Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D

wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:44 pm, "David J Taylor"
-this- bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:

If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias
filter - it's false. The effect will be that the higher spatial
frequencies are aliased down to the lower ones, and this is most
easily visible on patterned objects, as you know, creating rather
nasty artefacts in the image.

You mean like this one?

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ca...eos40d-004.jpg

Notice how the lines criss-cross.



Quite possibly, yes.

Compare different cameras when the spatial frequency of the pattern
approaches half the sampling frequency.

David

John Bean wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:25 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:37 pm, "David J Taylor"

Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters!

How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is
visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher
resolution.

Harry Nyquist will be spinning in his grave...

If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias
filter - it's false.

Don't waste your energy trying to explain facts to the troll
David.

It may be worth it to see if there's a general feeling that: "Some images
are 'cleaner' than others, but you are not sure why".

David

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:34:09 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

John Bean wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:25 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:37 pm, "David J Taylor"

Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters!

How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is
visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher
resolution.

Harry Nyquist will be spinning in his grave...

If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias
filter - it's false.

Don't waste your energy trying to explain facts to the troll
David.

It may be worth it to see if there's a general feeling that: "Some images
are 'cleaner' than others, but you are not sure why".

Equally many people seem to think that edge sharpness is
king and seem to ignore rendering quality in general. This
applies to both lenses and sensors, and manufacturers are
just meeting the demand.

The first Pentax dSLRs (*istD/DS) had quite strong AA
filters and older Pentax lenses tended to be corrected to
produce pleasing pictorial rendering rather than maximum
sharpness; the combination produces some stunning images.
More recent additions to both body and lens ranges seem to
have taken the path of sharpness at all cost, not a
direction that pleases me.

"Never mind the quality, just look how *sharp* it is" :-(

--
John Bean

John Bean wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:34:09 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
It may be worth it to see if there's a general feeling that: "Some
images are 'cleaner' than others, but you are not sure why".

Equally many people seem to think that edge sharpness is
king and seem to ignore rendering quality in general. This
applies to both lenses and sensors, and manufacturers are
just meeting the demand.

The first Pentax dSLRs (*istD/DS) had quite strong AA
filters and older Pentax lenses tended to be corrected to
produce pleasing pictorial rendering rather than maximum
sharpness; the combination produces some stunning images.
More recent additions to both body and lens ranges seem to
have taken the path of sharpness at all cost, not a
direction that pleases me.

"Never mind the quality, just look how *sharp* it is" :-(

Blame the pixel-peepers?

David

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:01:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

John Bean wrote:

"Never mind the quality, just look how *sharp* it is" :-(

Blame the pixel-peepers?

I don't blame anybody, it's just market forces at work. Even
I do some pixel-peeping, but only when there's something
wong with an image and I'm trying to find the cause.

So long as I have choices I'll use what pleases me and those
who seek ultimate sharpness will choose something else.
Choice is always a Good Thing :-)

--
John Bean

On Oct 25, 2:34 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:44 pm, "David J Taylor"
-this- bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:

If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias
filter - it's false. The effect will be that the higher spatial
frequencies are aliased down to the lower ones, and this is most
easily visible on patterned objects, as you know, creating rather
nasty artefacts in the image.

You mean like this one?

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ca...ompared/Resolu...

Notice how the lines criss-cross.



Quite possibly, yes.

Compare different cameras when the spatial frequency of the pattern
approaches half the sampling frequency.

David


My point was that if you look at the diagonal resolution lines the
Canon shows aliasing artifacts while the Pentax and Nikon do not. So
which camera has the stronger aliasing?

Anyway, the cameras are so close none of this matters one iota in real-
world photography.

wrote:
[]
My point was that if you look at the diagonal resolution lines the
Canon shows aliasing artifacts while the Pentax and Nikon do not. So
which camera has the stronger aliasing?

Anyway, the cameras are so close none of this matters one iota in
real- world photography.

You only gave one image to look at, not several to compare. Please give
the full URLs of the images you are talking about.

Getting the best overall image quality may actually depend quite strongly
on getting a camera fitted with a sufficiently good anti-alias filter,
although some may prefer the false sharpness from a weak or omitted
filter. Of course, the lens quality matters as well (whether it has a
high enough MTF at spatial frequencies which will make alias artefacts
visible).

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
wrote:
[]
My point was that if you look at the diagonal resolution lines the
Canon shows aliasing artifacts while the Pentax and Nikon do not. So
which camera has the stronger aliasing?

Anyway, the cameras are so close none of this matters one iota in
real- world photography.

You only gave one image to look at, not several to compare. Please give
the full URLs of the images you are talking about.

Getting the best overall image quality may actually depend quite strongly
on getting a camera fitted with a sufficiently good anti-alias filter,
although some may prefer the false sharpness from a weak or omitted
filter. Of course, the lens quality matters as well (whether it has a
high enough MTF at spatial frequencies which will make alias artefacts
visible).

Cheers,
David


So why is this false sharpness if there is no bad moire effects?

Pete D wrote:
[]
So why is this false sharpness if there is no bad moire effects?

If there is no aliasing, there is no "false-sharpness".

David

On Oct 26, 2:29 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
wrote:

[]

My point was that if you look at the diagonal resolution lines the
Canon shows aliasing artifacts while the Pentax and Nikon do not. So
which camera has the stronger aliasing?

Anyway, the cameras are so close none of this matters one iota in
real- world photography.

You only gave one image to look at, not several to compare. Please give
the full URLs of the images you are talking about.


I was pointing to DPReviews's own resolution charts from the D40
review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page28.asp

Look at the comparison of the diagonal resolution lines near the
bottom of the page.