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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
On 3/5/2012 9:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote: There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA filter, where have you been? Probably spending days in front of his computer in his underclothes, rarely venturing outside, rarely experiencing fresh air or sunlight. There is a core of people doing the same thing, spouting nonsense and pet theories that they will never put to the test because they can't afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't know how to use it if they could. Theorising is all they have left, and their sole motivation is to make others unhappy with equipment they own or are considering buying. Jealousy is a strong driver of such behaviour - if you can't afford it or understand it, diss it. Leica users have to put up with this sort of crap all the time, always from people who cannot afford Leica gear, don't know how to use it, or most often both. As for moire, no one is arguing that you can experience moire without an AA filter, but the question is, how much is too much and is trading off 20% linear resolution from EVERY image worth eliminating a small risk of moire? The shooters whose images are at greatest risk from moire are fashion photographers. Most top fashion shooters use medium format digital cameras. Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time with no AA filters. But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't. Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can easily be avoided. However, it is being whipped up on online forums into something far worse by a group of profoundly ignorant people who simply haven't a clue about what they are talking about. So sayeth one who has continually failed to produce an image. -- Peter |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Rich wrote:
nospam wrote in news:040320120926345162% : In article , Bruce wrote: You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed. actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an inkling of a clue about what you're talking about. They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that show the complete opposite. bull****. if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous. There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA filter, Resolution that is swamped by artifact noise is worthless. -- Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. | Goethe |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
In article
, RichA wrote: "Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them. I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if the problem was that dire. just because you can't tell doesn't mean it's not there. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
"RichA" wrote in message
... [] "Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them. I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if the problem was that dire. Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths? Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA filtering is needed? Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously on natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular pattern. David |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
"David J Taylor" wrote in
: "RichA" wrote in message . .. [] "Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them. I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if the problem was that dire. Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths? Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA filtering is needed? Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously on natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular pattern. David I shot city stuff too, no evidence of moire, and I used a variety of lenses. I'll try to shoot some fine, repeating detail at varying distances and see what happens. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
RichA wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:15*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote: Rich wrote: There have *BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA filter, Resolution that is swamped by artifact noise is worthless. "Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? Why do people have to keep explaining the same concepts to you again and again and again?? Start with something called "moire". I've convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. You've bull****ted about dozens of cameras and have little credibility as to which ones you might actually use. -- Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. | Goethe |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
David J Taylor wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message ... [] "Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them. I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if the problem was that dire. Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths? Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA filtering is needed? You don't need actual information when you have faith as a substitute. -- Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. | Goethe |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
"Rich" wrote in message ... "David J Taylor" wrote in : [] Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths? Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA filtering is needed? Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously on natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular pattern. David I shot city stuff too, no evidence of moire, and I used a variety of lenses. I'll try to shoot some fine, repeating detail at varying distances and see what happens. So you didn't actually measure whether an AA filter was needed or not, once the camera was near-IR sensitive. When you shoot your tests, be sure to include the results with a non-converted camera as well. David |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:02:25 +1300, Me wrote:
On 3/03/2012 6:03 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote: wrote: Downsize the D4 images or whatever, but the output from the D3S is still the best of any DSLR. http://tinyurl.com/7mmbmkq Perhaps your subjective opinion is... eerrrrrr, less that valid? Here's something a little less difficult for you the analyze. See if you can tell us in what way it supports your bull**** opinion? http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO200snr.gif http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO3200snr.gif http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/Te...SO12800snr.gif What you are most interested in, since you probably don't know, is where the graphs show different cameras in each ISO at the -6 EV and lower. Specifically the D3S is the light green color, while a normalized to 12 MP D800 graph is in red and a normalized to 12 MP D4 graph is in blue. In all cases, but particularly at ISO 200, the D4 and D800 both have better SNR than the D3 and D3S. This information (collated by Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and others) just ain't going to "get through". The forums on DPReview are full of it. I'd hoped the 5dIII would have been near enough to 36mp to quell inter-brand BS on what "perfect pixel density" is. Dammit, now the Canon 5DII apologists will be arguing for exactly what they argued against when Canon had more pixels. Have you ben following the conversations on those DP Review boards? It's hilarious. Apparently, Canon has introduced the camera the Nikonians want while Nikon has introduced the camera the Cannonites want. Neither side is pleased with their company's introduction. For me, the 5D III is what I was looking for. Same resolution but vastly improved metering and AF, as well as better sealing. 22MP is plenty for me, and those 75M Nikon files could be a bit much. I'll be upgrading to the III in about 6 months. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
As suspected, it's crap | Bowser | Digital Photography | 3 | December 9th 10 07:03 PM |
What is the best way to clean lenses | Dave | Digital SLR Cameras | 12 | January 13th 06 11:24 AM |
how to clean a lens | pug brian | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 13 | November 14th 05 09:08 PM |
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! | Frank Malloway | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 6 | July 4th 03 09:17 PM |
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! | Frank Malloway | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 3rd 03 04:36 PM |