It should be noted that the D800E does still include a low-pass filter, but it functions only on a vertical axis, and its effects are cancelled out by a second low-pass filter layer that reverses the effect. We're currently trying to determine the reason that the low-pass filter layers haven't been removed altogether, but speculate that either it's necessary to retain a low-pass filter in the image path so as not to alter the camera's optical properties, or perhaps that it serves a secondary purpose as an infrared cut filter. Either way, given that its effects are reversed by the secondary layer, it shouldn't reduce sharpness.
We understand that the Nikon D800E will still attempt to detect and remove moire in firmware, and that this will happen before raw processing, meaning that even raw files will potentially have already had moire removed in software. Should moire make it past this filter, however, Nikon will also be providing a color moire correction tool in its Capture NX2 imaging suite....Show more →
But first, does anybody know if NIkon is going to release a software that can read the 36MP raw files? Just wondering?? If I get one, it will be the D800E.
Mark_L wrote:
I doubt nikon would have released a separate version if moire was going to be a serious problem. D800E for me.
I don't know. Nikon reps are calling it a specialty studio camera. I look at it the other way. If no filter really wasn't a big deal, then I assume Nikon would NOT have released two versions. I have had three digital MF users tell me that when moire does hit, you're screwed. If I were to go out and do a paid shoot, spend the money on gas etc., and then discover some key shots weren't usuable when I plugged them into my computer to PP, the cost of that would be huge. Especially if I had to go back and reshoot, or lost a sale. I'll let you be the guinea pig and take all the risks.
ecidi wrote:
But first, does anybody know if NIkon is going to release a software that can read the 36MP raw files? Just wondering?? If I get one, it will be the D800E.
View NX or Nx2 are both Nikon and will read the files.
Tough to call now, my gut says the D800E is going to have amazing resolution but the threat of moire will always be there. Dunno if its a huge risk. So basically my choice would be on hold pending extensive testing by dpreview and others.
I'm now reading that the no-filter model actually has one, and you can choose to use the filter or not use it. The reviews by the usual reviewers (Galbraith etc.) are now coming in.
Thorsten wrote:
That's understandable, since your friends didn't have Lightroom 4 yet, as it is just coming out. LR4 has moire removal, also Nikon announced that they are brining out an update of Capture NX2 with moire removal, to deal with D800E files.
Unless LR 4 or the new NX2 can perform miracles, moire cannot be "removed." It can be smoothed over, adjusted, etc., etc., etc., but it cannot be removed. Whatever the software does may LOOK like the moire has been removed, but it really hasn't. It's been altered in a way that reduces or eliminates its effects, but at the expense of other elements in the image ... just like when one applies noise reduction. NR doesn't really "remove" noise. It blurs it, masks it, reduces it, but it doesn't remove it.
Moire also isn't a problem just with AA-filterless DSLRs. It's been a photographic problem for ages and ages. Had the problem many times during my film days, and I've had it rear its ugly head even with my AA-filter camera, the Canon 5D (Mark 1) ... which has a very thin AA filter.
I've owned several camera with no AA filter: the Kodak SLR/c, Sigma Foveon and a Leica M8. The incidence of moire was very low with each of these cameras. In fact, I've experienced moire more often with my 5D Mark 1 than with any of the filterless cameras. Go figure ...
Two23 wrote:
I don't know. Nikon reps are calling it a specialty studio camera. I look at it the other way. If no filter really wasn't a big deal, then I assume Nikon would NOT have released two versions. I have had three digital MF users tell me that when moire does hit, you're screwed. If I were to go out and do a paid shoot, spend the money on gas etc., and then discover some key shots weren't usuable when I plugged them into my computer to PP, the cost of that would be huge. Especially if I had to go back and reshoot, or lost a sale. I'll let you be the guinea pig and take all the risks.
Kent in SD...Show more →
Exactly. On a paid shoot, the last thing you want is a moire pattern creeping into the day's work. Moire CAN BE and IS a problem under certain circumstances. Best to avoid the potential for the problem right out of the gate. The 800 makes more sense for a working pro who's out in the field a lot.
Besides, is anyone really that unhappy with the results from their AA-filtered D2x/D300/D700/D3/D3s/D3x cams? And do you really think the difference in sharpness and resolution between the 800 and 800E is all that significant? It isn't. Not really. Especially not with a camera shooting 36MP! I've seen and compared a D200 w/filter and without, and the difference is practically negligible; noticeable, but negligible ... not worth the risk of moire, in my view.
I'm a Canon user right now. My main reason to get a D800 would be to get the E.
Like most people wanting the E, I shoot mainly landscape.
What I don't understand is, when most camera companies complain of having to use an 'expensive' AA filter, why does it cost $300 more?
jph1 wrote:
I'm a Canon user right now. My main reason to get a D800 would be to get the E.
Like most people wanting the E, I shoot mainly landscape.
What I don't understand is, when most camera companies complain of having to use an 'expensive' AA filter, why does it cost $300 more?
To ensure that only the people who need it purchase it.
If it were cheaper, the least informed customers would choose it, then complain of a broken/crappy camera ( moire ).
veroman wrote:
Unless LR 4 or the new NX2 can perform miracles, moire cannot be "removed." It can be smoothed over, adjusted, etc., etc., etc., but it cannot be removed. Whatever the software does may LOOK like the moire has been removed, but it really hasn't. It's been altered in a way that reduces or eliminates its effects, but at the expense of other elements in the image ... just like when one applies noise reduction. NR doesn't really "remove" noise. It blurs it, masks it, reduces it, but it doesn't remove it.
Moire also isn't a problem just with AA-filterless DSLRs. It's been a photographic problem for ages and ages. Had the problem many times during my film days, and I've had it rear its ugly head even with my AA-filter camera, the Canon 5D (Mark 1) ... which has a very thin AA filter.
I've owned several camera with no AA filter: the Kodak SLR/c, Sigma Foveon and a Leica M8. The incidence of moire was very low with each of these cameras. In fact, I've experienced moire more often with my 5D Mark 1 than with any of the filterless cameras. Go figure ...
Semantics. It's all about the end result. How you get there is irrelevant.
I honestly think people are going to realize soon that it's (moire from the E version) not a big deal. Definitely not a deal breaker by a long shot imo.
