16MP sensor improvements?

Started Apr 24, 2013 | Questions
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,329
Quite the opposite

In high ISO especially OMD is closer to D7100 than Gh2. In general, again according to DxO, it sits right in between those.

Tha tis downsized at 8 MPIxels. If we compare widgets it is 16 vs 24 MPixel. Here, the D7100 noise will look worse than when we downsize. Also, for the 1000th time, OMD is heavily "penalised""by DxO's take on ISOm which is non standardised.

From my experience fwiw EPL5 (=OMD) does not overstate ISo by nearly as much as DxO claims. I have specifically done tests with the GH2 as comparison. I think it is about 1/3 to 2/3 (at most). It is not consistent but on average I would say 1/2 a stop at most. DxO claims 1  stop. I have never come to that difference. Also: if I go by GH2 and get the 2/3 stop difference it simply is underexposed many times compared to the EPL5...

So to my mind, in conclusion:

1) DxO simply overstates the difference between their real ISO and Oly's

2) The larger pixelcount of the D7100, if we do not resize, will give it larger noise.

In reality I think the difference between these two is smaller than DxO shows us and that with 2) explains why we see so little difference in the widgets.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,329
Re: Tedolf's real world, not THE real world

Ah...dass versteh ich. Aber du kannst via google "translate" nutzen und also ubersetzen. Schrieb alles auf Deutsch, uberstze es usw. Ja, da gibst es fehler aber alles is gut zu verstehen fuer Englische Leute. Und du lernst so langsam auch Englisch!

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
TorsteinH
TorsteinH Senior Member • Posts: 1,186
Re: Tedolf's real world, not THE real world

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.  You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

I did some testing with the ZD 50-200 and E-30/E-5 a few years ago. You may be able to see a hint of diffraction effect at f/8, but for any real world photos I had to stop down to f/11 to really see the effect.

-- hide signature --

www.ohb.no/foto
Torstein

 TorsteinH's gear list:TorsteinH's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +3 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
This is just wrong......
1

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

I know I do.  Regardless, you said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348161

Keep in mind that you will have more diffraction effects with more pixels on the same size sensor.

The 12mp sensor can be stoped down to f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction.

With the 16mp sensor you are going to start seeing diffraction at f/8.

So the extra resolution is not without cost.

That is wrong.

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

The fact of the matter is that 16 MP will always resolve more detail than 12 MP, all else equal.  How much more, however, depends on a great number of factors.

See the part above where I say, "Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse", and the part where I talk about the effect on out of focus parts of the photo and how those sorts of things do not and can not show up in a photo of a two dimensional test chart?

Really amazing that you can read an entire post and not extract the substance of it.

Amazing really.

What is really amazing is that you still don't get it after being corrected over and over. So please repeat after me:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use. The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus.

It does.

I have the deleted photo's to prove it.

It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF. These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

We are talking about diffraction and its effect on OOF areas (especially foliage). You have already addmitted, conceeded and suplicated that two dimensional test charts are irrelevant to show this effect so all of your above blather is just that.....

blather.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
Does the word "syncophant".......
1

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use.

At what aperture?

Let me see.  Anders said, "no matter which aperture you use" and you ask "At what aperture?".  Huh.  Where do we go from there?

The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Is that true for OOF background items?

Let's see.  Anders said:

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus. It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Huh.  Where do we go from there?

What about the "bokeh"?

No effect.

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus.

B.S.

Really?  I mean, really?  The areas out of focus are, by definition, not going to be sharp, so how is diffraction softening going to affect them?

It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Except that most people don't care about that because most printers can't print at that resolution anyway; but the "haze" effect on OOF areas is very nocticable.

Tell us more about this "haze effect" and what it has to do with diffraction and portions of the photo outside the DOF.

These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

Test charts do not have OOF backgrounds, do they?

No, they do not, which is why DOF is not a factor for test charts.  But the effects of diffraction softening are the same for a test chart as they are for a "real life" photo.

have any meaning to you?

Tedolph

(channeling ZoranC)

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
Wrong again......

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

I do not see diffraction effects on the E-pl1 at f/11 or below.

I do see diffraction at f/16.

When you see the effects of diffraction softening depends on how large you display the photo and how closely you view it.

I know that mathematically there will be more diffraction effects with a closer pixel pitch.

How can you know something that isn't true?  The size of the pixel has no effect on diffraction.  Diffraction is an optical effect of the lens, not an effect of the sensor which merely records the image projected by the lens.

the size and density of the pixels is the primary determinat of what aperture diffraction effects become visible.

This is basic optical physics

It is, and you fail to understand it:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

However, the relationship between diffraction softening and pixel density is largely misunderstood.  For a given sensor size and lens, more pixels always result in more detail -- that's a fact.  As we stop down and the DOF deepens, we reach a point where we begin to lose detail due to diffraction softening.  As a consequence, photos made with more pixels will begin to lose their detail advantage earlier and quicker than images made with fewer pixels, but they will always retain more detail.  Eventually, the additional detail afforded by the extra pixels becomes trivial (most certainly by f/32 on FF).  See here for an excellent example of the effect of pixel size on diffraction softening.

I would suggest you click on that link in the last sentence.

TEdolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
Tedolf's world is the only one that matters.....
1

Ulric wrote:

tedolf wrote:

I do not see diffraction effects on the E-pl1 at f/11 or below.

I do see diffraction at f/16.

I know that mathematically there will be more diffraction effects with a closer pixel pitch.

This is basic optical physics.

all other worlds are mere illusions.

I posted examples of diffraction with a 16 mp sensor. Would you mind doing the same from the E-PL1?

Unfortunately, well actually fortunately I deleted those photo right after taking them because the problem was obvious even on the E-pl1 LCD screen.  It is especially evident at f/22 with close ups on the 17mm lens.  Open up to f/11 and the problem is gone.

I first noticed it when I was doing a close up of the shot of my lens collection in my Tedolph's Mighty Arsenal Album in my Gallery.  Then I noticed it again in some foliage test shots I was doing becuase I was looking for it.

I would also be interested in comments on the "background haze" in my samples. I have the same scene in f/11 if that is helpful.

Well, we need a comparison between the two cameras-same lens, same settings, same scene with some significant OOF background areas preferable with some speculare highlights.

If anyone can do that test it would be much appreciated.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
Agreed.....
1

TorsteinH wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.  You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

I did some testing with the ZD 50-200 and E-30/E-5 a few years ago. You may be able to see a hint of diffraction effect at f/8, but for any real world photos I had to stop down to f/11 to really see the effect.

With the 12mp sensor it starts showing up at f/11.

With the 16mp sensor it will start showing up earlier (i.e. larger apertures).

-- hide signature --

www.ohb.no/foto
Torstein

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
Yohan Pamudji Senior Member • Posts: 2,874
Re: Tedolf's real world, not THE real world

TorsteinH wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.  You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

I did some testing with the ZD 50-200 and E-30/E-5 a few years ago. You may be able to see a hint of diffraction effect at f/8, but for any real world photos I had to stop down to f/11 to really see the effect.

The point of contention isn't at which aperture diffraction starts to matter.  That's debatable based on perception.  The point is that there's no appreciable difference for when diffraction starts for the 12MP and 16MP sensors.  That is, if it starts affecting you at f/11 on the 12MP sensor then it does so at f/11 on the 16MP sensor as well.  If f/8 is where it starts to bother you on the 12MP then it will at f/8 on the 16MP also.

tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 26,775
Says Who?

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

TorsteinH wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.  You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

I did some testing with the ZD 50-200 and E-30/E-5 a few years ago. You may be able to see a hint of diffraction effect at f/8, but for any real world photos I had to stop down to f/11 to really see the effect.

The point of contention isn't at which aperture diffraction starts to matter.

Yes it is.

That's debatable based on perception.

Not really.

The point is that there's no appreciable difference for when diffraction starts for the 12MP and 16MP sensors.

Says who?

You?

That is, if it starts affecting you at f/11 on the 12MP sensor then it does so at f/11 on the 16MP sensor as well.  If f/8 is where it starts to bother you on the 12MP then it will at f/8 on the 16MP also.

Where do you get this idea from?

Mathematically, the closer the sensor pitch the sooner (i.e. larger aperture) you will start seeing diffraction.

This is not debatable.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +8 more
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,329
It is funny how debates go

I have a cam with the 12 MP and 16 MP Panny 9G1 and Gh2) and with the Sony sensor (EPl5). exactly here, in your phtoo's, is where things go wrong for the 12 espeiailly, but also (but far less so) for the 16 MP Panny sensor.

In high contrast situation which require a good DR, you see the difference easily. if the situation is not demanding, things get more difficult to spot of course...In low light: the difference between all of them again is easy to spot, but less so between P 16 MP and S 16 MP. etc.

Funny thing is:

- Those who have a DSLR and never used a mFT say how bad it is, how it is a failure 9at least the vocal non-users on this forum do)

- Those who have experience with the 12 MPixel but not the 16 MPixel cams do something similar ("you don't need it, 12 Mpixel is good enough etc")

- Those with the 16 MPixel Panny sensor in their cam something similar to those with the 16 MP Sony (there is an insigificant difference, you need to pixelpeep etc)

it is almost always those who have zero experience with the cams they talk about that feel it is not adding much (or worse than something else they do use themselves).

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
OP Msnap Regular Member • Posts: 107
How about some pictures?

Jorginho wrote:

I have a cam with the 12 MP and 16 MP Panny 9G1 and Gh2) and with the Sony sensor (EPl5).

If you have them all, could you conclude the thread by adding some pictures?

Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,329
No way.

When I bought epl5, back in november, I got into a similar argument. I provided pictures in such a way that everything was kept identical. So the same tripod, same lighting. it was very clear to those who already knew what the difference was why you still could see in the shadows while kepping highlight information simultaneously. to those with another 16 MPixel sensor (in this case) it was not. I exposed wrong, the shutterspeed was off etcetc. No matter what I did: the differene was not the camera.

This is not your fault, you were not arguing back then but I am done with that. Took m a lot of time and I won't do it again.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 7,251
Re: Once again...
1

I'm surprised that you and Anders even bother to reply to him. He's clueless. We all know that.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II
DElliott Senior Member • Posts: 1,061
Re: No, not quite the opposite

Jorginho wrote:

In high ISO especially OMD is closer to D7100 than Gh2. In general, again according to DxO, it sits right in between those.

Tha tis downsized at 8 MPIxels. If we compare widgets it is 16 vs 24 MPixel. Here, the D7100 noise will look worse than when we downsize. Also, for the 1000th time, OMD is heavily "penalised""by DxO's take on ISOm which is non standardised.

From my experience fwiw EPL5 (=OMD) does not overstate ISo by nearly as much as DxO claims. I have specifically done tests with the GH2 as comparison. I think it is about 1/3 to 2/3 (at most). It is not consistent but on average I would say 1/2 a stop at most. DxO claims 1  stop. I have never come to that difference. Also: if I go by GH2 and get the 2/3 stop difference it simply is underexposed many times compared to the EPL5...

So to my mind, in conclusion:

1) DxO simply overstates the difference between their real ISO and Oly's

2) The larger pixelcount of the D7100, if we do not resize, will give it larger noise.

In reality I think the difference between these two is smaller than DxO shows us and that with 2) explains why we see so little difference in the widgets.

I was speaking solely about the widget RAW results.  The widget uses manufacturer-indicated ISO values, rather than any DXOMark adjustments, so I don't know what prompted the DXOMark discussion in response to my message.

If you're looking at the widget charts and not seeing notably better RAW results with the D7100, then you must be looking only at the default grey noise chart.  Click chroma and black, and you'll see that in those cases the OM-D's noise levels are closer to the GH-2 than they are to the D7100.  See the below excerpts:

Chroma (OM-D and GH-2 roughly the same through ISO 3200):

Grey (OM-D and D7100 roughly the same through ISO 6400, with GH-2 lagging):

Black (up to ISO 3200, OM-D and GH-2 roughly the same):

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,060
You can lead a horse to water...

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

I do not see diffraction effects on the E-pl1 at f/11 or below.

I do see diffraction at f/16.

When you see the effects of diffraction softening depends on how large you display the photo and how closely you view it.

I know that mathematically there will be more diffraction effects with a closer pixel pitch.

How can you know something that isn't true?  The size of the pixel has no effect on diffraction.  Diffraction is an optical effect of the lens, not an effect of the sensor which merely records the image projected by the lens.

the size and density of the pixels is the primary determinat of what aperture diffraction effects become visible.

Wrong.  The link below ("here") has photos that perfectly demonstrate your error.

This is basic optical physics

It is, and you fail to understand it:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

However, the relationship between diffraction softening and pixel density is largely misunderstood.  For a given sensor size and lens, more pixels always result in more detail -- that's a fact.  As we stop down and the DOF deepens, we reach a point where we begin to lose detail due to diffraction softening.  As a consequence, photos made with more pixels will begin to lose their detail advantage earlier and quicker than images made with fewer pixels, but they will always retain more detail.  Eventually, the additional detail afforded by the extra pixels becomes trivial (most certainly by f/32 on FF).  See here for an excellent example of the effect of pixel size on diffraction softening.

I would suggest you click on that link in the last sentence.

All I can do is suggest -- I can't make you look, and I certainly can't make you understand.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,060
Re: Does the word "syncophant".......

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use.

At what aperture?

Let me see.  Anders said, "no matter which aperture you use" and you ask "At what aperture?".  Huh.  Where do we go from there?

The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Is that true for OOF background items?

Let's see.  Anders said:

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus. It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Huh.  Where do we go from there?

What about the "bokeh"?

No effect.

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus.

B.S.

Really?  I mean, really?  The areas out of focus are, by definition, not going to be sharp, so how is diffraction softening going to affect them?

It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Except that most people don't care about that because most printers can't print at that resolution anyway; but the "haze" effect on OOF areas is very nocticable.

Tell us more about this "haze effect" and what it has to do with diffraction and portions of the photo outside the DOF.

These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

Test charts do not have OOF backgrounds, do they?

No, they do not, which is why DOF is not a factor for test charts.  But the effects of diffraction softening are the same for a test chart as they are for a "real life" photo.

have any meaning to you?

Tedolph

(channeling ZoranC)

I think I'd rather be a sycophant of Anders than a channel for ZoranC.  In fact, thanks for illustrating one of the many differences between us so clearly.

Yohan Pamudji Senior Member • Posts: 2,874
Re: Says Who?
1

tedolf wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

TorsteinH wrote:

I did some testing with the ZD 50-200 and E-30/E-5 a few years ago. You may be able to see a hint of diffraction effect at f/8, but for any real world photos I had to stop down to f/11 to really see the effect.

The point of contention isn't at which aperture diffraction starts to matter.

Yes it is.

That's debatable based on perception.

Not really.

The point is that there's no appreciable difference for when diffraction starts for the 12MP and 16MP sensors.

Says who?

You?

That's the point that you and I are debating, which is what I was clarifying to TorsteinH.

That is, if it starts affecting you at f/11 on the 12MP sensor then it does so at f/11 on the 16MP sensor as well.  If f/8 is where it starts to bother you on the 12MP then it will at f/8 on the 16MP also.

Where do you get this idea from?

Mathematically, the closer the sensor pitch the sooner (i.e. larger aperture) you will start seeing diffraction.

This is not debatable.

Tedolph

I get this idea from looking at pictures, which you suggested I do but you yourself refuse to do.  Friendly advice: you should back away from the mathematics of optics.  We've established how bad you are at it during our DOF discussions.  The "mathematics" that you keep quoting is on a per-pixel level, but at the image level the greater detail of the higher MP balances out the loss of detail due to diffraction, hence no difference in final result at the image level.  See Great Bustard's comments and linked articles, assuming you don't still have a severe aversion to referring to outside sources when provided with additional info like you did during our DOF discussions.

In case you're ready to take your own advice and look at pictures, here are some pictures to look at with some explanations to go with them:

http://www.talknex.com/f2/what-does-diffraction-limited-mean-387/

In summary and for the last time: if diffraction starts bothering you at f/11 on a 12MP m4/3 sensor then it will do so at f/11 on a 16MP m4/3 sensor as well.  You're free to disagree but the proof is there both in the math and in photos.

Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 5,739
Game over.

Ok, as no one wants to play, I've removed the test files.

Strange forum where people want to know about 12 v 16 mp, the role of lenses, and diffraction, yet refuse to commit an opinion about photos taken to actually show it.

-Najinsky.

PS: Obviously there was one relevant (and as it happens, worthwhile) opinion expressed. Perhaps I need to rethink my ignore list.

Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 30,584
Interruption to this broadcast....
2

Hey, who worries about where diffraction happens, the main thing is to get the depth of field required for the shot. Better DOF with some detail loss looks nicer than shallow DOF with sharper details, particularly in macro shots.

Anyway, the 16MP sensor delivers a so much better image than the 12MP sensor that even when both diffracted to blazes at f/16 the 16MP sensor delivers a better looking image than the 12MP sensor can.

I am not about to waste time by setting up E-PL1/E-P3/E-PL5 and proving it to anybody. I just see it in everyday shots, though I never really wander much smaller than f/8 except down to f/11-16 for macro only.

For me the E-PL1 used to be the greatest camera in the world, then I bought the E-PL5 and the E-PL1 is left in the dust, just a whole new world of results and ease of use.

So, Tedolf, do yourself (and us) a favour and go buy the E-PL5 and see what you think, for me it was a spectacular upgrade from E-PL1 (and E-P3).

Regards...... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads