Nikon new release D7100

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

  1. Rob

    Me Guest

    On 12/03/2013 12:23 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Me <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > All of the above is exactly true.
    >
    > Of particular significance is that last line, "you can
    > still get moire with the D800". That is with all these
    > other effects that David Taylor believes will remove it
    > for cameras without an AA filter *and* with an AA filter
    > in place.
    >

    A worrying aspect to this, is that at present rate of progress, these
    arguments are likely to to continue for a very long time indeed:
    http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg
    <g>
    Me, Mar 12, 2013
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 23:23, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > Of particular significance is that last line, "you can
    > still get moire with the D800". That is with all these
    > other effects that David Taylor believes will remove it
    > for cameras without an AA filter *and* with an AA filter
    > in place.


    The optical anti-alias filters used with DSLRs are not the same as the
    analogue or digital brick-wall filters used in audio, and do not have a
    sharp cut-off just below the Nyquist frequency.

    As you have now resorted to personal attacks, don't expect any further
    response from me.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 12, 2013
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 12/03/2013 02:25, Me wrote:
    []
    > A worrying aspect to this, is that at present rate of progress, these
    > arguments are likely to to continue for a very long time indeed:
    > http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg
    > <g>


    Nice one! There really should not be an argument, as the physics and
    signal-processing theory are well understood. The discussion is really
    about "when are aliasing artefacts sufficiently weak that they can be
    ignored?". Different people will have different requirements.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 12, 2013
    #83
  4. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 19:48, Me wrote:
    []
    > 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.


    Yes, you would expect this. Unlike the filters (analogue and digital)
    used in audio, the optical low-pass filter used in cameras does not have
    a particularly sharp cut-off. It's not a "brick-wall" filter (i.e. one
    have near zero response just after Nyquist and near 100% response just
    before Nyquist).

    As there is not "correct" value for such a comprise filter, you find
    some cameras having a slightly stronger AA filter (set at a lower
    spatial frequency) and others compromise the other way, set the nominal
    cut-off at a higher spatial frequency, and hence produce sharper images,
    but with a great possibility of aliasing artefacts.

    But if there is no information at or above the Nyquist frequency, there
    can be no alias artefacts.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 12, 2013
    #84
  5. 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.


    So do we agree that current DSLRs don't have 'sufficiently
    high pixel density'?


    > 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.


    But here you are saying that current DSLR pixelcounts are
    close to a sufficiently high pixel density (at least for
    many situations) --- which is what I 'put on your mouth'!


    > Test cases, super-expensive lenses, and particular subjects excepting.


    Good macro lenses are not super-expensive, for example.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 12, 2013
    #85
  6. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 11/03/2013 23:23, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


    >> Of particular significance is that last line, "you can
    >> still get moire with the D800". That is with all these
    >> other effects that David Taylor believes will remove it
    >> for cameras without an AA filter *and* with an AA filter
    >> in place.


    > The optical anti-alias filters used with DSLRs are not the same as the
    > analogue or digital brick-wall filters used in audio, and do not have a
    > sharp cut-off just below the Nyquist frequency.


    True but irrelevant unless the D800E will have less moire
    (or less likely moire) in the identical conditions where the
    D800 non-E has moire.

    > As you have now resorted to personal attacks, don't expect any further
    > response from me.


    Uh --- where *is* the personal attack?

    All I can see is the claim that you believe that stuff like
    non-perfect lenses, stopping down a bit, imperfect focus
    etc. will prevent moire for high pixel count cameras. That may
    be a misrepresentation you can correct (e.g. "I agree that the
    D800 pixeldensity is too low for preventing moire generally,
    but by now I am talking about ..."), but a personal attack?

    Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
    believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
    not what was written!

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 12, 2013
    #86
  7. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 12/03/2013 02:25, Me wrote:


    >> A worrying aspect to this, is that at present rate of progress, these
    >> arguments are likely to to continue for a very long time indeed:
    >> http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg
    >> <g>


    > Nice one! There really should not be an argument, as the physics and
    > signal-processing theory are well understood. The discussion is really
    > about "when are aliasing artefacts sufficiently weak that they can be
    > ignored?". Different people will have different requirements.


    Identical people have different requirements at different times.
    And many won't have the money to have both an AA and a non-AA
    camera, nor would enjoy carrying both.

    If you however know your future requirements to not need an
    AA filter *and* to need the (assumed) extra resolution, feel
    free to buy such a camera, the matching lenses and the sturdy
    tripod and cable release ...

    As for my needs: I'll stay with AA, but then I'd be happy
    enough with 8 MPix + (good) ISO 12,800 or more. But that's
    not available today, so my camera has more MPix. (My old
    camera had 8 MPix, and that was nearly never a concern, much
    less a problem. Quite unlike high ISO.)


    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 12, 2013
    #87
  8. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 17:19, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > 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


    25% may not be a lot on its own, but it's the successive 25% (or
    whatever) that count, the cumulative effect of going from 6 to 8 to 10
    etc. MP.

    Studio conditions will be different to outdoor photography (where I
    don't use flash very often). No one set of options will suit everyone.

    Agreed with the need to consider Bayer requirements, although I don't
    think it's as simple doubling the spatial requirement, or quadrupling
    the pixel requirement.

    Do you mean:
    http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_04_l.jpg ? I
    can see detail in the air filter. On closer examination, though, I can
    also see aliasing on the wires between the wings, which I had not seen
    before.

    As I said, more sample photos are needed, and independent ones.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 12, 2013
    #88
  9. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/03/2013 16:34, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > 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"?


    Not my words....

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


    Of course, as I already mentioned.

    >> 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.


    Yes, but there comes a point where there isn't sufficient information at
    the above Nyquist spatial frequency to produce the aliasing artefacts in
    the first place. Getting that perfect sharpness isn't easy, as reports
    on the D800 demonstrated. Different photographers will have different
    needs.

    >> 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


    Nikon would appear to be doing that with the D7100, though. It will be
    interesting to see how well it's accepted.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 12, 2013
    #89
  10. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 11/03/2013 17:19, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> 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


    > 25% may not be a lot on its own, but it's the successive 25% (or
    > whatever) that count, the cumulative effect of going from 6 to 8 to 10
    > etc. MP.


    Correct. However, since we started with 6MP very far away
    from not needing an AA filter[1] a *lot* of successive 25%
    increases are necessary. It has been shown that current DSLR
    sensor densities can have moire even with AA filters ...


    > Studio conditions will be different to outdoor photography (where I
    > don't use flash very often). No one set of options will suit everyone.


    There are however sets of options which are able to support
    an all-round camera --- they are for most usages the safe bet.

    Of course, for some the chance to wring every last bit of
    resolution out of their camera is much more important than
    the risk of aliasing and moire and coloured highlights and
    therefore a camera that's less viable for some situations.
    It's a good thing for these people to be able to buy what they
    need/want (as long as they understand the drawbacks).


    > Agreed with the need to consider Bayer requirements, although I don't
    > think it's as simple doubling the spatial requirement, or quadrupling
    > the pixel requirement.


    It's at least what I understand the AA filter does: spread
    one pixel's light to e.g. the pixel to the right and both to
    the pixels below.

    > Do you mean:
    > http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_04_l.jpg ? I
    > can see detail in the air filter.


    Yes --- I see some noise-like pattern of gray with darker
    random dots, and some (comparatively large) stains; I guess
    there's a regular grid there but I cannot see it --- it's too
    fine to be resolved. (Or maybe it's indeed a sort of grey
    foam or cloth which is so low contrast that it's structure
    wouldn't be visible even if it was large enough.) (Of couse
    I can see the metal holder grid :)

    > On closer examination, though, I can
    > also see aliasing on the wires between the wings, which I had not seen
    > before.


    There's something strange there, but for all I know the wires
    could be vibrating with a high frequency in the airstream and
    we're seeing some static waveform: the more blurred parts is
    where the wire has lots of amplitude and the sharper parts
    where the vibration nodes are (and where the wire has almost
    no amplitude and is static).

    > As I said, more sample photos are needed, and independent ones.


    Yep, indeed.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] 1995's Kodak DCS460 had 6 MPix, and unless I don't mix up
    things it had no AA filter and had reportedly fun with
    strangely coloured highlights, one of the things an AA
    filter is designed to combat)
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 12, 2013
    #90
  11. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 12/03/2013 13:04, Wolfgang Weisselberg 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.

    >
    > So do we agree that current DSLRs don't have 'sufficiently
    > high pixel density'?
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > But here you are saying that current DSLR pixelcounts are
    > close to a sufficiently high pixel density (at least for
    > many situations) --- which is what I 'put on your mouth'!
    >
    >
    >> Test cases, super-expensive lenses, and particular subjects excepting.

    >
    > Good macro lenses are not super-expensive, for example.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that we may be approaching, or we
    may have reached, a "sufficiently high" pixel density for many people
    for much of the time. That's not an unqualified "are".

    Agreed on macro lenses.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 13, 2013
    #91
  12. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 12/03/2013 13:25, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    []
    > Identical people have different requirements at different times.
    > And many won't have the money to have both an AA and a non-AA
    > camera, nor would enjoy carrying both.
    >
    > If you however know your future requirements to not need an
    > AA filter *and* to need the (assumed) extra resolution, feel
    > free to buy such a camera, the matching lenses and the sturdy
    > tripod and cable release ...
    >
    > As for my needs: I'll stay with AA, but then I'd be happy
    > enough with 8 MPix + (good) ISO 12,800 or more. But that's
    > not available today, so my camera has more MPix. (My old
    > camera had 8 MPix, and that was nearly never a concern, much
    > less a problem. Quite unlike high ISO.)
    >
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    I have similar needs. Most of my images are displayed on 2-3 Mpix
    monitors, with the occasional A4 print (which won't be examined with a
    magnifying glass). I would have preferred my recently purchased compact
    camera to have 8 MP rather than the 18 MP it has. I haven't even
    checked whether that has an AA filter or not.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 13, 2013
    #92
  13. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 12/03/2013 13:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    []
    > Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
    > believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
    > not what was written!
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    It's how it comes across to me, and is typical of that particular
    poster. If I have done him an injustice this time, I would apologise.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 13, 2013
    #93
  14. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 13/03/2013 09:34, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > Yes, that exchange *is* typical of this particular poster! I
    > stick to factual statements that are verifiably valid and correct,
    > and am accused by people, like you, who are contradicted of making
    > it somehow "personal".
    >
    > You do realize that your false accusations are Ad Hominem at its
    > worst!


    I am simply reporting my experiences from the past, and I have never
    said that you are wrong simply because we hold different views.

    Recall that I put forward a question about resolution. I was hoping to
    invite discussion (by using terms like "may have"), where different
    people may have differing views - views that may not agree with your own.

    Back to discussing photography?
    --
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 13, 2013
    #94
  15. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 13/03/2013 12:06, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > You are simply engaging in Ad Hominem, because you can't
    > argue your points based on facts and logic.


    It's up to you if you regard the behaviour I reported as being attacks
    on you. If any doubts, they can look in the newsgroup archives and
    decide for themselves.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, the anti-alias filter is a compromise,
    and will involve an element of subjective judgement, and what the
    photographer wishes to see. You may also have noted that I have
    examined the D7100 images further, and would now conclude that there
    /is/ visible aliasing present, and therefore that 56 MB on full-frame is
    not enough to completely avoid aliasing under all conditions.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 13, 2013
    #95
  16. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 12/03/2013 13:25, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> As for my needs: I'll stay with AA, but then I'd be happy
    >> enough with 8 MPix + (good) ISO 12,800 or more. But that's
    >> not available today, so my camera has more MPix. (My old
    >> camera had 8 MPix, and that was nearly never a concern, much
    >> less a problem. Quite unlike high ISO.)


    > I have similar needs. Most of my images are displayed on 2-3 Mpix
    > monitors, with the occasional A4 print (which won't be examined with a
    > magnifying glass).


    Though I do mostly roughly A4-sized prints of the important
    photos, sometimes even roughly twice the size (in an 1:2
    format), which is OK (though not very good) from a 2:3 8
    MPix source.

    > I would have preferred my recently purchased compact
    > camera to have 8 MP rather than the 18 MP it has.


    In this case you can downsample in camera, and maybe it even
    has mRAW or sRAW ...

    > I haven't even
    > checked whether that has an AA filter or not.


    Now, your 18 MPix compact camera ... how many pixels would
    that be on FF, and what's the widest aperture possible (and
    what would be the equivalent aperture for an FF camera,
    regarding airy disk size) and how good _is_ the lens?

    These limits may well be so that any possible airy disk of
    that (unchangeable) combination of optically average, possibly
    quite slow lens and humungous pixel density must cover several
    pixels --- in which case an AA filter --- as I understand it
    --- can't help anyways and can therefore be safely omitted.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 13, 2013
    #96
  17. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 13/03/2013 16:53, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > So now you admit that you were wrong on the technical
    > facts right from the start.
    >
    > Ad Hominem didn't do you a bit of good...


    I put forward a question for discussion, listened to the arguments,
    reviewed the evidence, and then came to a tentative conclusion in view
    of the evidence presented. Yes, my current feeling is different to what
    I thought might have been the result, but I didn't make a definitive
    statement in the first place - I asked a question.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 14, 2013
    #97
  18. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 14/03/2013 09:10, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:
    >> On 13/03/2013 16:53, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> []
    >>> So now you admit that you were wrong on the technical
    >>> facts right from the start.
    >>>
    >>> Ad Hominem didn't do you a bit of good...

    >>
    >> I put forward a question for discussion, listened to the
    >> arguments, reviewed the evidence, and then came to a
    >> tentative conclusion in view of the evidence presented.
    >> Yes, my current feeling is different to what I thought
    >> might have been the result, but I didn't make a
    >> definitive statement in the first place - I asked a
    >> question.

    >
    > You assaulted someone that provided good discussion by
    > responding with gratuitous personal insults.


    I simply reported my previous experiences, as anyone who looks at the
    newsgroup archives from months and years ago can judge for themselves.

    As this is repeating what I've already said, please don't expect any
    further reply on this aspect of the topic, as others must be bored silly
    by it!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Mar 14, 2013
    #98
  19. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 12/03/2013 13:18, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > []
    >> Unless you read that as "hehe, David is soo stupid, he actually
    >> believes that the D800E can't have moire, the idiot". Which is
    >> not what was written!


    > It's how it comes across to me, and is typical of that particular
    > poster. If I have done him an injustice this time, I would apologise.


    Maybe you're on a hair trigger with this poster ... I think
    in this case you overreacted a bit. See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 14, 2013
    #99
  20. David Taylor <> wrote:

    > If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that we may be approaching, or we
    > may have reached, a "sufficiently high" pixel density for many people
    > for much of the time. That's not an unqualified "are".


    Which means that for some people it's most of the time
    unacceptable and for others on the average (pulling a number
    out of thin air (or is it a vacuum?)) every 10th or 20th image
    has problems. :)

    Personally, I want the camera to fail me only very rarely
    compared to the times where I make the mistake. But that's me.

    What percentage of aliasing-degraded or -ruined, potentially
    unrepeatable shots (North polar cruise, graduation/award
    presentation, your child shaking the hand of Mr. President,
    raising the (second) flag on Iwo Jima, ...) are you willing
    to accept for the missing AA filter?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 14, 2013
    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:
    882
    Allan
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
    George K
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    435
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    967
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. RichA

    Would Nikon release new telescopes?

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    443
    Martin Brown
    Aug 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page