Posted by Larry Fischer on January 28, 2010 at 12:33 PM
David,
In my mind, the two articles, not sure I understand all of the content, really explain AA filters and the goal, quite well.
I'm constantly impressed with the detail that is obtained with modern digital.
My d700 will remain factory.
the fisch
Posted by David Bostedo on January 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I think the simplest reason to leave the AA filter alone for most people is this : every single digital SLR ever made has one. If there were enough good reasons not to have one, or if it was really easy enough to deal with potential issues in software, it's likely that some manufacturer would have released an SLR without an AA filter.
The only digital cameras that don't have one, that I know of, are most of the medium format digital cameras, and the Leica M8/M9. In the medium format digital case, you're talking very high-end gear (princes that make Leica look cheap), where the (typically small) amount of sharpness to be gained from no AA is worth it to the folks who buy the cameras. In other words, if you're spending that much, you should be willing to learn how to deal with it.
In the Leica case, I'm not sure why they went that route - other than to differentiate themselves and be able to claim they are going after ultimate image quality, issues be damned.
Posted by Larry Fischer on January 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM
The only other place lack of AA would be advantageous is astrophotography. That's why one Canon camera (can't remember which one) has better RAW rendition and I thinks its due to lack of an AA filter. That Canon digital is highly sought after in that discipline.
I understand that black skies are not moire candidates.
the fisch
Posted by David Bostedo on January 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Larry - I had heard of that camera, but it's not the AA filter that's different. It's the IR filter that's different.
Of course, you're right that Astrophotography could probably benefit from not having an AA filter, and I think that's where the third party companies come in. But it hasn't been important enough for the camera manufacturers to do themselves. (And Canon only did anything like this for that one model, so I assume there wasn't enough demand.)
Discussion
5 repliesHere is a site to visit.
Would like to see a discussion.
the fisch
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm
The Online Photographer : Live Dangerously
The Online Photographer : Sampling Isn't Simple
In my mind, the two articles, not sure I understand all of the content, really explain AA filters and the goal, quite well.
I'm constantly impressed with the detail that is obtained with modern digital.
My d700 will remain factory.
the fisch
The only digital cameras that don't have one, that I know of, are most of the medium format digital cameras, and the Leica M8/M9. In the medium format digital case, you're talking very high-end gear (princes that make Leica look cheap), where the (typically small) amount of sharpness to be gained from no AA is worth it to the folks who buy the cameras. In other words, if you're spending that much, you should be willing to learn how to deal with it.
In the Leica case, I'm not sure why they went that route - other than to differentiate themselves and be able to claim they are going after ultimate image quality, issues be damned.
I understand that black skies are not moire candidates.
the fisch
Here's the wikipedia page.
Of course, you're right that Astrophotography could probably benefit from not having an AA filter, and I think that's where the third party companies come in. But it hasn't been important enough for the camera manufacturers to do themselves. (And Canon only did anything like this for that one model, so I assume there wasn't enough demand.)