p.102 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
frezeiss wrote:
where are the pictureees, and the 100% crops
Since I bouth the XE-1 which doesnt have AA filter, I kind of hesitate going back to a camera that have one.
Why? Compared to properly sharpened output from a camera with an AA filter, removing the AA filter only gives the impression of more detail through artifacts, and, in the case of the XE-1, even that impression of more detail isn't any higher than a regular 16mp sensor, because raw conversion is still pretty bad for X-Trans.
p.102 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.
p.102 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
The Kodak doesn't give the typical modern AA-less camera look though. It has a sort of unusual watercolour look at 100%, and thus it really isn't typical compared to, say, a Leica M9 or S2.
Btw, I thought the SLR/c and SLR/n were identical apart from body and mount, but my SLR/n definitely doesn't look great with every lens. It had real problems with the Zeiss 21/2.8. Weird colours in the corners, and a strong reaction to the sun anywhere near the edge of the frame.
p.102 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
The SLR/c even made the Canon 50/1.8 look great. My point is - I trust my eyes. Looking at a 1048 px image online, an A3+ print or a 1,5x1,5 m canvas - if it looks good, that's what matters. The AA-less SLR/c looked better than about all other cameras I've had. Watercolor, false detail - so what? The end results were awesome, and that's what matters to me.
p.102 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I wasn't criticising the watercolour look, it does seem to work. It looks weird at 100% but it enlarges well. I think Kodak knew what they were doing with it.
p.102 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mortyb wrote:
I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.
Hey, I'm solely an M9 shooter these days, but it still holds true, as TheSuede has pointed out and illustrated many times. Of course, as pixel count goes up, AA filters will be less and less necessary, but, as its stands now, it is false detail that we're seeing with our AA-less cameras. That being said, it seems that many prefer this look, regardless of where it comes from.
p.s. The big advantage of no AA filter, outside of cost, is that it does improve things at the periphery of the sensor, since the AA filter isn't there to cause astigmatism.
, that thought occured to me.
