Nikon new release D7100

In article , Rob says...
On 3/03/2013 7:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
says...
No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
a fashion shoot.


In practical terms have you used a camera without the AA filter on a
fashion shoot?

If not how can you give this advice?

Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing? And you
still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 03/03/2013 18:40, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing? And you
still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?

I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.

However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane), (b) a lens with
either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus, (c)
a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.

You may /both/ be right!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing? And you
still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?

I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.

the sigma fanbois don't think it exists.

in fact, they insist it does not exist and that foveon cameras can
capture detail beyond nyquist.

they even claim they see the same moire patterns with their eyes and
the cameras are accurately capturing those patterns, whereas other
cameras blur it all to mush.

On 3/3/2013 1:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:13:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.


I can think of no other way to say this:
you are either full of ****, or the creative directors you cliame to
have worked with were not very successful..

You seem to forget that nospam knows everything about everything.


Sorry, I lost my head.

--
PeterN

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:49:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.

It was a Samsung S2, but any camera without an AA filter can produce
such results. Also Nikon DSLRs.

I pulled the camera ID from the EXIF data.

I understand that those photographers using Nikon 800e cameras report
almost no problems with aliasing, even on fashion work.

Note, I didn't say 'no problems'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/03/2013 11:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:49:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.

It was a Samsung S2, but any camera without an AA filter can produce
such results. Also Nikon DSLRs.

I pulled the camera ID from the EXIF data.

I understand that those photographers using Nikon 800e cameras report
almost no problems with aliasing, even on fashion work.

Note, I didn't say 'no problems'.



Its only the people who haven't got one who find fault and complain

On 4/03/2013 3:13 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.


I can think of no other way to say this:
you are either full of ****, or the creative directors you cliame to
have worked with were not very successful..



Creative directors on a shoot are a pain in the bum.

On 3/4/2013 11:03 PM, Rob wrote:
On 4/03/2013 3:13 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.


I can think of no other way to say this:
you are either full of ****, or the creative directors you cliame to
have worked with were not very successful..



Creative directors on a shoot are a pain in the bum.

they don't have the time. And yes, they can be. The only time one should
be on a shoot, is a location shoot on a cruise ship.



--
PeterN

David Taylor wrote:

However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane),

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/13
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/13

24 MPix APS-C (equivalent to 54 or more MPix FF) and you
*still* get moire.

(b) a lens with
either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus,

And *hope* the critical parts are OOF? Fun. Not.

(c)
a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

And use a ... weak ... lens? Yep, that's why people buy an
expensive high resolution DSLR.

There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.

Yep: the phone camera has an insane pixel density, the FF DSLR does not.

-Wolfgang

Rob wrote:
On 4/03/2013 11:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

I understand that those photographers using Nikon 800e cameras report
almost no problems with aliasing, even on fashion work.

Note, I didn't say 'no problems'.

Its only the people who haven't got one who find fault and complain

Sure, the same way that "There are no significant bugs in our
released software that any significant number of users want
fixed" (Microsoft).

-Wolfgang