Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

sometimes. the problem is you never know ahead of time what you might
get.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

medium format backs have a much higher resolution, so there's going to
be less aliasing. they may also shoot subjects where it's not likely to
be a problem, such as glassware or food.

And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

actually artifacts are not that rare at all, and worse, you can't know
they're there until you inspect the image, which is not going to happen
for most situations. if the shot was a once in a lifetime opportunity,
you're screwed no matter what you do.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to
detect by visual inspection.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the
resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even
just judgments about a single image being adequate, that
provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone
were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that
in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different
world.

The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce
equal or better results. But that does not also mean
that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful
results.

That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera,
nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and
you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work
professionally...

And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are
relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them
are other than negligible for the desired output. But
even those that cannot be ignored are all too common.
Plus as technology advances what people will accept as
negligible is going to change. A year from now the
minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated
from today's standards...

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

nospam writes:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

sometimes. the problem is you never know ahead of time what you might
get.

Depending on how often it happens, and how you shoot, it may or may not
be a problem to have to check carefully while shooting.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

medium format backs have a much higher resolution, so there's going to
be less aliasing. they may also shoot subjects where it's not likely to
be a problem, such as glassware or food.

You may perhaps have noticed that one way the D800 differs from the D700
is the resolution.

And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

actually artifacts are not that rare at all, and worse, you can't know
they're there until you inspect the image, which is not going to happen
for most situations. if the shot was a once in a lifetime opportunity,
you're screwed no matter what you do.

It's almost impossible to get except with man-made objects (nature
doesn't tend towards regular grids). Most of the things people shoot
and want serious high-res for are not "grab shots", either.

But absolutely, the D800E is NOT the camera for photojournalists, sports
photographers, most portraitists, or many architectural or studio
shooters (depending on how slowly and carefully they normally work; if
you see the moire problem immediately, you can usually find a very
slight variation of the setup that eliminates it).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual
problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire.

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with
the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting
just around my home. Yuck.

But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix.

In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to
detect by visual inspection.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the
resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even
just judgments about a single image being adequate, that
provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone
were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that
in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different
world.

The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce
equal or better results. But that does not also mean
that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful
results.

That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera,
nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and
you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work
professionally...

Clearly AA is the current frontier. The digital backs and Leica have
played with it already, now Nikon is. Oh, and the Fuji EVIL camera is
without AA and doing stuff with Bayer filter layout to avoid color
artifacts.

And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are
relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them
are other than negligible for the desired output. But
even those that cannot be ignored are all too common.
Plus as technology advances what people will accept as
negligible is going to change. A year from now the
minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated
from today's standards...

I'm betting that will go the other way in regards to moire.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual
problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire.

You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was
absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy
to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It
*added noise*, and the image does not show what was in
the original scene.

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with
the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting
just around my home. Yuck.

But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix.

The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast,
so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and
reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image
quality.

In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to
detect by visual inspection.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the
resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even
just judgments about a single image being adequate, that
provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone
were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that
in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different
world.

The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce
equal or better results. But that does not also mean
that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful
results.

That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera,
nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and
you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work
professionally...

Clearly AA is the current frontier. The digital backs and Leica have
played with it already, now Nikon is. Oh, and the Fuji EVIL camera is
without AA and doing stuff with Bayer filter layout to avoid color
artifacts.

Yep, and it is possible (though maybe not) that Nikon
will have a signficiantly greater effect on the public
awareness of what it all means. Instead of market hype
from Leica we will have a much better informed and
larger group of people who will actually have
experience.

It will be a different game 12 months from now...


And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are
relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them
are other than negligible for the desired output. But
even those that cannot be ignored are all too common.
Plus as technology advances what people will accept as
negligible is going to change. A year from now the
minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated
from today's standards...

I'm betting that will go the other way in regards to moire.

I doubt that! As people become aware of it, and the
fact that it need not be acceptable, it won't be.
Fashion is where everyone thinks non-AA filtered cameras
are used, and I doubt they will decide on the D800E
rather than the D800! Actually, I don't see any mass
market segment picking up on the D800E for a specific
product. It's going to appeal to the same kind of folks
that buy the Leica M9.

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

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely
difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution
of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time).

so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after
it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias
artifact or actual detail.

That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for
artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall
somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it
"looks right", not that it *is* right.

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual
problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire.

You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was
absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy
to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It
*added noise*, and the image does not show what was in
the original scene.

You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most
photography, that's not accurate.

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with
the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting
just around my home. Yuck.

But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix.

The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast,
so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and
reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image
quality.

Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image
quality; the images look sharper to people.

In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to
detect by visual inspection.

some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so
they want the artifacts to stay.

And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently.

It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the
resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even
just judgments about a single image being adequate, that
provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone
were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that
in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different
world.

The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce
equal or better results. But that does not also mean
that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful
results.

That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera,
nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and
you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work
professionally...

Clearly AA is the current frontier. The digital backs and Leica have
played with it already, now Nikon is. Oh, and the Fuji EVIL camera is
without AA and doing stuff with Bayer filter layout to avoid color
artifacts.

Yep, and it is possible (though maybe not) that Nikon
will have a signficiantly greater effect on the public
awareness of what it all means. Instead of market hype
from Leica we will have a much better informed and
larger group of people who will actually have
experience.

It will be a different game 12 months from now...

And I'm not prepared to bet much of anything on any prediction of
details of that different game :-).

It'd be better, certainly, if it were based on buyers knowing more about
these choices.

And one can often (always, with
enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people
can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if
they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or
whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.)

that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even
use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from
scratch because it's full of artifacts?

Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time
you win.

It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are
relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them
are other than negligible for the desired output. But
even those that cannot be ignored are all too common.
Plus as technology advances what people will accept as
negligible is going to change. A year from now the
minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated
from today's standards...

I'm betting that will go the other way in regards to moire.

I doubt that! As people become aware of it, and the
fact that it need not be acceptable, it won't be.
Fashion is where everyone thinks non-AA filtered cameras
are used, and I doubt they will decide on the D800E
rather than the D800! Actually, I don't see any mass
market segment picking up on the D800E for a specific
product. It's going to appeal to the same kind of folks
that buy the Leica M9.

Fashion? No; not me, not anybody I've heard talk. Fashion is full of
regular patterns, from the actual weave of materials on up. It's pretty
much the worst-case environment for moire.

The place that it seems to me to make sense, from reports of people
using other non-AA gear, is for landscape photos, nature photos,
wildlife, macro, and such -- when there's nothing manmage, nothing
regularly patterned, in the scene.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual
problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire.

You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was
absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy
to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It
*added noise*, and the image does not show what was in
the original scene.

You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most
photography, that's not accurate.

of course it's a problem. accurately reproducing the subject is the
goal. if you want to modify it later, such as something artsy and
surrealistic, that's something separate.

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with
the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting
just around my home. Yuck.

But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix.

The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast,
so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and
reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image
quality.

Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image
quality; the images look sharper to people.

if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant
about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,'
but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so.

sharpening is separate, and a lot of people also mistake high amounts
of sharpening to mean higher quality.

in fact, that's the whole secret sauce to sigma/foveon. lots of
aliasing and lots of sharpening.

nospam writes:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right
because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject.

That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly
look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that
will largely go unnoticed.

No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread
throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I
believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to
Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which
are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does
it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if
there are no patterns.

Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual
problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire.

You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was
absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy
to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It
*added noise*, and the image does not show what was in
the original scene.

You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most
photography, that's not accurate.

of course it's a problem. accurately reproducing the subject is the
goal. if you want to modify it later, such as something artsy and
surrealistic, that's something separate.

Not everybody has that definition of photography. And many people who
might say they do don't behave in practice as if they did.

B&W is not "accurately reproducing". Using a red filter to darken skies
is not "accurately reproducing".

It's something similar to flare, where you have the
common belief that if you don't see reflections of a
light source in the image it is absolutely not being
affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare
in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the
contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at
all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast
to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare.

I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with
the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting
just around my home. Yuck.

But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix.

The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast,
so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and
reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image
quality.

Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image
quality; the images look sharper to people.

if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant
about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,'
but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so.

Or have different preferences than you do.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

B&W is not "accurately reproducing". Using a red filter to darken skies
is not "accurately reproducing".

b&w falls into the artsy category, especially when done with filters.

The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast,
so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and
reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image
quality.

Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image
quality; the images look sharper to people.

if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant
about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,'
but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so.

Or have different preferences than you do.

maybe so, but it does not change the fact that images with alias
artifacts are *not* higher quality and do *not* resolve more detail.
the 'extra detail' is false.

however, some people do prefer that. sigma caters to them.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:48:15 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
: It's almost impossible to get [Moiré patterns] except with man-made objects
: (nature doesn't tend towards regular grids). Most of the things people
: shoot and want serious high-res for are not "grab shots", either.
:
: But absolutely, the D800E is NOT the camera for photojournalists, sports
: photographers, most portraitists, or many architectural or studio
: shooters (depending on how slowly and carefully they normally work; if
: you see the moire problem immediately, you can usually find a very
: slight variation of the setup that eliminates it).

I made the following point earlier in a slightly different form, but I'm not
sure anybody noticed.

It's my strong suspicion that the D800E will sell well enough to justify its
existence, but will be almost nobody's only camera. A pro or semi-pro photog
has to have a backup camera and might well buy both the D800 and the D800E. I
suppose I might have done exactly that myself if I were a well-heeled
Nikonian. I use two cameras for most of my event photography anyway, and in
event photography Moiré is unlikely to be a problem. But in a situation where
I thought I needed the highest possible resolution, the E version would be
available. Under this assumption David, Floyd, Bruce, nospam, and the rest of
the contestants of this issue could all be right, and it wouldn't make any
difference. Am I all wet or onto something?

Bob