R8: issues with hair and resolution

borat21 · Jun 13, 2023

I can't help but feel that the REAL resolution of the canon r8 is lower than it's nominal pixel count.

hair looks really pixelated/compressed from raw files at 100% with the rf 24-105 f4. prime lenses are better but not perfect.

look at the picture comparison with my eos 350d having 8 mpx: the hair is fine and matches the resolution.

in the picture from the r8 (1/1000) it looks ugly at 100% with sharpness even set to 0 in lightroom, iso 400. doesn't matter which hair I photograph (baby/men/women), it looks like it has many artifacts from oversharpening/compression.

any help? thanks

c777a9427aaa42e494ca2746d691b927.jpg.png

JackJonesPhoto · Jun 13, 2023

The R8 has 12 more MP than the 350D so you are going to zoom in way more when you view it at 100%, compared to the 350D you are viewing the scene from a bit more zoomed out giving you the impression it is sharper. Try taking a picture with the 350D and then the same one with the R8 and zoom in the 350D picture to match the R8 picture on the screen and you will see a much more pixelated image from the 350D when compared to the R8.

This is my guess of what is going on with what you are doing.

Dan W · Jun 13, 2023

borat21 said:
I can't help but feel that the REAL resolution of the canon r8 is lower than it's nominal pixel count.

hair looks really pixelated/compressed from raw files at 100% with the rf 24-105 f4. prime lenses are better but not perfect.

First off, the lens or type of lenses have nothing to do with "pixelation". Compression is usually talked about in longer focal lengths like a good portrait lens at 85-105 compresses just enough to make most faces look better. Super teles like 600mm compress to make the background appear closer.

borat21 said:
look at the picture comparison with my eos 350d having 8 mpx: the hair is fine and matches the resolution.

in the picture from the r8 (1/1000) it looks ugly at 100% with sharpness even set to 0 in lightroom, iso 400. doesn't matter which hair I photograph (baby/men/women), it looks like it has many artifacts from oversharpening/compression.

The only thing I see in the hair from the R8 is the red hair has some specular lighting. That may be giving you the impression it's "Sharp" compared to the blonde hair from the old image with softer light. I do see a little morie in a couple horizontal hair fliers but thats just the nature of digital. You will see that more pronounced in portraits when the model is wearing a patterned design clothing like a checkered board or with lots of straight lines that are not exactly level in relation to the sensor.

borat21 said:
any help? thanks

LennyLevino · Jun 13, 2023

The 24-105mm f4L is a pretty soft lens. Much softer than the 50mm f1.8 STM at every aperture. It can only resolve 16mp according to DXO.

Dan W · Jun 13, 2023

LennyLevino said:
The 24-105mm f4L is a pretty soft lens. Much softer than the 50mm f1.8 STM at every aperture. It can only resolve 16mp according to DXO.

I feel my 24-105 is pretty sharp, not in the class of my 50 f/1.2 but I can count eye lashes with mine if I hit focus right. I'm not questioning DXO, I just think those numbers dont always represent real world shooting. Like most people, I dont shoot charts and look at them with a microscope lol.

J A C S · Jun 13, 2023

This looks like aliasing due to a sharp lens on a lower resolution sensor (with possibly weak or no AA filter).

John Crowe · Jun 13, 2023

The 350D image is not resolving the hair sharply. The R8 is at least resolving individual hairs better.

I have heard that red is hard on digital images so perhaps trying the same colour hair as the 350D image as a comparison.

I also suspect that the overall image from the R8 looks much better than the 350D.

BobKnDP · Jun 13, 2023

John Crowe said:
The 350D image is not resolving the hair sharply. The R8 is at least resolving individual hairs better.

I have heard that red is hard on digital images so perhaps trying the same colour hair as the 350D image as a comparison.

I also suspect that the overall image from the R8 looks much better than the 350D.

The Bayer mask used with many digital cameras ought to give worse resolution in red and blue than in the green. (The nominal full pixel count is not available for any color.)

Le Kilt · Jun 14, 2023

You need to take the same picture of the same hair in the same light ;-)

Canon_Guy · Jun 14, 2023

Honestly, if I consider all the differences (not only in cameras and lenses but also light which is soft and distant vs hard and close, type of hair, per pixel sharpness of each camera etc., I do not see anything wrong on the 2nd picture.

MasterWayne · Jun 14, 2023

Have you checked the RAW files in Lightroom?

If you are looking at the jpgs, os DLO (digital lens optimization) turned on?

On the R5 it gives quite strong sharpening effects for the RF 24-105 f4, I immediately turned it off. Only useful in a few landscape scenarios, from my experience.

When checking the RAW files in Lightroom, DLO can be ruled out, since it only works in Canons own DPP and the camera bakes it into the jpgs.

borat21 · Jun 14, 2023

hi all, thanks for all the replies, much appreciated!

I think it's a combination of harsh lighting, color filter and a "bad lens" in the sense that the resolution figures are just not that great. my prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are massively sharper.

then again I'm coming from a leica q2 monochrom without color filter and a lens that is unparalleled in sharpness.

still, I would expect the lens to do better. I'll do some test charts and come back.

J A C S · Jun 14, 2023

borat21 said:
hi all, thanks for all the replies, much appreciated!

I think it's a combination of harsh lighting, color filter and a "bad lens" in the sense that the resolution figures are just not that great. my prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are massively sharper.

Exactly the opposite. This lens is too sharp to avoid aliasing. BTW, it is as sharp as the RF 50L in the center at that aperture.

tkbslc · Jun 14, 2023

LennyLevino said:
The 24-105mm f4L is a pretty soft lens. Much softer than the 50mm f1.8 STM at every aperture. It can only resolve 16mp according to DXO.

It's a hell of a lot sharper than an original Sigma 17-70, though.

MikeJ9116 · Jun 14, 2023

My wife did a graduation photo shoot for a friend's daughter recently with the R8 and RF 85mm f/2. Nearly every shot was tack sharp and hair was very well defined. The conditions were overcast for the day. So far, everything I have shot with the R8 and RF lenses has been very good and sharp overall. I find the R8 provides better detail than the R it replaced.

ckeek · Jun 14, 2023

Cannot compare. The lens is different.

crashpc · Jun 15, 2023

The aliasing indeed can be very annoying. But in this case as mentioned, these shots are not comparable. Modern processing helps a lot though.

Canon_Guy · Jun 15, 2023

J A C S said:
borat21 said:

hi all, thanks for all the replies, much appreciated!

I think it's a combination of harsh lighting, color filter and a "bad lens" in the sense that the resolution figures are just not that great. my prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are massively sharper.

Click to expand...

Exactly the opposite. This lens is too sharp to avoid aliasing. BTW, it is as sharp as the RF 50L in the center at that aperture.

Measured results from Optical Limits or DxO Mark tell differently.

The RF 24-105/4 is sharp for what it is, a 4x zoom going in the difficult area from wide angle to a telephoto. But of course, any decent prime outresolves it massively.

R2D2 · Jun 15, 2023

J A C S said:
borat21 said:

hi all, thanks for all the replies, much appreciated!

I think it's a combination of harsh lighting, color filter and a "bad lens" in the sense that the resolution figures are just not that great. my prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are massively sharper.

Click to expand...

Exactly the opposite. This lens is too sharp to avoid aliasing. BTW, it is as sharp as the RF 50L in the center at that aperture.

+1 I don't think there's a lens issue. My own RF 24-105 f/4L is the sharpest version yet IME. I have zero hesitation using it for (paid) events or sports shooting. I've never found resolution to be an issue, even on an R5...

Canon R5 + RF 24-105 f/4L @ 24mm, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6, ISO 400. Full size image, click on "original size"

RAW converted in DxO PL6. Zero USM applied at any stage.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

m100 · Jun 15, 2023

borat21 said:
I can't help but feel that the REAL resolution of the canon r8 is lower than it's nominal pixel count.

hair looks really pixelated/compressed from raw files at 100% with the rf 24-105 f4. prime lenses are better but not perfect.

look at the picture comparison with my eos 350d having 8 mpx: the hair is fine and matches the resolution.

in the picture from the r8 (1/1000) it looks ugly at 100% with sharpness even set to 0 in lightroom, iso 400. doesn't matter which hair I photograph (baby/men/women), it looks like it has many artifacts from oversharpening/compression.

any help? thanks

Try using the portrait picture style and run it through DPP.

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

R8: issues with hair and resolution

Member

Active member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts