Do DIGIC processors of Canon DSLRs affect image quality?

[jks_photo]

This question has been on my mind as of late.... It came to my mind because I have and am seeing pictures that were taken by cameras using DIGIC III specifically by 40D

[neuroanatomist]

Since we

[jks_photo]

i hevent really checked if its AF microadjusment..... I guess I ruled it out since I am seeing mostly same results from 5 different 40D bodies. Unless of course all 40Ds need to be micro adjusted to their specific lens that

[neuroanatomist]

Well that does seem unlikely. In any case, AFMA is not available on the 40D...


Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the processors will chime in.

[Daniel Browning]

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Do DIGIC processors of Canon DSLRs affect image quality?

JPEG image quality, yes. But not raw.

cameras using DIGIC III specifically by 40D's to be somewhat "soft"...same lens as the 400D that is consistently taking "sharper" images..

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />



Well, be aware that settings on a DIGIC II camera don't necessarily correspond to a DIGIC III camera. Chuck Westfall had a faq about this with regards to the 1D series IIRC. But even if you examine the *same* DIGIC III cameras, there can still be variation. Look at these two photos. One from a 40D (10.1 MP DIGIC III), the other from a 1000D (10.1 MP DIGIC III), both at the same settings:








40D looks a bit softer there too, doesn't it?


There are two possible explanations for this:

• Unequal raw conversions (i.e. the DIGIC acts differently on each camera)
• Different optical filters on the sensor.

Personally, I think the former is more likely. Canon may be tuning the DIGIC on the low-end cameras to use higher sharpening because that's what users who upgrade from digicams are expecting, while 40D is more "professional" where they expect the photographer to set the sharpening level higher themselves.


Kind regards,

[jks_photo]

thanks Daniel for that very enlightening contribution.....anything less then I would think soemone was impersonating you or using your name to post replies to topics...


I guess that

[clemmb]

BUT doesn't it go against logic that a more "profeesional" camera be shooting poorer in terms of sharpness as ooposed to entry level camera's used by amatuers or enthusiasts???


Also, we're paying a premium for these more "professional" bodies over entry level bodies, don't we deserve to at least have the camera shoot right to save us time post processing the shot???


just my thoughts....
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I do not think so. The professional camera give us the control. My 5D takes sharpening much better than my Rebal. When I got my wife a Kodak easy share I was first amazed at how sharp the images were but found any adjustment would ruin the image. I have never used a 40D but have downloaded images from almost all the canon models to play with. The 40D images would take sharpening very well.


Mark

[neuroanatomist]

BUT doesn't it go against logic that a more "profeesional" camera be shooting poorer in terms of sharpness as ooposed to entry level camera's used by amatuers or enthusiasts???

Maybe. But you could argue that the 7D is the most 'professional' crop camera, and it's got a rather strong anti-aliasing filter such that it does really benefit from some extra sharpening in post. It's also about expectations - I wonder how many people switch from a P&amp;S to a dSLR and then return the dSLR because 'most of the picture is blurry' without understanding the effects of a larger sensor on DoF.

Also, we're paying a premium for these more "professional" bodies over entry level bodies, don't we deserve to at least have the camera shoot right

I tend to agree. Canon does seem to do this sometimes - for example the 5DII, which is generally thought of as a portrait/landscape camera, produces default images that are warmer in tone than many other bodies.

[Daniel Browning]

BUT doesn't it go against logic that a more "profeesional" camera be shooting poorer in terms of sharpness as ooposed to entry level camera's used by amatuers or enthusiasts?

Well, it's not a matter of "poorer" vs "better" -- it's a matter of taste. If the 40D has a stronger anti-alias filter, it's because Canon thinks professionals prefer a more "natural" looking image, with less aliasing artifacts, rather than one that is sharper, but has artifacts. If it's the sharpening, it may be reduced in the 40D because of the downsides (such as increasing noise).

Also, we're paying a premium for these more "professional" bodies over entry level bodies, don't we deserve to at least have the camera shoot right to save us time post processing the shot???

Consumer-level gear tends to be optimized out of the box for what most consumers want (even if there are some downsides), whereas pro gear tends to have more conservative settings that you are expected to optimize yourself for your own personal taste. Sharpness can often be one of these. You don't have to do any post processing to fix it, just change the settings in the camera.

[scalesusa]

The processor does not affect image resolution. The lens does, and so does the sensor.


A lens can focus accurately on one camera, and not another due to normal tolerance buildup.


One camera body can be set to sharpen the image more than a different body, but this is not due to Digic.