Nikon new release D7100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Speaking of the Nikon D7000 it looks like a replacement D7100


    The new Nikon D7100 DSLR features a 24.1MP DX-format CMOS sensor and an
    EXPEED 3 image processor, which work together to produce high resolution
    still imagery and full HD 1080i/p video in multiple frame rates. Movie
    recording is also benefitted through the inclusion of both external
    microphone and headphone jacks as well as the ability to manual adjust
    exposure settings during recording. A notable improvement in image
    sharpness and resolution is afforded through the removal of the optical
    low-pass filter, and a 51-point autofocus system with 15 cross-type
    sensors ensures quick and precise focusing. The large 3.2" 1,229k-dot
    LCD monitor allows live view monitoring and image review and the optical
    pentaprism viewfinder incorporates an OLED information display and
    provides 100% field coverage. The EXPEED 3 image processor also provides
    a wealth of speed throughout the camera system and enables a
    full-resolution continuous shooting rate of 6fps, a 1.3x DX crop
    continuous shooting rate of 7fps and an expandable maximum sensitivity
    to ISO 25600. The new Spot White Balance features permits selective
    control over custom white balance settings and built-in HDR
    automatically composites bracketed frames to produce a single image with
    an extended dynamic range. The D7100 is compatible with the WU-1a
    Wireless Mobile Adapter to enable wireless connectivity and the ability
    to instantly transfer imagery to iOS and Android mobile devices. Housing
    all of the imaging technology is a redesigned body that features
    magnesium alloy top and rear covers for increased durability and
    moisture- and weather-resistance. The D7100 is available as a body only
    or in a kit with the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5l.6G ED VR lens.
    Rob, Feb 22, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:02:27 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
    : Speaking of the Nikon D7000 it looks like a replacement D7100
    :
    :
    : The new Nikon D7100 DSLR features a 24.1MP DX-format CMOS sensor and an
    : EXPEED 3 image processor, which work together to produce high resolution
    : still imagery and full HD 1080i/p video in multiple frame rates. Movie
    : recording is also benefitted through the inclusion of both external
    : microphone and headphone jacks as well as the ability to manual adjust
    : exposure settings during recording. A notable improvement in image
    : sharpness and resolution is afforded through the removal of the optical
    : low-pass filter, and a 51-point autofocus system with 15 cross-type
    : sensors ensures quick and precise focusing. The large 3.2" 1,229k-dot
    : LCD monitor allows live view monitoring and image review and the optical
    : pentaprism viewfinder incorporates an OLED information display and
    : provides 100% field coverage. The EXPEED 3 image processor also provides
    : a wealth of speed throughout the camera system and enables a
    : full-resolution continuous shooting rate of 6fps, a 1.3x DX crop
    : continuous shooting rate of 7fps and an expandable maximum sensitivity
    : to ISO 25600. The new Spot White Balance features permits selective
    : control over custom white balance settings and built-in HDR
    : automatically composites bracketed frames to produce a single image with
    : an extended dynamic range. The D7100 is compatible with the WU-1a
    : Wireless Mobile Adapter to enable wireless connectivity and the ability
    : to instantly transfer imagery to iOS and Android mobile devices. Housing
    : all of the imaging technology is a redesigned body that features
    : magnesium alloy top and rear covers for increased durability and
    : moisture- and weather-resistance. The D7100 is available as a body only
    : or in a kit with the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5l.6G ED VR lens.

    So.... Is THIS the long-awaited "D300 Replacement"? Or just one more shred of
    evidence that Nikon now equates serious photography with full-frame and that a
    true D300 replacement is a pipe dream? (As a Canonian, I of course ask this
    question only to stir the pot and keep it boiling evenly.) ;^)

    BTW, I don't think I'd be happy with the kit lens, if the best it can do at
    105mm is f/51.6.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 23, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.


    it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    nospam, Feb 23, 2013
    #3
  4. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 23/02/2013 21:18, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.


    In theory, yes, but you /did/ see the post from someone who had taken
    several thousand photos on a filter-free D800, and only seen aliasing in
    a couple of them? With "consumer" rather than "quality professional"
    lenses the visibility of such errors is much less likely (as lower
    lenses have lower MTF at the higher spatial frequencies).
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Feb 24, 2013
    #4
  5. Fredrik Jonson, Feb 28, 2013
    #5
  6. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 1/03/2013 6:52 AM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
    > Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> So.... Is THIS the long-awaited "D300 Replacement"?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > "I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the
    > D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera - such is the information
    > received from Nikon Japan on the matter." // Nikon Europe Support
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841
    > http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/24/nikon-europe-the-d7100-is-not-positioned-to-replace-the-d300s
    >



    I don't think it ever was a d300 replacement, my understanding, at the
    time, the D7000 was a D90 replacement and fits that category.
    Rob, Mar 1, 2013
    #6
  7. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alfred
    > Molon <> wrote:
    >
    >> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

    >
    > it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >


    And your experience using one is?
    Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #7
  8. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51315af1$0$10794$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

    > >
    > > it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > > detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > > take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

    >
    > And your experience using one is?
    > Or is your comment made based on a survey.


    displaying your ignorance again, i see.

    it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

    > One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    > are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    > she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    > is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.


    that's nice.

    being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    or not there is aliasing.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #8
  9. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 2/03/2013 12:50 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Alfred
    >> Molon <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

    >>
    >> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >>

    >
    > And your experience using one is?
    > Or is your comment made based on a survey.
    >
    > One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    > are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    > she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    > is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    >


    My only option in getting the D800 was the availability of the E only.

    Like I have mentioned previously, out of all the thousands of images
    there has only been a couple showing aliasing. Its not a problem in not
    having the filter. I haven't compared it side by side with the D800 so I
    don't Know.

    I would suggest that to give it a proper test you need to shoot side by
    side and compare the results frame by frame.

    Would I buy another E - yes. Its people who put up all the technical BS
    that don't use one but thing everyone else shouldn't be using them either.
    Rob, Mar 2, 2013
    #9
  10. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/1/2013 9:35 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51315af1$0$10794$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>
    >>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

    >>
    >> And your experience using one is?
    >> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    >
    > displaying your ignorance again, i see.


    Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.
    All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
    little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
    especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
    discussion.


    >
    > it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    > something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    > cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    > bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.
    >
    >> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    >> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    >> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    >> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

    >
    > that's nice.
    >
    > being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    > or not there is aliasing.


    For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
    Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
    standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
    commercially acceptable.

    BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    Eizo, at the upper end.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #10
  11. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >>> >> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    > >>> >
    > >>> > it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > >>> > detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > >>> > take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    > >>>
    > >>> And your experience using one is?
    > >>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    >
    > What he said is *precisely* correct.
    >
    > >>displaying your ignorance again, i see.
    > >>
    > >>it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    > >>something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    > >>cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    > >>bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

    >
    > That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
    > that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
    > understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
    > antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
    > for most readers here.)


    that's why i originally phrased it the way i did. solid colour wall
    (not much detail) versus something with a lot of detail. simple
    concepts rather than complex signal theory.

    ....snip...

    > >>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    > >>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    > >>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    > >>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    > >>
    > >>that's nice.
    > >>
    > >>being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    > >>or not there is aliasing.

    >
    > Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
    > distortion in a single image.


    that depends on the image. i can frequently spot aliasing in foveon
    images because it's so damned prevalent. in fact, it's hard not to
    notice it.

    > And if shown two
    > identical images differring only in the amount of
    > aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
    > comparison to generate) most people might well be able
    > to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
    > to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
    > cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
    > distortion!


    very true. the foveon fanbois love aliasing and think it's real detail.
    some even think the sigma dp cameras are a 'poor man's d800'.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #11
  12. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    > >> >
    > >> > it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > >> > detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > >> > take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    > >>
    > >> And your experience using one is?
    > >> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    > >
    > >displaying your ignorance again, i see.
    > >
    > >it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    > >something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    > >cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    > >bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

    >
    > It's not quite that simple.


    yes it is. go read a book on signal theory. obviously there's much more
    to the topic than just that, but it's a good summary.

    > If you wade through all of
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml you will
    > eventually reach the conclusion:


    the only conclusion i've reached by reading that site is michael
    reichmann wouldn't know aliasing if it bit him on the ass.

    he loves foveon cameras because he thinks they have incredible detail
    when it's really nothing more than a lot of alias artifacts, excessive
    sharpening and a boost in contrast. that's the entire 'secret sauce' of
    foveon.

    in other words, he is fooled into thinking alias artifacts is real
    detail, not the false detail it actually is.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #12
  13. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 2:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:35:26 -0500, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <51315af1$0$10794$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >>>>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >>>>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >>>>
    >>>> And your experience using one is?
    >>>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    >
    > What he said is *precisely* correct.
    >
    >>> displaying your ignorance again, i see.
    >>>
    >>> it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    >>> something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    >>> cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    >>> bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

    >
    > That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
    > that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
    > understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
    > antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
    > for most readers here.)
    >
    >> It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml you will
    >> eventually reach the conclusion:

    >
    > Do you understand what he said, or what these
    > "conclusions" are saying?
    >
    > It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
    > filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
    > ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
    > optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
    > low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
    > analog electronic filter).
    >
    >> "Conclusions
    >>
    >> So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
    >> the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
    >> format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
    >> they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.

    >
    > That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
    > Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
    > provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
    > good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
    > some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.
    >
    > But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
    > filters.
    >
    >> It is easier to
    >> correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
    >> approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
    >> signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
    >> effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
    >> noise.

    >
    > That last sentence is out of context and has no
    > significant meaning.
    >
    > Note that the above section contradicts the statement
    > just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
    > lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
    > not.
    >
    >> Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
    >> real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
    >> aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
    >> exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
    >> regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

    >
    > The last sentence is pure fabrication.
    >
    >> You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
    >> looking at a print because the variables that determine the
    >> subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
    >> comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
    >> confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
    >> of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
    >> circle of confusion.."

    >
    > That is correct.
    >
    >>>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    >>>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    >>>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    >>>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    >>>
    >>> that's nice.
    >>>
    >>> being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    >>> or not there is aliasing.

    >
    > Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
    > distortion in a single image. And if shown two
    > identical images differring only in the amount of
    > aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
    > comparison to generate) most people might well be able
    > to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
    > to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
    > cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
    > distortion!
    >


    He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
    acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    least the successful ones have that standard.)

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #13
  14. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 6:31 AM, Rob wrote:
    > On 2/03/2013 12:50 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Alfred
    >>> Molon <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>
    >>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And your experience using one is?
    >> Or is your comment made based on a survey.
    >>
    >> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    >> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    >> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    >> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    >>

    >
    > My only option in getting the D800 was the availability of the E only.
    >
    > Like I have mentioned previously, out of all the thousands of images
    > there has only been a couple showing aliasing. Its not a problem in not
    > having the filter. I haven't compared it side by side with the D800 so I
    > don't Know.
    >
    > I would suggest that to give it a proper test you need to shoot side by
    > side and compare the results frame by frame.
    >
    > Would I buy another E - yes. Its people who put up all the technical BS
    > that don't use one but thing everyone else shouldn't be using them either.


    Yup! Sour grapes runs rampant.
    The E model is a great camera. I am very happy with my D800 and do not
    feel the need to upgrade. Would I buy an E rather than the one I have, I
    really don't know. I had considered it, but was offered my 800 at a
    fairly low price, and since I am not a professional, it was a no brainer.
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #14
  15. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <5132344f$0$10846$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    > >>>
    > >>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > >>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > >>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    > >>
    > >> And your experience using one is?
    > >> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    > >
    > > displaying your ignorance again, i see.

    >
    > Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.


    at least you admit it, and the more you babble the more clear it
    becomes.

    > All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
    > little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
    > especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
    > discussion.


    this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular camera. it's how
    *all* digital cameras work (and cd players and much more).

    go read a book on signal theory if you want proof, not that i expect
    you to understand much past the first page.

    > > it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    > > something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    > > cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    > > bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.
    > >
    > >> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    > >> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    > >> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    > >> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

    > >
    > > that's nice.
    > >
    > > being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    > > or not there is aliasing.

    >
    > For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
    > Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
    > standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
    > commercially acceptable.


    once again, being happy with the results or having something that's
    commercially acceptable doesn't mean there isn't aliasing.

    if there's detail beyond nyquist, there *will* be aliasing. period.
    there is no getting around this.

    > BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    > from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    > produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    > use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    > Eizo, at the upper end.


    so what? different tools for different jobs.

    apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
    hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #15
  16. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51323675$0$10783$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    > >>>>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    > >>>>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> And your experience using one is?
    > >>>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

    > >
    > > What he said is *precisely* correct.
    > >
    > >>> displaying your ignorance again, i see.
    > >>>
    > >>> it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    > >>> something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    > >>> cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    > >>> bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

    > >
    > > That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
    > > that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
    > > understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
    > > antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
    > > for most readers here.)
    > >
    > >> It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
    > >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml you will
    > >> eventually reach the conclusion:

    > >
    > > Do you understand what he said, or what these
    > > "conclusions" are saying?
    > >
    > > It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
    > > filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
    > > ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
    > > optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
    > > low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
    > > analog electronic filter).
    > >
    > >> "Conclusions
    > >>
    > >> So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
    > >> the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
    > >> format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
    > >> they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.

    > >
    > > That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
    > > Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
    > > provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
    > > good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
    > > some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.
    > >
    > > But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
    > > filters.
    > >
    > >> It is easier to
    > >> correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
    > >> approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
    > >> signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
    > >> effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
    > >> noise.

    > >
    > > That last sentence is out of context and has no
    > > significant meaning.
    > >
    > > Note that the above section contradicts the statement
    > > just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
    > > lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
    > > not.
    > >
    > >> Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
    > >> real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
    > >> aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
    > >> exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
    > >> regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

    > >
    > > The last sentence is pure fabrication.
    > >
    > >> You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
    > >> looking at a print because the variables that determine the
    > >> subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
    > >> comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
    > >> confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
    > >> of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
    > >> circle of confusion.."

    > >
    > > That is correct.
    > >
    > >>>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    > >>>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    > >>>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    > >>>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    > >>>
    > >>> that's nice.
    > >>>
    > >>> being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    > >>> or not there is aliasing.

    > >
    > > Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
    > > distortion in a single image. And if shown two
    > > identical images differring only in the amount of
    > > aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
    > > comparison to generate) most people might well be able
    > > to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
    > > to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
    > > cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
    > > distortion!

    >
    > He may be technically correct,


    at least you finally admit i'm correct.

    > but the discussion is about commercially
    > acceptable results.


    no it isn't.

    the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
    not what is commercially acceptable:
    > >>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.


    > Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    > technicalities.


    yes they do.

    > They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    > least the successful ones have that standard.)


    that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
    things.

    the truly successful ones understand both.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #16
  17. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51323675$0$10783$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >>>>>>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >>>>>>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And your experience using one is?
    >>>>>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.
    >>>
    >>> What he said is *precisely* correct.
    >>>
    >>>>> displaying your ignorance again, i see.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    >>>>> something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    >>>>> cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    >>>>> bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.
    >>>
    >>> That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
    >>> that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
    >>> understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
    >>> antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
    >>> for most readers here.)
    >>>
    >>>> It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
    >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml you will
    >>>> eventually reach the conclusion:
    >>>
    >>> Do you understand what he said, or what these
    >>> "conclusions" are saying?
    >>>
    >>> It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
    >>> filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
    >>> ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
    >>> optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
    >>> low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
    >>> analog electronic filter).
    >>>
    >>>> "Conclusions
    >>>>
    >>>> So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
    >>>> the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
    >>>> format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
    >>>> they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.
    >>>
    >>> That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
    >>> Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
    >>> provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
    >>> good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
    >>> some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.
    >>>
    >>> But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
    >>> filters.
    >>>
    >>>> It is easier to
    >>>> correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
    >>>> approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
    >>>> signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
    >>>> effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
    >>>> noise.
    >>>
    >>> That last sentence is out of context and has no
    >>> significant meaning.
    >>>
    >>> Note that the above section contradicts the statement
    >>> just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
    >>> lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
    >>> not.
    >>>
    >>>> Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
    >>>> real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
    >>>> aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
    >>>> exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
    >>>> regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.
    >>>
    >>> The last sentence is pure fabrication.
    >>>
    >>>> You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
    >>>> looking at a print because the variables that determine the
    >>>> subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
    >>>> comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
    >>>> confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
    >>>> of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
    >>>> circle of confusion.."
    >>>
    >>> That is correct.
    >>>
    >>>>>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    >>>>>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    >>>>>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    >>>>>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> that's nice.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    >>>>> or not there is aliasing.
    >>>
    >>> Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
    >>> distortion in a single image. And if shown two
    >>> identical images differring only in the amount of
    >>> aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
    >>> comparison to generate) most people might well be able
    >>> to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
    >>> to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
    >>> cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
    >>> distortion!

    >>
    >> He may be technically correct,

    >
    > at least you finally admit i'm correct.


    Only partially.


    >
    >> but the discussion is about commercially
    >> acceptable results.

    >
    > no it isn't.

    than you changed it without fair notice.

    >
    > the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
    > not what is commercially acceptable:
    >>>>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

    >
    >> Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    >> technicalities.

    >
    > yes they do.
    >

    Typical pissing from you.

    >> They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    >> least the successful ones have that standard.)

    >
    > that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
    > things.
    >
    > the truly successful ones understand both.
    >

    They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.

    BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
    categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
    don't know WTF you are talking about.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #17
  18. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5132344f$0$10846$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
    >>>>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
    >>>>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
    >>>>
    >>>> And your experience using one is?
    >>>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.
    >>>
    >>> displaying your ignorance again, i see.

    >>
    >> Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.

    >
    > at least you admit it, and the more you babble the more clear it
    > becomes.
    >
    >> All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
    >> little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
    >> especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
    >> discussion.

    >
    > this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular camera. it's how
    > *all* digital cameras work (and cd players and much more).
    >
    > go read a book on signal theory if you want proof, not that i expect
    > you to understand much past the first page.
    >
    >>> it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
    >>> something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
    >>> cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
    >>> bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.
    >>>
    >>>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
    >>>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
    >>>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
    >>>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
    >>>
    >>> that's nice.
    >>>
    >>> being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
    >>> or not there is aliasing.

    >>
    >> For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
    >> Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
    >> standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
    >> commercially acceptable.

    >
    > once again, being happy with the results or having something that's
    > commercially acceptable doesn't mean there isn't aliasing.
    >
    > if there's detail beyond nyquist, there *will* be aliasing. period.
    > there is no getting around this.
    >
    >> BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    >> from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    >> produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    >> use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    >> Eizo, at the upper end.

    >
    > so what? different tools for different jobs.
    >
    > apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
    > hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.


    So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or
    see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their
    budget.

    >


    Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's
    best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I
    would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle
    for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #18
  19. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51324115$0$10809$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    > >> from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    > >> produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    > >> use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    > >> Eizo, at the upper end.

    > >
    > > so what? different tools for different jobs.
    > >
    > > apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
    > > hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.

    >
    > So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or
    > see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their
    > budget.


    your point itself is irrelevant. this isn't about undertone subtlety or
    what apple sells.

    this discussion is about aliasing until you tried to twist it into
    something else because you have nothing better to do than argue.

    apple caters to the masses while eizo caters to the pros who do precise
    colour work. if you think apple should make high end displays or eizo
    should make low end displays, feel free to contact either company and
    voice your concerns.

    either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of aliasing
    and the nikon d800e and its lack of an aa filter.

    > Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's
    > best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I
    > would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle
    > for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products.


    nobody but you gives a shit if it outsells apple products. different
    products for different tasks.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #19
  20. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51323e69$0$10787$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> He may be technically correct,

    > >
    > > at least you finally admit i'm correct.

    >
    > Only partially.


    nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on
    signal theory.

    > >> but the discussion is about commercially
    > >> acceptable results.

    > >
    > > no it isn't.

    > than you changed it without fair notice.


    i didn't change a thing.

    > > the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
    > > not what is commercially acceptable:
    > >>>>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

    > >
    > >> Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    > >> technicalities.

    > >
    > > yes they do.
    > >

    > Typical pissing from you.
    >
    > >> They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    > >> least the successful ones have that standard.)

    > >
    > > that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
    > > things.
    > >
    > > the truly successful ones understand both.
    > >

    > They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.


    they can't get results if technical issues prevent it.

    nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory.

    > BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
    > categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
    > don't know WTF you are talking about.


    except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking
    about.

    furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it
    would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them,
    although i suspect not.

    but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't
    you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be
    *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk.
    nospam, Mar 2, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Torsten Kaiser \(TLEFilms\)
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    872
    Allan
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    461
    George K
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    422
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    955
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. RichA

    Would Nikon release new telescopes?

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    440
    Martin Brown
    Aug 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page