# Digic 7: 1 stop stronger noise reduction, lens diffraction correction



## heart+eyes (Feb 18, 2017)

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/eos-77d-image-quality.shtml

*DIGIC 7 processor — superior high ISO noise reduction
*Previous EOS digital SLRs with APS-C size image sensors have offered 24.2 million pixel resolution, but the advent of the latest DIGIC 7 processor means even greater noise reduction than earlier EOS models, such as the EOS 80D or Rebel T6i. Full-resolution JPEG image files, when set to Standard noise reduction levels, show up to a full stop of improvement in visible digital noise, vs. the previous-generation EOS Rebel T6i. ISO 6400 files from the 77D are similar to T6i files shot at ISO 3200. And, the maximum standard ISO for still images has been raised to 25,600 (ISO expansion to the equivalent of ISO 51,200 is possible on the Rebel 77D).

*Lens Diffraction Correction
*Armed with additional processing power of the DIGIC 7 processor, the EOS 77D can take on additional lens aberration corrections, in-camera. New to this camera category is Diffraction Correction.
Lens diffraction is an image softening phenomenon that naturally occurs when pictures are taken at small lens apertures, like f/16 or f/22. Canon’s diffraction correction is tailored to the actual optical properties of specific lenses, and applies a very specific sharpening to directly counter this loss of detail and sharpness at high f-numbers.
And, even at more moderate and wider apertures, the same diffraction correction is able to counter the softening impact of the low-pass filtration layer on the camera’s imaging sensor, and other anomalies that may impact final image quality.
Listed as a new Lens Aberration Correction item within the camera’s red shooting menu, Diffraction Correction is active by default, but can be turned off by the photographer at any time. While the impact of this feature is usually subtle, it’s an improvement any quality-conscious still imaging photographer should examine and be familiar with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2017)

Nice for jpg shooters...


----------



## LordofTackle (Feb 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice for jpg shooters...



which are probably most DSLR shooters  (CR users excluded )

More on the topic: is this really only achieved by more processing power or is it likely that they introduced new algorithms that might tickle down to DPP, so that us RAW shooters can make use of it too?


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 18, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nice for jpg shooters...
> ...



I think it's a safe assumption that the latest DPP will be at least as good, but it'll be easy to test when the bodies ship.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2017)

I wonder what the sharpening does that be can't done in unsharp mask in most software or smart sharpening in Photoshop?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 18, 2017)

The typical buyer of this camera photographs in JPEG largely. So it's more of a reason to upgrade your old T5i, or 60D for the new 77D.

But, the T7i also have this improvement?


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I wonder what the sharpening does that be can't done in unsharp mask in most software or smart sharpening in Photoshop?



It probably does deconvolution using the real (approximated) point spread function of the lens. Theoretically, diffraction can be completely negated if you know the PSF. The difference is probably subtle in most real-world situations compared to a more generic sharpening algorithm though. Diffraction correction is available in the 5D4 too, as well as DPP.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2017)

The more powerful processors in newer cameras allow for improved jpeg processing. However, even the most basic laptop or desktop is far more powerful, but you only get the benefit by shooting raw, and then converting to jpeg. The Noise reduction options for raw files range from simple in camera like NR to selective NR layer by layer to do a remarkable job.

And ... When something better comes along, that raw file can use the new method to produce a better jpeg output yet. And, if something replaces jpeg in the future, the new file type generated from a raw file will likely be a far better option than converting a jpeg.

Back in the early internet days, before the world wide web, images were mostly in .gif format. Users went screaming and kicking to the jpegs, but the size reduction was such a huge improvement that jpegs quickly took over.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 18, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> And ... When something better comes along, that raw file can use the new method to produce a better jpeg output yet. And, if something replaces jpeg in the future, the new file type generated from a raw file will likely be a far better option than converting a jpeg.


+1
I feel like my camera has improved at the hight iso's over time, simply because LR6's noise reduction is vastly better than in the days of LR4


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 19, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > And ... When something better comes along, that raw file can use the new method to produce a better jpeg output yet. And, if something replaces jpeg in the future, the new file type generated from a raw file will likely be a far better option than converting a jpeg.
> ...



And, mine go back to the days of LR2 (I tried but did not buy LR1).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what the sharpening does that be can't done in unsharp mask in most software or smart sharpening in Photoshop?
> ...



Thanks for your reply, which stimulated me to find this useful comment. http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/85304/does-diffraction-correction-correct-the-degraded-resolution-due-to-the-low-pas

I'll do some experiments to see how well it works.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 19, 2017)

*Improvements in processing images*



IglooEater said:


> I feel like my camera has improved at the hight iso's over time, simply because LR6's noise reduction is vastly better than in the days of LR4



I've noticed the same thing. It's fun to go back and reprocess RAW images from 5 or 6 years ago that I felt were unusable at the time.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2017)

The digital lens optimization in DPP appears to work for RAW files only where it has been implemented for in-camera jpeg (5DIV and M5 for me, and not for 5DSR). As the narrowest aperture I tend to use where sharpness is critical for the 5DIV, the correction makes only a tiny, if any discernible difference. It would be more useful if implemented for the 5DSR, 7DII etc. It doesn't work for the Sigma lenses, naturally.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 19, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> .......
> which are probably most DSLR shooters  (CR users excluded )
> 
> .



Generalizing DSLR shooters into one group is a bad assumption. Perhaps to say majority of Entry Level DSLR shooters shoot Jpeg is a fair assumption. But by the time most DSLR owners graduate to anything better they normally have already moved to photographing in RAW unless there is a physical reason to stay with Jpeg. Like speed and buffer size for wildlife or sports..


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Generalizing DSLR shooters into one group is a bad assumption. Perhaps to say majority of Entry Level DSLR shooters shoot Jpeg is a fair assumption. But by the time most DSLR owners graduate to anything better they normally have already moved to photographing in RAW unless there is a physical reason to stay with Jpeg. Like speed and buffer size for wildlife or sports..



Sure, but the people who ever "graduate" are a small fraction of all DSLR users. My Fermi estimate (aka guesstimate) is that on the order of one tenth of entry-level DSLR purchasers ever proceed to buy a higher-end body. Or another lens for that matter.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2017)

*Re: Improvements in processing images*



drmikeinpdx said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like my camera has improved at the hight iso's over time, simply because LR6's noise reduction is vastly better than in the days of LR4
> ...



Definitely ! We can thank the totally uncooked Cr2 files for this - they are genuinely unprocessed and so benefit fully from the improvements in software. This is why I'm back to using my 5D (original) again. As conveyers advance it's like getting a firmware update !

Danger lurks on the horizon though in the form of either ignorant or biased reviews, who may criticise Canon raw data against that of competitors when those competitors are messing wit the raw to improve it. We don't want Canon pressurised into following suit !


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 19, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



You wouldn't still happen to have your LR2? I'd love to see a high ISO shot processed in 2 and 6 side by side!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> You wouldn't still happen to have your LR2? I'd love to see a high ISO shot processed in 2 and 6 side by side!



You don't need to have an old version, all newer versions of LR contain the older one.

Just open an image in the Develop module and go to the Camera Calibration tab, click where it says 'Process: 2012 (Current)' and choose '2003'. The Develop module controls revert to the old type.

This is a very cool feature of LR, it means all the old developments you made are honored exactly as they should be, but you can choose to update them if you want to.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2017)

P.S. Here is the difference in the 'Develop' module when you change process version.


----------



## LordofTackle (Feb 19, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



As Sharlin already said, that's my point here. Most users just don't ever upgrade to high end and/or FF rigs. Within my family and friends I am only one of two that uses a FF rig (the other is my dad with my old cam) and the only one who shoots Raw!! Everytime I bring this up to other people I usually get the same answer: it takes to much time for most people to edit the pictures. Although that might be a misconception (if you did your job well in making the pictures there shouldn't be too much work needed) by these people, it's what the reality looks like for them: *Raw= too much time, too much to learn, only for pro's* 
It's true, it's an assumption, but it's based on my experiences and what I read here on CR over the years. As Neuro and also others often point out, we need to remind ourselves that we are not, by far, the typical DSLR users. Most buy one entry level DSLR and stay with it.

-Sebastian


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 19, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> As Neuro and also others often point out, we need to remind ourselves that we are not, by far, the typical DSLR users. Most buy one entry level DSLR and stay with it.



... and one (kit) lens ...


----------



## Otara (Feb 19, 2017)

Dunno about anyone else but I use RAW for things like wildlife and jpeg for family stuff or the like where its just for memories and Im not too worried about post-processing.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > As Neuro and also others often point out, we need to remind ourselves that we are not, by far, the typical DSLR users. Most buy one entry level DSLR and stay with it.
> ...


and most shoot JPG.... and not even the full size JPG.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > LordofTackle said:
> ...



I think that many start with the green box setting right out of the box, they do not change any default settings, which is how its supposed to work. The advanced stuff comes later if at all. I've found that many are unhappy with the shallow depth of field, and don't even use their DSLR. I've bought several that sat unused and owners told me the story. The tiny sensor cameras have a huge depth of field, focusing is easy, near or far. Users like that, a group of people are all in focus, rather than just the front ones.


----------



## Talys (Feb 20, 2017)

While I agree that most DSLR shooters are JPG shooters, I would also assert that the overwhelming majority of DSLR shooters don't own a $900+ body. If you specifically look at potential 77D/80D buyers, a large number of them will shoot RAW when they need it or all the time, I think. 

It's like, most DSLR owners own cheap kit lens of some kind, but the number of 80D owners who shoot pictures that matter with a cheap kit lens will be much, much smaller, because once you take the dive, you're always looking for little ways to up your game (improve the finished image) by even a tiny bit.

I think DIGIC7 improvements will therefore be a bigger boon to t7i buyers than 77D buyers, generally speaking, though of course, it's an improvement, and all things being equal everyone should be happy for the improvement. I'm not sure what it is with the crazy high ISO... I don't know anyone that shoots with 5 digit ISO lol.


----------



## LordofTackle (Feb 21, 2017)

Talys said:


> I'm not sure what it is with the crazy high ISO... I don't know anyone that shoots with 5 digit ISO lol.



I do...but with a 1DX II 
I wouldn't with a APS-C camera....and I didn't with my "old" 5DIII.

My father has a 40D and a 60D and he never shot RAW (too time consuming for his taste : ), he just likes the better bodies for their better ergonomics and the more options they offer (AF wise and so on).
But I agree, the better the body is, the higher the probability the user is shooting RAW.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't still happen to have your LR2? I'd love to see a high ISO shot processed in 2 and 6 side by side!
> ...



Wow, very interesting. Thanks!


----------

