Nikon talks about the D800E

On 2012-02-17 18:53 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:38:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-17 08:46 , TheRealSteve wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Floyd L. wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.

But that's not the question TheRealSteve asked.

Floyd has dodged it by denying the hypothetical 10,000MP FF sensor.

You have dodged it by assuming lens performance better (I think) than
TheRealSteve specified.

I always get suspicious when advocates for a particular opinion start
dodging questions.

I haven't dodged anything. Any system has constraints and limits. A
10,000 MP sensor in 26x24mm is not going to happen. It's a strawman not
worth discussion. I apologize profusely for answering.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-17 09:38 , RichA wrote:

Still wondering why they claimed having the move the sensor backward
(i.e., cast a new body) would have been so expensive?

In "design for production", squeezing out variation and operations is a
key to reliability and lower costs.

The lower priced a850 (Sony) v the a900 is largely due to a calibration
step not needed in the a850 because the VF is not 100%. Had Sony
designed the a900 w/o need for such a calibration step, the a900 could
have been cheaper to make from the start and the a950 would not have
come into existence.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:52:31 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , TheRealSteve
wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

How much of a market is there where the added resolution
of the D800E is actually more significant than the added
aliasing?

But there isn't any added resolution. Really, there isn't. Removing the AA
filter can only reduce resolution. Patterns that are rendered with a given
level of accuracy with an AA filter are guaranteed to be rendered with less
accuracy without an AA filter, since removing the AA filter adds components
to the image that aren't there in the scene.

Of course, this assumes you care that your photographs are accurate
representations of the things you take photographs of...

I'll go with Nikon on this one since they know a few things you don't.

true. nikon discovered a way to get around the laws of physics and
mathematics and they haven't shared it with anyone. it's too bad,
because they could really capitalize on such a breakthrough.

They are about to capitalize on it.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:16:28 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

That's a totally bogus question.

It's not totally bogus, it's hypothetical and I said so.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin if the
engineers at Nikon have more coffee in the morning than
usual?

(If you don't know, think about limiting the pixel count
to about 500 MP or lower. It might make at least a
little sense.)

Ok, after you answer for 10,000MP, will you get aliasing with a 500MP
FF sensor using today's commonly available lenses?

Steve

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:38:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-17 08:46 , TheRealSteve wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Floyd L. wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.

And since it can't? Then what?

Steve

On 2012-02-19 09:43 , TheRealSteve wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:38:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-17 08:46 , TheRealSteve wrote:


Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.

And since it can't? Then what?

Then discussing a strawman 10GP FF sensor is moot.

These extreme examples don't really get to the crux of it.

People buying the new camera who are tempted to go with the "E" should
really consider what they want the slight increase in edge resolution
for. If they photograph a narrow subject range that really benefits
from it and are really willing to deal with the cases where aliased
edges and moiré appear, then fine.

Pixel peepers "excited" by the finer resolution potential may come to
regret spending this money when they photograph more general subjects
and the images need more work in edit than they want to invest.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-17 19:29 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 2/17/2012 3:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.


At 10,000 MP FF, ALL lenses are diffraction limited.

Dude, the reply was rhetorical.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).