On 3/5/2012 9:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter, where have you been?


Probably spending days in front of his computer in his underclothes,
rarely venturing outside, rarely experiencing fresh air or sunlight.
There is a core of people doing the same thing, spouting nonsense and
pet theories that they will never put to the test because they can't
afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't
know how to use it if they could. Theorising is all they have left,
and their sole motivation is to make others unhappy with equipment
they own or are considering buying.

Jealousy is a strong driver of such behaviour - if you can't afford it
or understand it, diss it. Leica users have to put up with this sort
of crap all the time, always from people who cannot afford Leica gear,
don't know how to use it, or most often both.


As for moire, no one is arguing that you
can experience moire without an AA filter, but the question is, how much
is too much and is trading off 20% linear resolution from EVERY image
worth eliminating a small risk of moire?


The shooters whose images are at greatest risk from moire are fashion
photographers. Most top fashion shooters use medium format digital
cameras.

Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided. However, it is being whipped up on online forums
into something far worse by a group of profoundly ignorant people who
simply haven't a clue about what they are talking about.



So sayeth one who has continually failed to produce an image.

--
Peter