In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

dxo is reporting the dynamic range of various *cameras*.

and even if you ignore the 14 bit issue, their numbers are highly
suspect.

the nikon d800 and d800 are identical cameras, the only difference
being the lack of an anti-alias filter on the d800e, something which
does not affect dynamic range (only aliasing). thus, the results should
be *the* *same* (other than alias artifacts on high frequency content).

Light passes through the filter which affects the spectrum detected by
the sensor. Of course this will affect the dynamic range.

nonsense. an aa filter has *zero* effect on dynamic range.

You know that do you?

yes.

Show me the data.

show me the data that it does.

Google shows that a hell of a lot of work has been done on the
spectral properties of anti-aliasing filters. You should write to all
the authors and tell them they are wasting their time.

spectral properties aren't the issue.

you claim that dxo is shooting grey cards in their testing, which does
not have detail anywhere close to nyquist, therefore the presence or
absence of an aa filter will have no effect whatsoever.

dxo claims that the d800 has 14.4 stops dynamic range and the d800e has
14.3 stops.

Even ignoring error bars, this is not at all surprising.

it's very surprising that two identical sensors (other than an aa
filter, which has no effect except for aliasing) in identical cameras
with identical electronics have different results, without any
explanation as to why.

That it has no effect except for aliasing is classic nospam.

no, it's classic signal theory 101.

It
reminds me of the discussion when you assumed that in Windows the
'print' function sent a file straight to the printer without anything
going on in between. In fact all kinds of things may be going on as
well the one thing that you have in mind.

diversion, lying about what i actually said and irrelevant.

you're *really* grasping at straws.