On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.

at least you admit it, and the more you babble the more clear it
becomes.

All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
discussion.

this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular camera. it's how
*all* digital cameras work (and cd players and much more).

go read a book on signal theory if you want proof, not that i expect
you to understand much past the first page.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
commercially acceptable.

once again, being happy with the results or having something that's
commercially acceptable doesn't mean there isn't aliasing.

if there's detail beyond nyquist, there *will* be aliasing. period.
there is no getting around this.

BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
Eizo, at the upper end.

so what? different tools for different jobs.

apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.

So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or
see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their
budget.



Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's
best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I
would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle
for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products.

--
PeterN