jlancasterd Posted October 10, 2011 Share #1 Posted October 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rumour has it that the forthcoming Nikon D800 will come in two versions – one with an anti-aliasing filter and one without. If you were purchasing one, which would you go for? In other words, what are the likely disadvantages of using a camera of this type without an anti-aliasing filter? I understand that the sensor is of a different type from that in my M9, which seems to manage very well without the filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Hi jlancasterd, Take a look here Anti-aliasing filters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted October 10, 2011 Share #2 Posted October 10, 2011 Let’s wait for D800 and hear what Nikon has to say about optional AA filters’. Can't comment on AA filter but no doubt D800 when it appears will be spectacular and cutting edge. If only Nikon manages to shrink D800 to FM/FE size, this would go well with many Nikon shooters and probably compete well with mirrorless cameras. I would like to see split microprism screen as an option to aid manual focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted October 10, 2011 If only Nikon manages to shrink D800 to FM/FE size, this would go well with many Nikon shooters and probably compete well with mirrorless cameras. I already have a D700 and love its high-ISO performance in reportage-type situations. With 36 megapixels, full-frame, and no anti-aliasing filter, I'm hoping the D800 might give close to medium-format quality for landscape work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted October 10, 2011 Share #4 Posted October 10, 2011 I already have a D700 and love its high-ISO performance in reportage-type situations. With 36 megapixels, full-frame, and no anti-aliasing filter, I'm hoping the D800 might give close to medium-format quality for landscape work. I too have D700. That 12MP sensor is spectacular. I use converted R lenses and usually get results I don't get from my Nikon lenses. If Nikon produces FX camera with 36MP sensor only handful of top Nikon lenses will shine on D800 (latest AF-S primes, Perspective Controls & Micro Nikkors). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 10, 2011 Share #5 Posted October 10, 2011 The spectacular high ISO performance of the D700 is mainly due to its huge pixels – a pixel-pitch of 8.45 microns is something you wouldn’t even find in an MF camera anymore. With a 36 MP sensor a D800 would give up this advantage as the pixel-pitch shrinks below 5 microns. Now of course the D7000 and D5100 (and the Pentax K-5) have demonstrated what a state-of-the-art sensor with a pixel-pitch of 4.8 microns can deliver, but I wouldn’t expect a D800 to outperform the D700 (except resolution-wise, obviously). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted October 10, 2011 I wouldn’t expect a D800 to outperform the D700 (except resolution-wise, obviously). It's high resolution that would interest me - using a low ISO and a tripod if necessary. I'd keep the D700 for high ISO work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 10, 2011 Share #7 Posted October 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) My bias would be to NO AA filter. But keep in mind the following: 1) AA filters come in different "strengths" - some blur the image more than others. 2) If a sensor has enough resolution, an AA filter isn't needed anyway. Assuming a lens with 100 lppm resolution (the best of the best, for "35mm" lenses) - once the pixel pitch is better than 200 pixels per inch (5-micron pixels), one is safely above the Nyquist sampling limit. 5-micron pixels on a 24 x 36 sensor comes out to 4800 x 7200 pixels, or 35 Mpixels. So we'll have to see just how many Mpixels the D800 ends up with. If Nikon does actually offer a choice, that probably means the sensor will still be sub-30 Mpixels. No need to offer an AA option if the resolution is higher. The converse was also true (ahh, ancient history!). 6 megapixel cameras (Nikon D100, D1X) needed very heavy-handed AA filters, because even the bottom of a soda bottle would deliver more lines per mm than those sensors could handle without aliasing. The D70 sensor cut back on the AA filter, with improved sharpness - but also a lot of aliasing effects. In general, AA filters have been getting weaker (less blur) as sensor resolution rose into the teens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 10, 2011 Share #8 Posted October 10, 2011 If a sensor has enough resolution, an AA filter isn't needed anyway. Assuming a lens with 100 lppm resolution (the best of the best, for "35mm" lenses) - once the pixel pitch is better than 200 pixels per inch (5-micron pixels), one is safely above the Nyquist sampling limit. Antialiasing filters are employed mainly to combat colour moiré. For a sensor with RGB filters arranged in a Bayer pattern the spatial resolution of colour detail is about half the resolution of luminance detail – you need 2 by 2 pixels to capture colour. So a pixel-pitch below 5 microns wouldn’t suffice to eliminate colour moiré – you need to stay below 2.5 microns. Moiré will continue to be an issue and if you want to do without an antialiasing filter to maximize resolution and sharpness you have to rely on software (i.e. the raw converter) the eliminate or prevent moiré. (See my article on moiré and antialiasing filters in LFI 6/2011.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 10, 2011 Share #9 Posted October 10, 2011 if you want to do without an antialiasing filter to maximize resolution and sharpness you have to rely on software (i.e. the raw converter) the eliminate or prevent moiré. I prefer that ex-post, software based solution... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted October 11, 2011 Share #10 Posted October 11, 2011 I am waiting for the D800 too, and will likely be one of the early adopters. Probably the non-AA too if given a choice. Dont like too much the idea of having a filter to reduce possibility of moire but essentially degrades image quality in other shots in which moire is a non-issue. Sounds like backwards way of doing things IMO. Not sure I need 36mp though, loads of processing time and storage needed, probably need to upgrade comps too. I wish for 16-20mp. CJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 13, 2011 Share #11 Posted October 13, 2011 With the current technologies and those are available to us, I don't even see a reason to change or upgrade anymore. What we have is sufficient for years to come. IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted February 14, 2012 Share #12 Posted February 14, 2012 Partly in response to the D800/D800E and how the lack of a filter affects the M8/M9, we wrote up the "Anti-Aliasing Filter Primer" article. Long and short of it, AA filter blurs tiny details to prevent moiré. Not having one in the M8/M9 means sharper pictures... But with the possibility of moiré. C'est la vie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 15, 2012 Share #13 Posted February 15, 2012 Ctein has this interesting article on the subject: The Online Photographer: Myths About Megapixels (...And, Does the D800 Have Too Many?) R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 16, 2012 Share #14 Posted February 16, 2012 If I did fashion or people work, people wear textured clothing, I would pick the AA model. Can you imaging a wedding guy trying to repair moire on many photos? If I did landscape where there are few repeating fine details,I would pick the non AA model to get the marginally sharper image. My M8 is but a few months old and I have seen moire in only one small portion of one photo. It was easy to correct with photoshop in that sample. Dup layer, gausian blur severely like 25, change blend mode to color, add a black mask and paint white where you want the moire to go away. I understand it is not always that easy and you have to do manipulations in l a b mode. The new lightroom will have a anti moire control. The latest version of NX 2 also has it. I have never used it as I have never seen moire with a Nikon camera. I have no idea how simple or complex the algorithms used are. My guess is simple. With time, many samples will appear on the internet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 17, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 17, 2012 Sean Reid just wrote an essay, now published on Luminous Landscape, regarding AA filters and "Naked Sensors" as he has coined them. Worth a read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.