Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Still no love for the Ricoh GXR? |
Kosmos; the main AESTHETICAL problems with moire and color faults can be "fixed". You can "fix almost anything" at least superficially with clever enough gadgets and some manual hands-on labor. What you can't ever fix is that you are now the owner of an image about as related to reality as Donald Duck.
Aliasing is on a different level, that is a problem that can't even be fixed "aesthetically". It's there, and it stays.
AA filters muck up angle-dependent issues like corner problems and very large aperture problems. Other than this being without an AA filter does with almost no exceptions remove your image from reality by far more than than having an AA filer installed. This has to be weighed against size/ergonomic issues (without an AA filter you can make 60mm and shorter lenses more compact) and corner issues. Depending on what your priorities are, with/without is as I said before - a personal choice.
If someone "prefers" the AA-less image, fine. I prefer red to white - no matter. Claims like "closer to reality" and "more detail" and "higher resolution" and so on makes me itch however. Because they're simply not true - quite the opposite.
I don't get that comment at all, that an AA-filterless camera image is as close to reality as Donald Duck. Since we are talking artifacts on a small level in both instances (AA vs non AA) I think you are taking it to the hilt unnecessarily. That is a childish comment in a serious thread.
The "closer to reality" is actually not something taken out of the blue, with that I mean I come closer to reality from the get go, not after thirty minutes of tinkering. The end result may very well be exactly the same and I haven't made any claims that other cameras are NOT close to reality in the final image. I just find that I get there a little bit easier with the GXR M than what I have compared it to, which is Leica, Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus. That's all.
My experience contradicts your statement about having to make a lot of hands on labor with AA filter-less, and I use no gadgets other than a decent RAW converter. I am wondering if you have even seen a GXR M RAW file? I don't think you have as your comments are not holding water.
I agree that claims that something is radically better is stuff that make you itch. It makes me itch too. It really does. That is a hard boiled claim that you make though. Especially since I find the color accuracy excellent, much more so than from say, Canon, which I never came to terms with. Canon and Fuji colors are far more "Mickey Mouse" in comparison.
An aliased image that looks great in print I don't see as a problem. Things that can't get fixed are, of course. The tiny bit of extra detail I have seen in my comparisons are, in my experience, probably not visible in print, but it does not degrade from the image either, when working with it.
Moiré is the single biggest problem with AA filter-less cameras but I have much less trouble coping with it than you try to make it out to be. The GXR M is very forgiving in that regard and even shots with very minute patterns have come out not just fine, but excellent.
Again, I find that making aesthetical images, fairly true to reality, are not that difficult with any of the cameras I have used. If you have trouble doing so you need to work on your post processing and printing skills.
My next camera might or might not have an AA-filter. It is only part of the equation, as I try to see the sum of all parts in relation to money thrown in the pit. I threw money in the Leica pit, got cold feet and managed to get that back. The amount of $ I have thrown into the GXR M is far less than any other dSLR (or mirrorless) I have had prior to it and given the limitations of the system I find it is the best digital investment I have made so far.
In the future I will not red flag my next potential camera based on it having an AA-filter or not.
It will be interesting to see what the Nikon D800 vs D800E turns out to be like in practical reality. I don't think the D800E will produce Donald Duck like images just because it lacks the AA-filter of it's sibling, nor do I think that the D800 will be seriously outperformed by the D800E. But Nikon obviously felt that something warranted two versions. Perhaps just hyperbole and market demands, but let's not dismiss either camera just yet.