Nikon new release D7100

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

  1. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/03/2013 11:48, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 10/03/2013 10:49, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > []
    >> Where it is that you get that idea is totally beyond my
    >> comprehension!
    >>
    >> 36MP is not even close, unless you stop the lens down to
    >> f/45 or something very small to get excessive
    >> diffraction.

    >
    > Well, I was perhaps thinking more of 24 MB on DX format - as offered by
    > the Nikon D7100 - which is nearer 56 MB on full-frame. If 36 MP on full
    > frame were as bad as you seem to imply, wouldn't we be hearing more
    > reports of how bad the D800E was, how many were returning them, and what
    > a mistake it was? Perhaps "Bruce" would tell us what the return rate
    > was, if he were still listening?


    Typo: s/MB/MP/

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 10, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 10/03/2013 7:11 PM, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 09/03/2013 11:03, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> David Taylor <> wrote:

    > []
    >>> All I'm saying is that it's (excuse the pun) not black and white. Given
    >>> a sufficiently high pixel density, the AA filter may not be required
    >>> under certain circumstances, and as pixel density increases, those
    >>> criteria are increasingly likely to be encountered.

    >>
    >> I agree. I just disagree with you that current DSLR pixel
    >> counts are close to a 'sufficiently high pixel density'.

    >
    > Again, you are putting words in my mouth which I didn't say.
    >
    > There is no definitive value for "sufficiently high" - it depends on the
    > lens, the scene and the photographer's requirements. It appears that
    > for today's combinations of those variables, with 24 MP DX cameras and
    > 36 MP full-frame cameras we are either approaching or have reached
    > "sufficiently high" for many people for much of the time.
    >
    > Test cases, super-expensive lenses, and particular subjects excepting.


    I remember back when 6 Mp was reaching the limit. :)
     
    Rob, Mar 10, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 10/03/2013 9:49 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:
    >> On 09/03/2013 11:03, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> David Taylor <> wrote:

    >> []
    >>>> All I'm saying is that it's (excuse the pun) not black and white. Given
    >>>> a sufficiently high pixel density, the AA filter may not be required
    >>>> under certain circumstances, and as pixel density increases, those
    >>>> criteria are increasingly likely to be encountered.
    >>>
    >>> I agree. I just disagree with you that current DSLR pixel
    >>> counts are close to a 'sufficiently high pixel density'.

    >>
    >> Again, you are putting words in my mouth which I didn't say.
    >>
    >> There is no definitive value for "sufficiently high" -
    >> it depends on the lens, the scene and the photographer's
    >> requirements. It appears that for today's combinations
    >> of those variables, with 24 MP DX cameras and 36 MP
    >> full-frame cameras we are either approaching or have
    >> reached "sufficiently high" for many people for much of
    >> the time.
    >>
    >> Test cases, super-expensive lenses, and particular subjects excepting.

    >
    > Where it is that you get that idea is totally beyond my
    > comprehension!
    >
    > 36MP is not even close, unless you stop the lens down to
    > f/45 or something very small to get excessive
    > diffraction.
    >



    Nikon even advise against using small apertures in there brochure for
    the D800 for this very reason.
     
    Rob, Mar 10, 2013
    #63
  4. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/03/2013 14:00, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > I implied no such thing. There are just different
    > effects with a 36MP sensor from having or not having an
    > anti-aliasing filter. Personally I chose to have the
    > filter, others choose not to. Each has it's upside, and
    > a downside too.


    As I said, it's in part a personal choice.

    > The point was that 36MP is not high enough resolution
    > that diffraction effectively acts as an anti-aliasing
    > filter unless the aperture is extremely small. Note
    > that typical lenses are not even diffraction limited at
    > f/5.6, so the idea that such a lens would function as an
    > anti-aliasing filter is nonsense.


    I am not suggesting that. At the Nyquist frequency if the amplitude of
    the image components is sufficiently low, the aliasing effects will
    similarly be of a low amplitude, and may therefore be more tolerable.

    > You apparently don't understand what the significance of
    > an anti-aliasing filter is, and is not.


    Actually, I understand quite well. One needs to consider the total
    image chain (source characteristics, atmospheric MTF, lens, focussing
    etc). rather than a single perfect-lens/sensor calculation, to estimate
    how bad aliasing may be in practice. We are moving towards a point
    where the sensor will not be the limiting factor in aliasing, and for
    some purposes that point has already been reached. For you, perhaps
    not, and I'm quite happy to accept that.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 10, 2013
    #64
  5. Rob

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:13:21 -0500, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    : > addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    : > creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    : > themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    : > time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.
    :
    : wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    :
    : you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

    What he means is, he occasionally shoveled their walks as a kid. That's why he
    sometimes refers to digging.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 10, 2013
    #65
  6. Rob

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:07:40 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    : > In article <5132a29c$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    : > <> wrote:
    : >
    : >>>>>> 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.)
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
    : >>>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
    : >>>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Absolutely correct.
    : >>>>
    : >>>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
    : >>>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
    : >>>>> would be quite pissed of.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
    : >>>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.
    : >>>
    : >>> which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.
    : >>
    : >> Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.
    : >
    : > it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.
    : >
    : Your answer lived up to expectations. It should also be noted that you
    : snipped so that comments appear out of context.
    :
    : We also note that the English languish uses punctuation and
    : capitalization as aids to understanding.

    As it turns out, Peter, this was a particularly inopportune time to let your
    spellchecker try to guess what word you were aiming for. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 10, 2013
    #66
  7. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/10/2013 1:29 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:07:40 -0500, PeterN <>
    > wrote:
    > : On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > : > In article <5132a29c$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > : > <> wrote:
    > : >
    > : >>>>>> 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.)
    > : >>>>>
    > : >>>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
    > : >>>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
    > : >>>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> Absolutely correct.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
    > : >>>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
    > : >>>>> would be quite pissed of.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
    > : >>>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.
    > : >>>
    > : >>> which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.
    > : >>
    > : >> Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.
    > : >
    > : > it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.
    > : >
    > : Your answer lived up to expectations. It should also be noted that you
    > : snipped so that comments appear out of context.
    > :
    > : We also note that the English languish uses punctuation and
    > : capitalization as aids to understanding.
    >
    > As it turns out, Peter, this was a particularly inopportune time to let your
    > spellchecker try to guess what word you were aiming for. ;^)
    >
    > Bob
    >


    <G>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 10, 2013
    #67
  8. Rob

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:57:52 +0000, David Taylor
    <> wrote:
    : On 03/03/2013 18:40, Alfred Molon wrote:
    : []
    : > Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing?
    : > And you still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?
    :
    : I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.
    :
    : However, there is the question whether given (a) a sufficiently high
    : number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane), (b) a lens with
    : either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus,
    : (c) a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial
    : frequency, whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently
    : great an amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

    Fair enough, but one is still left with the central question: Is the alleged
    benefit of a non-AA camera (a barely perceptible increase in sharpness of the
    average picture) sufficient to motivate a prudent photographer to take the
    risk? The orange blotches on the aforementioned jacket would seem to suggest
    that the answer is "no". And the fact that one can envision a camera/lens
    system that lowers that risk by some hard-to-determine amount, doesn't do much
    to change that answer.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 10, 2013
    #68
  9. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 11/03/2013 7:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>>> At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
    >>>>> nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
    >>>>> pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
    >>>>> Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.
    >>>>
    >>>> In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
    >>>> enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
    >>>> That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
    >>>> aperture.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
    >>>> estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
    >>>> the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
    >>>> sensor.
    >>>>
    >>>> Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
    >>>> technology is just around the corner and will likely be
    >>>> available in the next decade.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
    >>> thinking storage space.

    >>
    >> Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
    >> ...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

    >
    > How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?
    >



    That's not as funny as it sounds, if you have ever used the D100, were
    they sloooow, the D200 became usable.
     
    Rob, Mar 10, 2013
    #69
  10. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 11/03/2013 10:31 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:00:32 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/03/2013 7:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
    >>>>>>>> nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
    >>>>>>>> pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
    >>>>>>>> Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
    >>>>>>> enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
    >>>>>>> That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
    >>>>>>> aperture.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
    >>>>>>> estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
    >>>>>>> the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
    >>>>>>> sensor.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
    >>>>>>> technology is just around the corner and will likely be
    >>>>>>> available in the next decade.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
    >>>>>> thinking storage space.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
    >>>>> ...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's not as funny as it sounds, if you have ever used the D100, were
    >>> they sloooow, the D200 became usable.

    >>
    >> I didn't mean it to be funny. It's a serious problem.

    >
    > And a lot of people didn't consider the D200 to be
    > "usable" either.
    >


    It was a big step up from the D100 buffer.




    > The D4 is the first DSLR that I'm aware of where you can
    > hold down the shutter release button and rattle off 100
    > shots in RAW mode without significant gaps while the
    > buffer is cleared.
    >
    > I've never done that for a real shoot, I used to hit the
    > limit with a D3S on a regular basis, and never do with a
    > D4. Once you get used to a D4 everything else can be a
    > little annoying now and then, even a D800 with all those
    > fabulous pixels.
    >
    > Just wait for the D5 generation... more pixels than a D800
    > and faster than a D4!
    >
     
    Rob, Mar 11, 2013
    #70
  11. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/03/2013 20:11, Robert Coe wrote:
    []
    > Fair enough, but one is still left with the central question: Is the alleged
    > benefit of a non-AA camera (a barely perceptible increase in sharpness of the
    > average picture) sufficient to motivate a prudent photographer to take the
    > risk? The orange blotches on the aforementioned jacket would seem to suggest
    > that the answer is "no". And the fact that one can envision a camera/lens
    > system that lowers that risk by some hard-to-determine amount, doesn't do much
    > to change that answer.
    >
    > Bob


    The orange blotches were not obtained with a 36 MP DSLR, I believe, so
    are not representative of the 56 MP (full-frame equivalent) D7100. Have
    we seen D7100 images where the problem actually shows? But I agree that
    it's a judgement every prospective purchaser needs to make.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 11, 2013
    #71
  12. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/03/2013 21:52, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:
    >> On 10/03/2013 14:00, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> []
    >>> I implied no such thing. There are just different
    >>> effects with a 36MP sensor from having or not having an
    >>> anti-aliasing filter. Personally I chose to have the
    >>> filter, others choose not to. Each has it's upside, and
    >>> a downside too.

    >>
    >> As I said, it's in part a personal choice.
    >>
    >>> The point was that 36MP is not high enough resolution
    >>> that diffraction effectively acts as an anti-aliasing
    >>> filter unless the aperture is extremely small. Note
    >>> that typical lenses are not even diffraction limited at
    >>> f/5.6, so the idea that such a lens would function as an
    >>> anti-aliasing filter is nonsense.

    >>
    >> I am not suggesting that. At the Nyquist frequency if
    >> the amplitude of the image components is sufficiently
    >> low, the aliasing effects will similarly be of a low
    >> amplitude, and may therefore be more tolerable.

    >
    > You are erroneously claiming that a 36MP sensor puts the
    > Nyquist frequency above the resolving power of typical
    > lenses. The fact is that it doesn't even come close.
    >
    >>> You apparently don't understand what the significance of
    >>> an anti-aliasing filter is, and is not.

    >>
    >> Actually, I understand quite well.

    >
    > If that were true you would not continue with the above
    > erroeous assertions.
    >
    >> One needs to
    >> consider the total image chain (source characteristics,
    >> atmospheric MTF, lens, focussing etc). rather than a
    >> single perfect-lens/sensor calculation, to estimate how
    >> bad aliasing may be in practice. We are moving towards
    >> a point where the sensor will not be the limiting factor
    >> in aliasing, and for some purposes that point has
    >> already been reached. For you, perhaps not, and I'm
    >> quite happy to accept that.

    >
    > Yes, for some purposes it has been reached: shooting
    > pictures of very smooth blank walls that have zero
    > texture.
    >
    > Do you do that often?
    >
    > If you so much as have a fly land on that wall, it will
    > have detail above the Nyquist Limit.


    The discussion is not about a 36 MP sensor, but one which has a pixel
    density equivalent to a 56 MB full-frame one. To reach the resolving
    limit of the lens requires (most likely) using a tripod, being in
    perfect focus, having a subject which doesn't move significantly during
    the exposure time, and having an atmospheric MTF which is perfect. Most
    practical lenses will not reach the diffraction-limited resolution when
    fully open.

    Most of my photos fail on one or more of those criteria, if yours do not
    then you will need a better sensor, I agree.

    What is happening is that the sensor pixel density in the D7100 is now
    at the levels where for the majority of users there is no need for an
    anti-alias filter, or that's what Nikon appears to believe. I don't see
    significant aliasing issues in these images, do you?

    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm

    I await more sample images with interest.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 11, 2013
    #72
  13. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 10:35, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > I don't think that is a correct evaluation of what
    > Nikon is doing at all. They try to sell what people
    > want to buy.
    >
    > That doesn't mean Nikon is not aware that a 150MP
    > sensor will provide a better image in terms of aliasing.
    >
    >> http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm
    >>
    >> I await more sample images with interest.

    >
    > Do you actually expect Nikon marketing to provide images
    > that demonstrate a fault???


    There may be some data above Nyquist, but it's the amplitude of that
    data which determines how visible the aliasing artefacts will be. We
    differ on whether the typical photo under typical taking circumstances
    has enough high-frequency component to bother a 36 MP (full-frame) or 24
    MP (DX) sensor. No doubt test cases can be produced under more lab-like
    conditions which are a more stringent test.

    You may well be right about Nikon, although it would seem foolhardy to
    sell a camera they know will have problems and will not meet people's
    expectations. More (and independent) sample images may help prove (or
    disprove) the point.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 11, 2013
    #73
  14. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 13:54, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > There is no question that given the right scene there
    > are all kinds of very nasty visible artifacts... moire
    > patterns.


    Yes, given good focus, no camera shake, lenses working at optimum, no
    atmospheric blur etc. etc.

    > Just because moire doesn't appear in every image doesn't
    > mean there is no aliasing distortion in every image.


    Wrong. If there is no information above Nyquist there can be no aliasing.

    > There is no such thing today, and never will be, as a
    > camera that meets everyone's expectations. Nikon was
    > clearly taken by surprise at the popularity of what they
    > clearly considered a niche market D800E model, and are
    > unabashedly capitalizing on that with the D7100. It
    > would be foolhardy for them to decide they know it
    > actually has no benefit and not produce it.


    Perhaps - but let's wait and see all those nasty images from the D7100
    with significant aliasing artefacts. Let's see how many D7100 are
    returned to the camera stores.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 11, 2013
    #74
  15. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 10/03/2013 10:49, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


    >> 36MP is not even close, unless you stop the lens down to
    >> f/45 or something very small to get excessive
    >> diffraction.


    > Well, I was perhaps thinking more of 24 MB on DX format - as offered by
    > the Nikon D7100 - which is nearer 56 MB on full-frame.


    So an increase of less than 25% linearly is your difference
    between "not even close" and "more than needed"?

    And yes, you still get moire, AA filter or not, with these
    cameras.

    > If 36 MP on full
    > frame were as bad as you seem to imply, wouldn't we be hearing more
    > reports of how bad the D800E was, how many were returning them, and what
    > a mistake it was?


    Why should they?
    The ones who know what they are doing, i.e. weighted the
    possible false detail against the increased resolution, are
    checking while shooting and reshoot if necessary.

    The ones who are blinded by the "more MP, more sharpness"
    drivel probably aren't seeing the moire --- but will once
    they are going to recheck their photos in a couple years,
    having become wiser. (I remember my first digital camera.
    It was decentered, producing a rather large spot of softness
    on the right hand side. Took me a while to spot that ---
    I wasn't shooting test charts --- but once you knew it it was
    visible in many shots.)

    The ones who shoot non-critical subjects will encounter it
    rarely.

    But for general photography moire might be the same as if your
    AF misfocusses every 20th, 50th or 100th frame and mars or ruins
    that picture. I understand that's not acceptable to many,
    wheras the slight decrease in sharpness isn't much of a
    problem; most of it can be recovered.

    In addition, colourful single pixel highlights --- while
    correctable in post --- aren't a joy to have either. With AA
    filters, you get at least the right colour.


    > Perhaps "Bruce" would tell us what the return rate
    > was, if he were still listening?


    Which, see above, won't tell you much about the camera's ability
    to perform in general photography without restrictions. *If*
    /you/ can live with the restrictions, fine! Just don't tell
    me /I/ and John Q. Photographer and Jane Q. Snapshooter have
    to live with them, too!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 11, 2013
    #75
  16. Rob

    nospam Guest

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

    > >You may well be right about Nikon, although it would
    > >seem foolhardy to sell a camera they know will have
    > >problems and will not meet people's expectations. More
    > >(and independent) sample images may help prove (or
    > >disprove) the point.

    >
    > There is no such thing today, and never will be, as a
    > camera that meets everyone's expectations. Nikon was
    > clearly taken by surprise at the popularity of what they
    > clearly considered a niche market D800E model, and are
    > unabashedly capitalizing on that with the D7100. It
    > would be foolhardy for them to decide they know it
    > actually has no benefit and not produce it.


    their mistake is not offering a choice for those who want an anti-alias
    filter on the d7100.
     
    nospam, Mar 11, 2013
    #76
  17. David Taylor <> wrote:

    > The discussion is not about a 36 MP sensor, but one which has a pixel
    > density equivalent to a 56 MB full-frame one.


    That's just 25% more linearly and doesn't matter much.

    > To reach the resolving
    > limit of the lens requires (most likely) using a tripod,


    A short enough time or flash suffices with usable techniques.

    > being in
    > perfect focus,


    The assumption being that
    a) the AF isn't good enough
    (Canon's AF in the newest cameras, using their newest
    lenses is as good as LifeView AF and manual focussing
    using LifeView + 10x zoom!)
    b) you or your subject move too much for the focus to stay
    true to the closing shutter
    c) only the part you want to focus on can have moire
    Imagine photographing a clothed person. Can you guarantee
    that your plane of focus will never go through some clothing?

    > having a subject which doesn't move significantly during
    > the exposure time,


    Again: short enough time or flash.
    Manmade objects often don't move during photography and are
    common sources for close parallel lines ...

    > and having an atmospheric MTF which is perfect.


    There's a wide range between a macro shot with a couple cm
    air in a cleanroom and a photographing something from 10 km
    away in dense fog.

    > Most
    > practical lenses will not reach the diffraction-limited resolution when
    > fully open.


    Usable ones often will at f/4 or f/5.6.

    f/5.6 means airy disks of ~3.8µm (green light).
    If airy disk size ~= pixel size: ~61 MPix.
    But you want at least 3 pixels being hit with one airy disk:
    red, green and blue. With the standard Bayer pattern, this
    means 4 pixels, and that means ~245 MPix for f/5.6!


    > What is happening is that the sensor pixel density in the D7100 is now
    > at the levels where for the majority of users there is no need for an
    > anti-alias filter, or that's what Nikon appears to believe.


    That's at least what Nikon appears to believe.

    > I don't see
    > significant aliasing issues in these images, do you?
    > http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm


    Even if the camera was only able to produce usable pictures
    after sacrificing several virgins and waving a black chicken
    over it, I'd expect near perfect samples from the manufacturer.
    (And a huge pile of ex-virgins and a whole zoo of black
    chicken in their backyard, as well as reams of photos they'll
    never show.)

    You don't, I take it?

    Not that these images had much stuff that'd tend to produce
    moire ... to bad that the air filter(?) on the bottom of the
    biplane's engine doesn't seem to resolve whatever pattern it
    has ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 11, 2013
    #77
  18. Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
    >>nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
    >>pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).


    Ah, the joys of miscalculation!

    >>Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.


    > In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
    > enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
    > That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > aperture.


    Well, try a diffraction limited lens, then.
    550 nm (green)

    Airy disk size x at f/1.2:

    x ~= 1.22 * 550 nm * 1.2
    ~= 805.2 nm = 0.8052 µm

    0.8 µm airy disk.

    Assume pixel size == airy disk size
    36mm / 0.8 µm = 36mm / 0.0008mm = 45,000
    24mm / 0.8 µm = 24mm / 0.0008mm = 30,000

    30,000 * 45,000 = 1,350,000,000 = 1.35 GPix.

    Now, you need not ONE, but FOUR pixels with bayer patterns if
    you want spots to have the right colour. Usually, this is
    done with the AA filter. Having none, that airy disk needs
    to cover all four. 1.35 GPix * 2*2 = 5,4 GPix


    I'd like to see your calculation now.


    > Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
    > estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
    > the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
    > sensor.


    200 MP means a ~ 11.500 x 17.300 pixel sensor.
    36 mm / 17.300 ~= 2.1 µm
    You want 4 pixels per airy disk. (half the linear size)

    2.1 µm / 2 = 1.22 * 550 nm4 * f/x
    <=> 2.1 µm / 2 / 1.22 / 550 nm = f/x
    <=> 2.1 µm / 2 / 1.22 / 0.55 µm ~= 6,26

    200MP would be enough for f/6,4, but not for f/5,6, not for
    f/4, not for f/2.8, not for f/2, not for f/1.8, not for f/1.4,
    not for f/1.2.


    > Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
    > technology is just around the corner and will likely be
    > available in the next decade.


    The D800 can do ISO6400, let's assume we want that quality
    or better. Let's also assume we don't want to downsample to
    38 MPix. Then --- unless the sensor's QE rises, we're stuck
    with ISO 1200 *at the same pixel quality* --- or downsampling.
    (And that's a best case, assuming there's no penalty due
    to small pixels other than that they capture proportionally
    less light).

    Conversely, if you shoot ISO 200 on the D800 for quality and
    contrast range, you would need to dial in ISO 38 on that 200
    MPix camera --- or again, sample down.

    Oh, fps will be low. The 4 fps of the D800 would be 0.75
    ps; yes, you can go faster, but that costs quality or money.
    (and that's even true with downsampling). Never mind storage
    space and fast computers to handle the image size, they'll
    probably grow enough in a decade.

    And yet, except for the extra detail you simply won't get unless
    you really work on it --- an AA filter works just as well.
    Sure, you'll get these 0.xGPix cameras as special tools. But
    for general photography?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 11, 2013
    #78
  19. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 19:14, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <khl0ro$lec$>, David Taylor says...
    >> Wrong. If there is no information above Nyquist there can be no aliasing.

    >
    > But there is if you take out the AA filter.


    Not if there is no information in the image on the sensor at that
    spatial frequency - due to all the effects I already mentioned.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 11, 2013
    #79
  20. Rob

    Me Guest

    On 11/03/2013 11:35 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > I don't think that is a correct evaluation of what
    > Nikon is doing at all. They try to sell what people
    > want to buy.
    >
    > That doesn't mean Nikon is not aware that a 150MP
    > sensor will provide a better image in terms of aliasing.
    >
    >> http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm
    >>
    >> I await more sample images with interest.

    >
    > Do you actually expect Nikon marketing to provide images
    > that demonstrate a fault???
    >

    Indeed they did when the released the D800 and D800E, IIRC, to
    demonstrate they issue they put up some photos on the Nikon Imaging site
    of a woman wearing a kimono, with moire clearly visible in the D800E shot.

    There have been plenty of A:B comparison photos taken with D800 and
    D800E put up on the 'net. With a tiny bit of low radius USM applied to
    the D800 shots, they look just like the D800E shots - I can't tell them
    apart at 100% pixel view anyway. The AA filter isn't a cure-all either -
    you can still get moire with the D800.
     
    Me, Mar 11, 2013
    #80
    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:
    947
    Allan
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    531
    George K
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    493
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,029
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. RichA

    Would Nikon release new telescopes?

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    505
    Martin Brown
    Aug 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page