be a concern, at least not with the pixel densities we are talking.


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


That is exactly right! There is no disadvantage in using higher MP sensors. F-it go 40MP. Weaker or no AA filters would be required 
I can say one thing - when you get the focus right, the Zeiss 135mm f2.0 at f2.5 gives me major problems with star alignment with PT Gui with a FS 6D. It's almost like the AA filter is trying to help me, but stars are green with one sub, then blue or red the next. Even the 5Dsr would have the same problem - the Zeiss is so dangerously sharp. A FS converted 5Dsr could be my next cam - it seams to hold detail well at ISO3200 with not much long exposure dark noise (a bit like the 7DII). A bit off topic there - sorry.


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

What about finer grain in the shadows with high MP at low ISO - I was trying to highlight that earlier!


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

K-amps said:


> Thank you all for sharing your knowledge on affects of diffraction on higher density sensors.
> 
> Granted...
> 
> But why in the examples I showed real life shots, from different sources ,is the 80D visibly softer? I am not imagining that softness nor theorizing it ..... It's there in plain sight for all to see... What is going on with them.... ?


Crap lens - check out the longitudinal chromatic aberration! Pink halos around the blacks :/ It means that red is not focusing with blue. This flaw even shows up with the 5DIII test results!


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 25, 2016)

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!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2016)

cazza132 said:


> 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!


Yeah.....

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.....


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 25, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> cazza132 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...


Which lens they are using for A6300? Their earlier studio pics of A6300 are softer than a6000. I think, they did reshoot them. Let us see if they are going to reshoot for 80D.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 25, 2016)

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...


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> If I have 50 MP sensor and a 25 MP sensor, all else equal, the 50 MP sensor will be able to reveal the effect of diffraction sooner.



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?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> cazza132 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...


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.

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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > If I have 50 MP sensor and a 25 MP sensor, all else equal, the 50 MP sensor will be able to reveal the effect of diffraction sooner.
> ...



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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> cazza132 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 26, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction.



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?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction.
> ...



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.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction.
> ...


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.
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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If DP used the same 3rd party lens (such as a Sigma) then people would be bitching and saying that it was the AF of the 3rd party lens that was at fault and that DP should have used a Canon lens instead.



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.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> cazza132 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...


I think they focus manually to make sure. Remember for 5dsr they used Canon 85mm old manual focus lens. Then all the discussion went like how great old lens to resolve 50mp.


----------



## racebit (Apr 26, 2016)

As AA filter exists to compensate for pixel size effect, I expect the AA strength to be directly proportional to pixel size (not pixel count), so 80D should have less strong AA than 70D or 7D2. At least that is what I think it should be.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 26, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction.
> ...


The image with diffraction blur is a *convolution* of at least 2 things:

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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 26, 2016)

Thank you Fleetie. You have more energy than me!


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 26, 2016)

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:



> vs. a sensor able to resolve the effects of diffraction



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 



> 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.



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.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 26, 2016)

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.....


----------



## scyrene (Apr 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> 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.....



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).


----------



## racebit (Apr 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> But you don't look at images at 100%. You take a picture to be viewed at a specific size.


Wrong. That may be in some cases. As I am almost always reach limited, I only use the center part of interest and throw the rest away. So yes usually see it a 100%.


> Is this not the divide between lab freaks and people who use cameras to take photos?


No, people reach limited are not lab freaks.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 28, 2016)

racebit said:


> Wrong. That may be in some cases. As I am almost always reach limited, I only use the center part of interest and throw the rest away. So yes usually see it a 100%.



In other words you take photos to look at the image at a large size and you find the camera that best delivers that. The fact it is 100% is coincidental.
But my comment was about 'looking at images at 100%' when comparing bodies because when you look at a 18Mp image and a 24MP image both at 100% they are different sizes.


----------

