Another camera ditches the AA filter

In article 8cecf01e-8920-4646-86db-d298f3fe0579
@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Does anyone see a pattern developing here?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/ric...c-compact.html

How are Ricoh planning to deal with aliasing?
--

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, RichA says...

Does anyone see a pattern developing here?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/ric...c-compact.html

How are Ricoh planning to deal with aliasing?

Bad lens. :-)
Probably made from plastics, just to make RichA unhappy.
That may be a pattern ...

-Wolfgang

RichA wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:06*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 8cecf01e-8920-4646-86db-d298f3fe0579
@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, RichA says...

Does anyone see a pattern developing here?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/ric...c-compact.html

How are Ricoh planning to deal with aliasing?

I don't think they believe it'll be a real issue. The cost saving by
eliminating the AA filter might be a consideration. Even though some
companies actually charge more for a camera without one than with.

The D800E is said to be without an AA filter. In fact it has 1/2 an AA
filter followed by a negative half AA filter. Or something like that.
A case of WYSINWYG. Which is part of the reason for the extra cost.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:06Â*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:

I don't think they believe it'll be a real issue. The cost saving by
eliminating the AA filter might be a consideration. Even though some
companies actually charge more for a camera without one than with.

The D800E is said to be without an AA filter. In fact it has 1/2 an AA
filter followed by a negative half AA filter. Or something like that.
A case of WYSINWYG. Which is part of the reason for the extra cost.

Bull.

It would be far costlier if you need to produce 2 different
camera bodies with different optical paths. Remember that's
mass manufacturing for a mass market, and only in that way
you can have such complicated exact tools for such prices.

The reason for the extra cost is that THE MAKET WILL BEAR IT.
It's very hard to understand, I know, I know, but manufacturing
costs and the money you pay for the item has absolutely
no relation. Think "loss leader" and "hybrid costing" ---
manufacturing costs are not even guaranteed to be a lower limit.

-Wolfgang

On 5/2/2013 5:43 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:06 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:

I don't think they believe it'll be a real issue. The cost saving by
eliminating the AA filter might be a consideration. Even though some
companies actually charge more for a camera without one than with.

The D800E is said to be without an AA filter. In fact it has 1/2 an AA
filter followed by a negative half AA filter. Or something like that.
A case of WYSINWYG. Which is part of the reason for the extra cost.

Bull.

It would be far costlier if you need to produce 2 different
camera bodies with different optical paths. Remember that's
mass manufacturing for a mass market, and only in that way
you can have such complicated exact tools for such prices.

The reason for the extra cost is that THE MAKET WILL BEAR IT.
It's very hard to understand, I know, I know, but manufacturing
costs and the money you pay for the item has absolutely
no relation. Think "loss leader" and "hybrid costing" ---
manufacturing costs are not even guaranteed to be a lower limit.


OMG The world is about to come to an end. I am forced to agree.


--
PeterN