Nikon talks about the D800E

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:24:35 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: RichA wrote:
:
: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._311455.htm l
:
:
: You can see why Nikon is offering a version with the AA filter; the
: complaints about alleged aliasing and moire from ignorant amateurs
: would otherwise be intolerable. ;-)

Instead, the ignorant amateurs should just grin and bear it? Given their
presumed ignorance, if they report the problem, they're unlikely to have made
it up.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:24:35 +0000, Bruce
wrote:
: RichA wrote:
:
: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...xclusive_CP_in
: terview_news_311455.html
:
:
: You can see why Nikon is offering a version with the AA filter; the
: complaints about alleged aliasing and moire from ignorant amateurs
: would otherwise be intolerable. ;-)

Instead, the ignorant amateurs should just grin and bear it? Given
their presumed ignorance, if they report the problem, they're unlikely
to have made it up.

Bob


Nikon would be more worried about those who would simply not buy the
camerea for fear of moire.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:01:02 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:24:35 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: RichA wrote:
:
: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._311455.htm l
:
:
: You can see why Nikon is offering a version with the AA filter; the
: complaints about alleged aliasing and moire from ignorant amateurs
: would otherwise be intolerable. ;-)

Instead, the ignorant amateurs should just grin and bear it?


No, they should buy the camera that is made especially for them
(that's the D800) and leave the D800E for those who understand it and
appreciate what it can do. From the point of view of a store owner,
the last thing we want is dissatisfied D800E buyers taking up scarce
time with complaints about something they don't understand and never
should have bought.

D800E owners who don't understand what they bought will inevitably be
spooked by uninformed idiots posting online about moire and aliasing
(as on here recently) and the usual clueless self-appointed "experts"
at camera clubs who will make them feel insecure and unhappy with
their buying decision. The fact that their dissatisfaction will be
completely misplaced doesn't help at all; an unhappy customer is an
unhappy customer.

So I am thankful that Nikon is offering the alternative of the D800
with the AA filter. We have taken many pre-orders, with about 70%
opting for the D800 and 30% for the D800E. Anyone who asks for advice
about which model to choose is steered towards the D800.

Both models have an AA filter.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:19:52 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:01:02 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:24:35 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: RichA wrote:
:
: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._311455.htm l
:
:
: You can see why Nikon is offering a version with the AA filter; the
: complaints about alleged aliasing and moire from ignorant amateurs
: would otherwise be intolerable. ;-)

Instead, the ignorant amateurs should just grin and bear it?


No, they should buy the camera that is made especially for them
(that's the D800) and leave the D800E for those who understand it and
appreciate what it can do. From the point of view of a store owner,
the last thing we want is dissatisfied D800E buyers taking up scarce
time with complaints about something they don't understand and never
should have bought.

D800E owners who don't understand what they bought will inevitably be
spooked by uninformed idiots posting online about moire and aliasing
(as on here recently) and the usual clueless self-appointed "experts"
at camera clubs who will make them feel insecure and unhappy with
their buying decision. The fact that their dissatisfaction will be
completely misplaced doesn't help at all; an unhappy customer is an
unhappy customer.

So I am thankful that Nikon is offering the alternative of the D800
with the AA filter. We have taken many pre-orders, with about 70%
opting for the D800 and 30% for the D800E. Anyone who asks for advice
about which model to choose is steered towards the D800.

Both models have an AA filter.

Both cameras have two AA filters. The D800 has the conventional with a
first filter splitting (say) north-south and the second splitting
east-west. The D800e has the conventional first filter splitting (say)
north-south and a second unconventional filter recombining the split
image from the first filter. That way the two types of AA assembly are
mechanically identical and can fit into the same carcase. Maybe the
software is slightly different.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:
[]
Both models have an AA filter.


Oh, the pointless pedantry!

Let's not try to complicate this. The 800E has a primary AA filter
and a secondary filter that completely reverses its effect. For all
intents and purposes, it effectively has no AA filter.

"Completely reverses"? There is bound to be some residual effect of two
unnecessary items in the optical path, even if they are perfectly aligned.
But at least everyone can now be happy now, and make their own choice
according to their own preferences and subject matter. It will be
interesting to see whether Canon copies this feature.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Bowser wrote:
[]
Both models have an AA filter.


Oh, the pointless pedantry!

Let's not try to complicate this. The 800E has a primary AA filter
and a secondary filter that completely reverses its effect. For all
intents and purposes, it effectively has no AA filter.

"Completely reverses"? There is bound to be some residual effect of two
unnecessary items in the optical path, even if they are perfectly aligned.
But at least everyone can now be happy now, and make their own choice
according to their own preferences and subject matter. It will be
interesting to see whether Canon copies this feature.

That is true, but given that half of the required
components to form a low pass filter have been removed,
even if the replacement component does not perfectly
cancel the other, it still does not form a low pass
filter. It's what, a one half-wave delay plate followed
by another...

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.

How much of a market is there where the added resolution
of the D800E is actually more significant than the added
aliasing? Add noise to the entire image to get a couple
added lines per millimeter? It isn't as if the
distinction is anything like the resolution increase
over something like a D3X! That is actually measurable,
but the D800E over the D800 is miniscule.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" 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...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" 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...

Extremely well stated!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
Bowser wrote:
[]
Both models have an AA filter.


Oh, the pointless pedantry!

Let's not try to complicate this. The 800E has a primary AA filter
and a secondary filter that completely reverses its effect. For all
intents and purposes, it effectively has no AA filter.

"Completely reverses"? There is bound to be some residual effect of two
unnecessary items in the optical path, even if they are perfectly
aligned.


Obviously, as Nikon never do any testing or development of their
products, they wouldn't have thought of that, so perhaps it's about
time you called them to give them the benefit of your expertise?

Nikon will be so grateful to have their omission pointed out to them.

There is bound to be some effect of having the two AA filters present,
rather than an air path, but Nikon will have both calculated and measured
the effect, and deemed it acceptable to their target market. It's a
clever solution, requiring minimum changes to the camera between the two
models.

David

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


"Floyd L. Davidson" 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.
Some examples:

1. The transfer function of their AA filter. I.e., where the stop band
starts and what's the reduction, say in dB per "octave" after that. In
this case, and octave would be 1/2 or double the linear resolution.

1a. Since no realizable filters are perfect, they know how much
aliasing could occur even with an AA filter if the spatial resolution
exceeds nyquist of their sensor. You don't.

1b. To get an acceptable reduction (not elimination) of frequencies
above nyquist, they know where the stop band has to start. You don't.
If, for example, it has to start even only at 1/2 an "octave" below
nyquist, that turns their 36mp sensor into an 18mp sensor. If it has
to start a full "octave" below nyquist in order to filter aliases to
an acceptably low level, then their 36mp sensor becomes a 6mp sensor.
There really is a real gain in resolution by removing the imperfect AA
filter.

1c. They know how much aliasing is occuring over probably many
thousands of test shots with their 36mp sensor and their lenses both
with and without their AA filter. You don't.

I could easily go on but I'll stop for now, except to add:

2. They know the difference between the terms "resolution" and
"accuracy" and don't use them interchangably.

Steve