Nikon new release D7100

In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:35:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

"Conclusions

So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
they are lens-limited in terms of resolution. It is easier to
correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
noise.

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
looking at a print because the variables that determine the
subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
circle of confusion.."

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:35:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

What he said is *precisely* correct.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
for most readers here.)

It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

Do you understand what he said, or what these
"conclusions" are saying?

It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
analog electronic filter).

"Conclusions

So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.

That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.

But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
filters.

It is easier to
correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
noise.

That last sentence is out of context and has no
significant meaning.

Note that the above section contradicts the statement
just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
not.

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

The last sentence is pure fabrication.

You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
looking at a print because the variables that determine the
subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
circle of confusion.."

That is correct.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
distortion in a single image. And if shown two
identical images differring only in the amount of
aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
comparison to generate) most people might well be able
to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
distortion!

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

On 2/03/2013 12:50 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.


And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.


My only option in getting the D800 was the availability of the E only.

Like I have mentioned previously, out of all the thousands of images
there has only been a couple showing aliasing. Its not a problem in not
having the filter. I haven't compared it side by side with the D800 so I
don't Know.

I would suggest that to give it a proper test you need to shoot side by
side and compare the results frame by frame.

Would I buy another E - yes. Its people who put up all the technical BS
that don't use one but thing everyone else shouldn't be using them either.

On 3/1/2013 9:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.
All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
discussion.



it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
commercially acceptable.

BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
Eizo, at the upper end.


--
PeterN

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

What he said is *precisely* correct.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
for most readers here.)

that's why i originally phrased it the way i did. solid colour wall
(not much detail) versus something with a lot of detail. simple
concepts rather than complex signal theory.

....snip...

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
distortion in a single image.

that depends on the image. i can frequently spot aliasing in foveon
images because it's so damned prevalent. in fact, it's hard not to
notice it.

And if shown two
identical images differring only in the amount of
aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
comparison to generate) most people might well be able
to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
distortion!

very true. the foveon fanbois love aliasing and think it's real detail.
some even think the sigma dp cameras are a 'poor man's d800'.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

It's not quite that simple.

yes it is. go read a book on signal theory. obviously there's much more
to the topic than just that, but it's a good summary.

If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

the only conclusion i've reached by reading that site is michael
reichmann wouldn't know aliasing if it bit him on the ass.

he loves foveon cameras because he thinks they have incredible detail
when it's really nothing more than a lot of alias artifacts, excessive
sharpening and a boost in contrast. that's the entire 'secret sauce' of
foveon.

in other words, he is fooled into thinking alias artifacts is real
detail, not the false detail it actually is.

On 3/2/2013 2:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:35:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

What he said is *precisely* correct.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
for most readers here.)

It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

Do you understand what he said, or what these
"conclusions" are saying?

It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
analog electronic filter).

"Conclusions

So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.

That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.

But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
filters.

It is easier to
correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
noise.

That last sentence is out of context and has no
significant meaning.

Note that the above section contradicts the statement
just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
not.

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

The last sentence is pure fabrication.

You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
looking at a print because the variables that determine the
subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
circle of confusion.."

That is correct.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
distortion in a single image. And if shown two
identical images differring only in the amount of
aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
comparison to generate) most people might well be able
to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
distortion!


He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

--
PeterN

On 3/2/2013 6:31 AM, Rob wrote:
On 2/03/2013 12:50 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.


And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.


My only option in getting the D800 was the availability of the E only.

Like I have mentioned previously, out of all the thousands of images
there has only been a couple showing aliasing. Its not a problem in not
having the filter. I haven't compared it side by side with the D800 so I
don't Know.

I would suggest that to give it a proper test you need to shoot side by
side and compare the results frame by frame.

Would I buy another E - yes. Its people who put up all the technical BS
that don't use one but thing everyone else shouldn't be using them either.

Yup! Sour grapes runs rampant.
The E model is a great camera. I am very happy with my D800 and do not
feel the need to upgrade. Would I buy an E rather than the one I have, I
really don't know. I had considered it, but was offered my 800 at a
fairly low price, and since I am not a professional, it was a no brainer.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.

at least you admit it, and the more you babble the more clear it
becomes.

All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
discussion.

this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular camera. it's how
*all* digital cameras work (and cd players and much more).

go read a book on signal theory if you want proof, not that i expect
you to understand much past the first page.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
commercially acceptable.

once again, being happy with the results or having something that's
commercially acceptable doesn't mean there isn't aliasing.

if there's detail beyond nyquist, there *will* be aliasing. period.
there is no getting around this.

BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
Eizo, at the upper end.

so what? different tools for different jobs.

apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.