Nikon D810 hands-on review: “The highest image quality in a Nikon DSLR to date”

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the
same as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

because it does.

Not unless the filter is "Unusually strong", which is
never the case.

it's strong enough to have an effect, otherwise why include it at all?

Of course it has "an effect". The effect is not a
reduction in resolution.

yes it most certainly is.

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

the amount it reduces depends on its strength.

And there is no DSLR today with an AA filter so strong
that the filter limits resolution as opposed to the
Nyquist limit. Not one.

there are many. in fact, just about all of them do.

it's not possible to make an anti-alias filter (for cameras anyway)
that eliminates aliasing *without* affecting real detail.

You can't name a single model where the filter reduces
resolution. (Because there are none!)

nikon d800 versus the nikon d800e, where there is a small but
measurable difference between the two.

and going back a bit, the nikon d100 versus the d70, where there is
more than just a small difference. they both had anti-alias filters and
the same 6mp sensors, but the aa filter on the d100 was noticeably
stronger and it's *very* clear that it did lower its resolution.

Of course it will be "affecting real detail", but not by
reducing resolution.

you're contradicting yourself.

As has been brought up multiple times now, the fact that
moire patterns can be seen is *proof* that there are
spatical frequencies above the Nyquist Limit being
recorded by the sensor. They are aliased to a lower
frequency. The resolution is limited by the Nyquest
Limit of the sensor, not the AA filter.

resolution is determined by how many lines per picture height (or
width) the sensor can accurately capture.

this is measured by photographing a test chart, and the presence or
lack of an anti-alias filter *will* affect the results, as will other
factors, including the lens and how accurately it's focused.

as noted above, two cameras which differ by the anti-alias filter
resolve different amounts of detail.

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

antialias filters are not perfect.

Which is exactly why there are none that limit the
resolution before the Nyquist limit.

wrong.

Except when it is actualy right, which is always the
case for optical filters use in cameras.

nope.

if it completely eliminates moire, it will reduce detail that otherwise
would have been resolved properly.

it's all a tradeoff.

But it is *never* set up to be strong enough to limit
resolution to less that the Nyquist filter.

it happens.

Maybe in a lab, but no manufacturer sells a camera
with an AA filter that strong. None, zilch...

they all do.

there is no perfect anti-alias filter that can eliminate aliasing
without affecting real detail. it's a tradeoff.

Whatever, if you can't carry on a useful discussion and
say something the is at least valid, I won't be replying
again.

everything i said is valid, however, by all means, don't reply.