Anti-Aliasing (AA) filters removed

[billh]

Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter removed

It is interesting to see the difference this makes. Isn’t this (along with the lenses, of course) why the M8 has such sharp images?

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

more,

http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm

[rosuna]

Very interesting links. Thanks!!

[robsteve]

My first Canon DLSR (D2000) had the AA filter mounted in front of the mirror box. I removed it and noticed sharper images, with moire seldom showing. I was shooting hockey with it and the players seldom wore harris tweed uniforms When moire did occur, it was more common with the wide angles and textures in clothing.

Even on the Canon D2000, the Leica lenses made a big difference to image quality, so the lenses probably help a lot with the M8 image quality. I don't think there are any better prime lenses than the Leica M lenses.

In the links you posted above, the Nikon either has a very strong Anti-alias filter or their hot rodded camera had the focus system tuned a bit better than the stock camera. I didn't see that big of a difference in sharpness when shooting the Canon with and without the Anti-Alias filter.


Robert

[sdai]

Bill, if you actually download the 5D raw files this guy provided and compare at 100%, you shouldn't see much differences if not none at all. I think his comparison is somewhat exaggerated.

I know a guy who tried to hack the D200 when it was initially introduced, however, he found ...

1. IR is a big problem because the D200 has its IR cut filter combined with the AA filter, I still have 2 thumb size shots on my HDD ... not very good but you'll get the idea.

2. focusing becomes a problem, in fact, as Rob has pointed out, one MUST tune the AF after the conversion so his demo prior to the conversion may not reflect the best condition of the D200 at all.

I agree with Rob, the differences we see in the M8 shots are mostly contributed by the superior Leica optics, even with the AA installed on the same camera, you could tell the differences between Leica glass and non Leica glass instantly.

[J_Brittenson]

Originally Posted by sdai

1. IR is a big problem because the D200 has its IR cut filter combined with the AA filter,

I thought these guys replaced the AA filter with an IR filter of the same thickness - which should avoid both with the IR problem and any focus shift.

[robsteve]

Originally Posted by J_Brittenson

I thought these guys replaced the AA filter with an IR filter of the same thickness - which should avoid both with the IR problem and any focus shift.

They mention that in the article. I also read either there or somewhere else, that the Nikon AF can be adjusted with a screwdriver to compensate for any changes. I am not sure if this can be done on the Canon.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by J_Brittenson

I thought these guys replaced the AA filter with an IR filter of the same thickness - which should avoid both with the IR problem and any focus shift.

Jan, it's not about the thickness of the IR cut filter ... we seem to have discussed about this (with you or maybe other friends ...) elsewhere, anyway, the guy who hacked his D200 had to add an screw on IR cut filter and didn't really see much benefit, he was able to get his D200 "restored" to original condition AND AF readjusted. As Rob already has pointed out with his D2000 and the 5D samples with/without AA on a "friend's" computer, the difference is close to invisible if not none at all.

Rob is right about the screw to adjust AF, there're actually two of them ... one is AF stopper and the other is VF stopper.

[sdai]

I took a second look at the 5D RAW files made available on the IR work guy's web site because I DON'T believe you can "easily" see any difference between a 5D with or without AA filter - except moire of course.

So I extracted the full EXIF info using Phil Harvey's exiftool and easily discovered two things.

1. The in camera sharpness of the hot rod camera is set to 4 and the stock camera is set to 3. Well, you'll say this setting doesn't affect RAW files ... true, but, these parameters will be parsed to your raw converter, and if you choose default settings then these parameters will be used when converting to JPEG and most people don't compare images in RAW ... they compare when converted to JPEG

2. White balance is clearly screwed ... when shooting side by side, the stock camera records 5200k, which is very close to Daylight and the hot rod camera records 2900k which is close to Tungsten.

There you go ...