«

Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.

RichA <> wrote:

>Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
>have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
>supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
>odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
>with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
>moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.


My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. That was made in 2004.

Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
beyond recognition. All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
moire. It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
has been unnecessarily degraded.

Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. You can
lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

On Feb 7, 10:49*am, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
> >>have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
> >>supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. *The Fuji is the
> >>odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
> >>with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
> >>moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.
>
> >My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. *That was made in 2004.
>
> >Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
> >eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
> >beyond recognition. *All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
> >moire. *It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
> >has been unnecessarily degraded.
>
> >Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
> >greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. *You can
> >lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. *
>
> You have an astonishing lack of technical acumen.
>

The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
an old D100 I converted for IR work.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:

> >Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
> >have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
> >supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
> >odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
> >with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
> >moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.
>
> My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. That was made in 2004.

and its users complained about the 'italian flag syndrome,' aka,
aliasing artifacts.

> Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
> eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
> beyond recognition. All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
> moire. It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
> has been unnecessarily degraded.

nonsense. there are not billions of such images.

> Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
> greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. You can
> lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

how ironic. you've been led to the facts about aliasing and sampling
theory, but yet you still refuse to believe any of it, clinging to this
idiotic notion of antialiasing filters causing mush.

if you're getting mush, you are doing something wrong or your camera is
defective. it's not due to an aa filter.

In article
<204668f0-1aec-4cd4-bfb3->,
RichA <> wrote:

> The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
> today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
> an old D100 I converted for IR work.

what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
sharpness improvements.

In article <>, Rich
<> wrote:

> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?

bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).

On Feb 8, 10:17*am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <204668f0-1aec-4cd4-bfb3-319af4e51...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The proof is in the pudding. *Converted D200s with a modest (by
> > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> > improvements. *There are sites that show this. *I even noticed it on
> > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
>
> what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
> sharpness improvements.

So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
be visible?

On Feb 8, 10:17*am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <SbydnbnQneDrS6zSnZ2dnUVZ_uGdn...@giganews.com>, Rich
>
> <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
>
> bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).

Even if it is the case that no additional detail was gained, the mere
ability to be able to increase sharpness without inducing edge
artifacting that you see on normal AA filtered images when too much
sharpness is applied is a good enough reason to switch to an AA-less
camera. I agree, sharpness increases do not always = detail
increases, but clean sharpness increases are always desirable,
especially if you are making larger prints, or cropping.

http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

In article
<8df03917-9322-43c9-9dea->,
RichA <> wrote:
> > > Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
> >
> > bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> > at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> > isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
>
> Even if it is the case that no additional detail was gained, the mere
> ability to be able to increase sharpness without inducing edge
> artifacting that you see on normal AA filtered images when too much
> sharpness is applied is a good enough reason to switch to an AA-less
> camera.

no it isn't and you can add the sharpness in the processing. like i
said, you don't understand what it is you're looking at.

> I agree, sharpness increases do not always = detail
> increases, but clean sharpness increases are always desirable,
> especially if you are making larger prints, or cropping.
>
> http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

they're selling something, so obviously they're going to try to paint a
rosy picture. the funny thing is they even say it's worse:

Notice that the HR models clearly shows some banding and color moiré
problems.

In article
<6a194f23-673a-46f2-9693->,
RichA <> wrote:

> > > The proof is in the pudding. *Converted D200s with a modest (by
> > > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> > > improvements. *There are sites that show this. *I even noticed it on
> > > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
> >
> > what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
> > sharpness improvements.
>
> So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
> be visible?

no details that were not originally in the subject.

what you get are artifacts, or false detail, which occasionally might
look ok, but most of the time it will be a problem.