Being a bear of little brain, it strikes me that there are two issues here that need clarification for real life shooters....
1. Jaggies. AA filters help here but it seems to me that the lower the resolution of the sensor the higher the benefit. The higher the resolution the lower the benefit. The reason to the simple minded is simply that the higher res image will have more "steps" and the more steps the smoother the image. The smoother the image the less need there is for an AA filter. If this is right, where is the break point where an AA filter does not produce a visible benefit? (I don't give a rat's ass about theoretical benefits, if I can't see it it doesn't exist. Simplifies life.)
2. Moire. Common mysticism has these devilish patterns appearing most frequently on fabric. Why then do so many fashion photographers use MF cameras without AA filters?
b) Fashion shooters use MF digital backs because they are the only ones available with that high resultion and base ISO image quality. MF digital backs lack an AA filter becuase they are incredibly expensive to manufature in that size (I have heard). The D800 will be a godsend to them.
Personally, I would only choose a camera without AA filter for use when I can stop down just until I have enough diffraction to give sufficient blur. That will be around F/11 on the D800E. The benefit is that I can stop down further, gaining more DoF, than with a camera with AA filter. Good for landscape and macro.
Thanks for the post. Best real life example I have seen and it clearly shows that both the jaggies and moire are still issues in even the latest cameras.
Monito wrote:
Well, in the example you post, it is clear that jaggies are more prominent in the unfiltered image.
Yes, that is clear. I was just trying to say that in a correctly reproduced image, when it is appropriately sharpened and maybe also downsized, there will be jaggies. Those jaggies will not be caused by aliasing.
Considering just the pixel level image quality, I can't see much if any difference between the 5Dc and the 5D2 so that decrease in pixel size was technology advance.
The specific technology advance was that Canon shrank the transister "donut" that surrounds each sensel. The actual light-sensitive area remained the same size between the 5D and the 5D2, but with smaller "dead zones" around each sensel, Canon could cram more into the format.
Notice that Canon does not speak of "pixel size," Canon speaks of "pixel pitch," which is the distance between pixel centers. They decreased the "pixel pitch," but the diameter of the actual light-sensitive portion of the sensel remaind the same.
