Nikon D800; it's going to be fascinating

To see (if the rumours are right) which model sells more, the one with an
AA filter and the one without. If enough of the ones without sell, this
will be a radical change in cameras.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
To see (if the rumours are right) which model sells more, the one with an
AA filter and the one without. If enough of the ones without sell, this
will be a radical change in cameras.

Not to open a can of worms here, but isn't anti-aliasing a good thing? Even
with a slight decrease in sharpness, I'd think it would be beneficial.

"Tim Conway" wrote in message
...

"Rich" wrote in message
...
To see (if the rumours are right) which model sells more, the one with
an
AA filter and the one without. If enough of the ones without sell,
this
will be a radical change in cameras.

Not to open a can of worms here, but isn't anti-aliasing a good thing?
Even with a slight decrease in sharpness, I'd think it would be
beneficial.

Yes, of course it is, but:

- if you use lenses with no significant response above the Nyquist
frequency, then there's nothing for the AA filter to remove. I.e. with
lenses which aren't the sharpest it doesn't matter. Put another way, if
the camera is 36 MP but the lens only 18 MP, there may be no need for AA
filtering.

- optical AA filters are imperfect, so there is a design compromise
between little filtering and some moiré, and too much filtering and loss
of sharpness (i.e. loss of high spatial frequencies). Different folk will
have different tastes and choose different degrees of AA filtering.

- there are some folk who appear to be confused about sharpness, judging
by phrases like "razor sharp" and the gross over-sharpening you see on
some people's images. Perhaps they are still using CRT monitors which
have become out-of-focus with age? G

Cheers,
David