A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon new release D7100



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old March 14th 13, 12:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Nikon new release D7100

David Taylor wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
not what was written!


It's how it comes across to me, and is typical of that particular
poster. If I have done him an injustice this time, I would apologise.


Maybe you're on a hair trigger with this poster ... I think
in this case you overreacted a bit. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

-Wolfgang
  #152  
Old March 14th 13, 01:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Nikon new release D7100

David Taylor wrote:

If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that we may be approaching, or we
may have reached, a "sufficiently high" pixel density for many people
for much of the time. That's not an unqualified "are".


Which means that for some people it's most of the time
unacceptable and for others on the average (pulling a number
out of thin air (or is it a vacuum?)) every 10th or 20th image
has problems. :-)

Personally, I want the camera to fail me only very rarely
compared to the times where I make the mistake. But that's me.

What percentage of aliasing-degraded or -ruined, potentially
unrepeatable shots (North polar cruise, graduation/award
presentation, your child shaking the hand of Mr. President,
raising the (second) flag on Iwo Jima, ...) are you willing
to accept for the missing AA filter?

-Wolfgang
  #153  
Old March 14th 13, 04:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Nikon new release D7100

On 14/03/2013 12:29, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:

If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that we may be approaching, or we
may have reached, a "sufficiently high" pixel density for many people
for much of the time. That's not an unqualified "are".


Which means that for some people it's most of the time
unacceptable and for others on the average (pulling a number
out of thin air (or is it a vacuum?)) every 10th or 20th image
has problems. :-)

Personally, I want the camera to fail me only very rarely
compared to the times where I make the mistake. But that's me.

What percentage of aliasing-degraded or -ruined, potentially
unrepeatable shots (North polar cruise, graduation/award
presentation, your child shaking the hand of Mr. President,
raising the (second) flag on Iwo Jima, ...) are you willing
to accept for the missing AA filter?

-Wolfgang


I don't know what percentage of images taken with the D800E (or D7100)
would be unacceptable - perhaps users of those cameras will be kind
enough to tell us (D7100 in due course). Clearly, you would prefer the
lower percentage that having an AA filter produces, as would I on a
relatively low pixel count camera.

I'm not fussed about most of the situations you mention. I have been on
both an Antarctic cruise and one around Svalbard, and aliasing or not
was the least of my photographic worries. Exposure, cold batteries, and
preventing the camera from getting wet were of far greater concern!

But I take your point. Do you deliberately go for cameras with a
stronger AA filter, with even lower risk?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #154  
Old March 14th 13, 04:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Nikon new release D7100

On 13/03/2013 18:46, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
Now, your 18 MPix compact camera ... how many pixels would
that be on FF, and what's the widest aperture possible (and
what would be the equivalent aperture for an FF camera,
regarding airy disk size) and how good _is_ the lens?

These limits may well be so that any possible airy disk of
that (unchangeable) combination of optically average, possibly
quite slow lens and humungous pixel density must cover several
pixels --- in which case an AA filter --- as I understand it
--- can't help anyways and can therefore be safely omitted.

-Wolfgang


I've not done the sums on that camera. Maximum lens aperture is f/2.8.
Of course, when looked at 1:1 18 MP images from a compact camera have
far more problems than aliasing! But you are right - it may be that
with that combination the AA filter provides little or no benefit.

Having a camera with a 27 - 810 mm equivalent range weighing just 583
grams more than makes up for image imperfections - at least in daylight.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #155  
Old March 14th 13, 04:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Nikon new release D7100

On 14/03/2013 11:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
not what was written!


It's how it comes across to me, and is typical of that particular
poster. If I have done him an injustice this time, I would apologise.


Maybe you're on a hair trigger with this poster ... I think
in this case you overreacted a bit. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

-Wolfgang


Oh, it could well be, but I've been there before, and seen others
subjected to similar treatment as well.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #156  
Old March 14th 13, 04:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Nikon new release D7100

David Taylor wrote:
On 14/03/2013 11:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
not what was written!


It's how it comes across to me, and is typical of that particular
poster. If I have done him an injustice this time, I would apologise.


Maybe you're on a hair trigger with this poster ... I think
in this case you overreacted a bit. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

-Wolfgang


Oh, it could well be, but I've been there before, and
seen others subjected to similar treatment as well.


What treatment is that though... you responding with
Ad Hominem when someone provides facts to refute what
you've said that isn't true? Tsch...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #157  
Old March 14th 13, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Nikon new release D7100



Yes, for some purposes it has been reached: shooting
pictures of very smooth blank walls that have zero
texture.

Do you do that often?

If you so much as have a fly land on that wall, it will
have detail above the Nyquist Limit.


But ... the fly will not have moire! Its true that my Canon 7D,
even WITH an AA filter will do serious moire if I take a picture of
my LCD TV screen at exactly the wrong distance. Very serious!
And that's using ANY of my five lenses! But in real use I notice no problems.

Doug McDonald

  #158  
Old March 14th 13, 10:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nikon new release D7100

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:46:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

David Taylor wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:25, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


As for my needs: I'll stay with AA, but then I'd be happy
enough with 8 MPix + (good) ISO 12,800 or more. But that's
not available today, so my camera has more MPix. (My old
camera had 8 MPix, and that was nearly never a concern, much
less a problem. Quite unlike high ISO.)


I have similar needs. Most of my images are displayed on 2-3 Mpix
monitors, with the occasional A4 print (which won't be examined with a
magnifying glass).


Though I do mostly roughly A4-sized prints of the important
photos, sometimes even roughly twice the size (in an 1:2
format), which is OK (though not very good) from a 2:3 8
MPix source.

I would have preferred my recently purchased compact
camera to have 8 MP rather than the 18 MP it has.


In this case you can downsample in camera, and maybe it even
has mRAW or sRAW ...

I haven't even
checked whether that has an AA filter or not.


Now, your 18 MPix compact camera ... how many pixels would
that be on FF, and what's the widest aperture possible (and
what would be the equivalent aperture for an FF camera,
regarding airy disk size) and how good _is_ the lens?

These limits may well be so that any possible airy disk of
that (unchangeable) combination of optically average, possibly
quite slow lens and humungous pixel density must cover several
pixels --- in which case an AA filter --- as I understand it
--- can't help anyways and can therefore be safely omitted.

That's what a lot of people have been trying to argue. For what it's
worth, I agree with you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #159  
Old March 15th 13, 12:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Nikon new release D7100

David Taylor wrote:
On 13/03/2013 18:46, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
Now, your 18 MPix compact camera ... how many pixels would
that be on FF, and what's the widest aperture possible (and
what would be the equivalent aperture for an FF camera,
regarding airy disk size) and how good _is_ the lens?


These limits may well be so that any possible airy disk of
that (unchangeable) combination of optically average, possibly
quite slow lens and humungous pixel density must cover several
pixels --- in which case an AA filter --- as I understand it
--- can't help anyways and can therefore be safely omitted.


I've not done the sums on that camera. Maximum lens aperture is f/2.8.
Of course, when looked at 1:1 18 MP images from a compact camera have
far more problems than aliasing!


The main problems are too high expectations and too high
expectations. :-)

But you are right - it may be that
with that combination the AA filter provides little or no benefit.


Having a camera with a 27 - 810 mm equivalent range weighing just 583
grams more than makes up for image imperfections - at least in daylight.


There's quite obviously a market and need.

-Wolfgang
  #160  
Old March 15th 13, 12:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Nikon new release D7100

David Taylor wrote:

But I take your point. Do you deliberately go for cameras with a
stronger AA filter, with even lower risk?


Not really, unless you count "stronger than zero". :-)

-Wolfgang
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I knew it, I KNEW IT! New D7100 24mp NO AA filter!!! David Taylor Digital SLR Cameras 4 February 25th 13 04:52 AM
Would Nikon release new telescopes? Paul Furman Digital Photography 7 August 31st 10 04:16 AM
Nikon Afficionado's New Release Due When?? uw wayne 35mm Photo Equipment 37 May 3rd 06 05:02 AM
FA: Nikon N70 AF Black Body and Nikon Remote Shutter release J N General Equipment For Sale 0 September 24th 03 07:51 PM
FA: Nikon N70 AF Black Body and Nikon Remote Shutter release J N 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 September 24th 03 07:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.