This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015No low pass filter
p.3 #1No low pass filter
racer-ex wrote:
Thank you everyone for your replies I've learned a lot. I've been reading canon rumors and it states that this 5DSR has the both capability so I asked in my understanding this properly does the 5DSR have a low pass filter and the cancellation of the low pass filter if that is so I would buy the 5DS R thank you in advance.Bill
As I read it the 5Ds R does not have the option of a working low pass filter. It only has the "cancelling" option, meaning no low pass filter. The reason they write it that way, is that the filter consists of two layers. The filter in one layer only works in one direction. Normally the other layer is oriented 90 degrees rotated, so that we get the filter function on both directions. When cancelling, the other layer is mounted in the same direction, and cancelling the effect of the first layer. This cannot be changed after it has been mounted.
Thank you everyone for your replies I've learned a lot. I've been reading canon rumors and it states that this 5DSR has the both capability so I asked in my understanding this properly does the 5DSR have a low pass filter and the cancellation of the low pass filter if that is so I would buy the 5DS R thank you in advance.Bill
As I read it the 5Ds R does not have the option of a working low pass filter. It only has the "cancelling" option, meaning no low pass filter. The reason they write it that way, is that the filter consists of two layers. The filter in one layer only works in one direction. Normally the other layer is oriented 90 degrees rotated, so that we get the filter function on both directions. When cancelling, the other layer is mounted in the same direction, and cancelling the effect of the first layer. This cannot be changed after it has been mounted.
Feb 05, 2015 at 11:09 AM
p.3 #2No low pass filter
An anti-aliasing filter is useful even with a very high MP camera, because without it you may still be prone to aliasing issues with fine detail - which is precisely why you wanted a high MP camera to record this kind of detail in the first place. So I think it's better to have the filter.
Feb 05, 2015 at 11:12 AM
p.3 #3No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to belazy like slides. [on edit: subsequent posts have clarified that lazy is the wrong term to apply]
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
Edited on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:56 PM · View previous versions
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
Edited on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:56 PM · View previous versions
Feb 05, 2015 at 11:14 AM
p.3 #4No low pass filter
Monito wrote:
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
I shot 25. But tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.
ben egbert wrote
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
I shot 25. But tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.
Feb 05, 2015 at 11:57 AM
p.3 #5No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.I shot 25. But tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is...Show more →
Maybe I'm being unfair but I really don't understand.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you ONLY had the sharpness of the lens and he emulsion to determine the end result (the enlarger lens could only make image worse, not better), we live in a world now where 35mm sized cameras produce images that are miles and miles better than 35mm film could ever produce.
A 50meg non AA Canon with some really good lenses (and a course in how to sharpen) would give you the best results you will ever have got from your 35mm Canon gear
Monito wrote
ben egbert wrote
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is...Show more →
Maybe I'm being unfair but I really don't understand.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you ONLY had the sharpness of the lens and he emulsion to determine the end result (the enlarger lens could only make image worse, not better), we live in a world now where 35mm sized cameras produce images that are miles and miles better than 35mm film could ever produce.
A 50meg non AA Canon with some really good lenses (and a course in how to sharpen) would give you the best results you will ever have got from your 35mm Canon gear
Feb 05, 2015 at 12:06 PM
p.3 #6No low pass filter
dhphoto wrote:
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.I shot 25. But tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.Maybe I'm being unfair but I really don't understand.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you...Show more →
You don't get it. I have been sharpening for 15 years. But sharpening requires visual acuity that is impossible for me. I can't even tell my optometrist which correction is best within 2 3 variations. So for me, sharpening requires me to find a formula and have other people validate it for me. Once I find it, I use the same formula for every image with any given camera. If its that mechanical, it can be done in the camera in theory.
I am never arguing that other people need to buy an AA free camera. This is for my specialized needs. I just want to buy sharp lenses, have a camera with good af (the 5d3 is the first camera I have owned that will focus good for me. Even the 1DS3 did not. I need a blind mans camera.
ben egbert wrote
Monito wrote
ben egbert wrote
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you...Show more →
You don't get it. I have been sharpening for 15 years. But sharpening requires visual acuity that is impossible for me. I can't even tell my optometrist which correction is best within 2 3 variations. So for me, sharpening requires me to find a formula and have other people validate it for me. Once I find it, I use the same formula for every image with any given camera. If its that mechanical, it can be done in the camera in theory.
I am never arguing that other people need to buy an AA free camera. This is for my specialized needs. I just want to buy sharp lenses, have a camera with good af (the 5d3 is the first camera I have owned that will focus good for me. Even the 1DS3 did not. I need a blind mans camera.
Feb 05, 2015 at 12:13 PM
p.3 #7No low pass filter
Its nothing you need to worry about in Canon lands. 
And future rumored 50 mpix will have enough mpix to not worry about absent AA either.
Today 28 mpix APS-C doesnt need AA. Everything else mostly should have it.. (apart certain very high density sensors in MFDB lands). Sure, D810 does work ok without it, but its not perfect.. density is still tad bit too low for being AA-less.
Other than that, 1Ds and 5D had low-pass filter which was very weak, so it produced (and still does) nice moiré now and then.
More recent Canons have different approach, some have tad bit too much of low-pass..
And future rumored 50 mpix will have enough mpix to not worry about absent AA either.
Today 28 mpix APS-C doesnt need AA. Everything else mostly should have it.. (apart certain very high density sensors in MFDB lands). Sure, D810 does work ok without it, but its not perfect.. density is still tad bit too low for being AA-less.
Other than that, 1Ds and 5D had low-pass filter which was very weak, so it produced (and still does) nice moiré now and then.
More recent Canons have different approach, some have tad bit too much of low-pass..Feb 05, 2015 at 12:17 PM
p.3 #8No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
Nonsense.
A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.I shot 25. But tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.Maybe I'm being unfair but I really don't understand.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you ONLY had the sharpness of the lens and he emulsion to determine the end result (the enlarger lens could only make image worse, not better), we live in a world now where 35mm sized cameras produce images that are miles and miles better than 35mm film could ever produce.
A 50meg non AA Canon with some really good lenses (and a course in how to sharpen) would give you the best results you will ever have got from your 35mm Canon gearYou don't get it. I have been sharpening for 15 years. But sharpening requires visual acuity that is impossible for me. I can't even tell my optometrist which correction is best within 2 3 variations. So for me, sharpening requires me to find a formula and have other people validate it for me. Once I find it, I use the same formula for every image with any given camera. If its that mechanical, it can be done in the camera in theory.
I am never arguing that other people need to buy an AA free camera. This is for my...Show more →
I understand I think.
But if you are able to see a scene well enough to take a photograph can you not see an image on a large monitor at 100% to judge the sharpness? You manage to read the replies here no?
I think it is unlikely that a 'one sharpening fits all' solution would ever be good enough, sharpening depends on so many things.
dhphoto wrote
ben egbert wrote
Monito wrote
ben egbert wrote
They need to be sharpened. A raw file looks nothing like the actual scene. It is dull, lacks contrast, saturation and sharpness. At least with film, the starting point out of the camera was closer to reality. I could view my Kodachomes without doing anything to them. If I nailed focus with a good lens, it did not need sharpening and it certainly did not need any saturation. It did leave a lot to be desired in DR however.A properly made ISO 160 shot straight out of a tuned 5D3 is a lot truer to reality, truer colours, higher resolution, less dusty, and prints bigger than any 35 mm Kodachrome 64 ever did. I suspect bigger than K 25 too, but I hardly ever shot that.
Your problem is that you should be shooting a tuned JPEG mode if you want to be lazy like slides.
It is a mistake to think that a Raw is a slide. It is more akin to a negative in terms of the tuning and crafting that can be applied to it.
In my case its not lazy, I cant tell when its sharp so I need the camera to get it right. I really only need sharpness for the folks at FM who criticise my images for being soft. In recent years I have gotten a satisfactory formula but this has been a sore spot for me in the past. I also guess I am adapted to Kodachrome color saturation and what you like out of camera is dull looking to me.
Digital images need sharpening because sensors are inherently soft, it's in the design. Removing the AA filter should help, but they will still need some sharpening sooner or later
But your entire philosophy posting here is how you want everything utterly sharp, second best won't do, yet you don't want to learn how to sharpen. Selective sharpening of RAW files is a skill that pays you back in spades, you should consider it
Kodachrome 25 wasn't especially sharp, it was just very very fine grained, I used it a lot, in those days you ONLY had the sharpness of the lens and he emulsion to determine the end result (the enlarger lens could only make image worse, not better), we live in a world now where 35mm sized cameras produce images that are miles and miles better than 35mm film could ever produce.
A 50meg non AA Canon with some really good lenses (and a course in how to sharpen) would give you the best results you will ever have got from your 35mm Canon gear
I am never arguing that other people need to buy an AA free camera. This is for my...Show more →
I understand I think.
But if you are able to see a scene well enough to take a photograph can you not see an image on a large monitor at 100% to judge the sharpness? You manage to read the replies here no?
I think it is unlikely that a 'one sharpening fits all' solution would ever be good enough, sharpening depends on so many things.
Feb 05, 2015 at 12:36 PM
p.3 #9No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
It "needs" sharpening only because you are always inspecting them at 100 %, which is something you rarely did the equivalent of with slides, which were most of the time viewed from several paces away in a chair looking at a projection screen.
The situations are not directly comparable. Your slides viewed under the same circumstances would benefit from sharpening.
Viewing a 20+ Mpx image at 100 % on a large monitor (say 24 inch) makes the image large enough that it would occupy about five feet of space in its entirety. It would only be comparable if you were in the habit of projecting all of your slides 5 feet wide and inspecting them all over from 16 to 24 inches away from the projection screen some large percentage of the time.
tell me, why does an image need sharpening if the lens is good and the focus was good?
It "needs" sharpening only because you are always inspecting them at 100 %, which is something you rarely did the equivalent of with slides, which were most of the time viewed from several paces away in a chair looking at a projection screen.
The situations are not directly comparable. Your slides viewed under the same circumstances would benefit from sharpening.
Viewing a 20+ Mpx image at 100 % on a large monitor (say 24 inch) makes the image large enough that it would occupy about five feet of space in its entirety. It would only be comparable if you were in the habit of projecting all of your slides 5 feet wide and inspecting them all over from 16 to 24 inches away from the projection screen some large percentage of the time.
Feb 05, 2015 at 12:44 PM
p.3 #10No low pass filter
I understand about loss of visual acuity and sympathize. My mother is suffering from both wet and dry macular degeneration.
ben egbert wrote:
Once I find it, I use the same formula for every image with any given camera. If its that mechanical, it can be done in the camera in theory.
It can be. That is what the sharpening control of in-camera JPEGs is for.
It can also be automated as part of your workflow too, so that you don't have to mechanically apply it.
I've explained the three phases of sharpening before and given the links to Bigelow's articles and I think it might have been in your threads too. That's capture sharpening (right after Raw conversion), creative sharpening during post, and output sharpening right before printing / shipping.
As dhphoto says, creative sharpening is a craftsman's and artist's friend.
ben egbert wrote:
Once I find it, I use the same formula for every image with any given camera. If its that mechanical, it can be done in the camera in theory.
It can be. That is what the sharpening control of in-camera JPEGs is for.
It can also be automated as part of your workflow too, so that you don't have to mechanically apply it.
I've explained the three phases of sharpening before and given the links to Bigelow's articles and I think it might have been in your threads too. That's capture sharpening (right after Raw conversion), creative sharpening during post, and output sharpening right before printing / shipping.
As dhphoto says, creative sharpening is a craftsman's and artist's friend.
Feb 05, 2015 at 12:53 PM
p.3 #11No low pass filter
I am sure there are many on this forum who understand completely what Ben was saying without him having to elaborate. Trust me when I say you do NOT want the experience of, and I hope you never have the misfortune of understanding what he is saying first hand. Seeing and composing a scene through limited vision is quite possible. Capturing that image clearly is quite another thing. A sharp auto focus system helps considerably in that attempt. Post processing a raw image after the fact on a computer screen may require the assistance of other eyes or a consistent system of best processing your finished files if you have vision issues. Is it ideal? No, but the alternative is to quit photography. Some do not choose to give up what they love so easily. Ben does an outstanding job of dealing with this situation.
Kind regards to all,
mjgphotoz
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:15 PM
p.3 #12No low pass filter
mjgphotoz wrote:
I am sure there are many on this forum who understand completely what Ben was saying without him having to elaborate. Trust me when I say you do NOT want the experience of, and I hope you never have the misfortune of understanding what he is saying first hand. Seeing and composing a scene through limited vision is quite possible. Capturing that image clearly is quite another thing. A sharp auto focus system helps considerably in that attempt. Post processing a raw image after the fact on a computer screen may require the assistance of other eyes or a consistent...Show more →
Hey thanks, you get it completely.
I am sure there are many on this forum who understand completely what Ben was saying without him having to elaborate. Trust me when I say you do NOT want the experience of, and I hope you never have the misfortune of understanding what he is saying first hand. Seeing and composing a scene through limited vision is quite possible. Capturing that image clearly is quite another thing. A sharp auto focus system helps considerably in that attempt. Post processing a raw image after the fact on a computer screen may require the assistance of other eyes or a consistent...Show more →
Hey thanks, you get it completely.
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:20 PM
p.3 #13No low pass filter
I have shot thousands of pictures with the D800E and the A7R, almost exclusively of man-made objects, and it never was an issue. Therefore, I will get the 5DsR, and keep my 1DX for the times where resolution doesn't matter.
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:43 PM
p.3 #14No low pass filter
Using Canon L lenses on A7R, The only time I saw some moire was on a raw I downloaded before buying my A7R 
! And I was amazed to see how LightRoom handled it ! Really a non issue.
I would be more carefully if I was shooting exclusively cloths and such regular fine patterns, which can cause moire indeed. Anyway, 50Mp is even more forgiving than 36Mp for AA filter, so I don't think it should be an issue. I would go myself for a 5DsR, no question there.
Anyway I have no doubts that if this 5DsR is real, we will some deep reviews.
! And I was amazed to see how LightRoom handled it ! Really a non issue.I would be more carefully if I was shooting exclusively cloths and such regular fine patterns, which can cause moire indeed. Anyway, 50Mp is even more forgiving than 36Mp for AA filter, so I don't think it should be an issue. I would go myself for a 5DsR, no question there.
Anyway I have no doubts that if this 5DsR is real, we will some deep reviews.
Feb 05, 2015 at 02:04 PM
p.3 #15No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
I want the low pass filter replaced by clear glass, not some stack of self canceling AA filters.
I think the reason they do it this way is so they don't have to set up a new manufacturing operation. The same system will be used for both, except in one, they rotate the second LPF - no other changes needed. In some cases the two LPFs are not in the same stack These assemblies are not just for AA and are pretty fiddly Check out this close-up picture of one
I want the low pass filter replaced by clear glass, not some stack of self canceling AA filters.
I think the reason they do it this way is so they don't have to set up a new manufacturing operation. The same system will be used for both, except in one, they rotate the second LPF - no other changes needed. In some cases the two LPFs are not in the same stack These assemblies are not just for AA and are pretty fiddly Check out this close-up picture of one
Feb 05, 2015 at 02:07 PM
p.3 #16No low pass filter
AJSJones wrote:
I think the reason they do it this way is so they don't have to set up a new manufacturing operation. The same system will be used for both, except in one, they rotate the second LPF - no other changes needed. In some cases the two LPFs are not in the same stack These assemblies are not just for AA and are pretty fiddly Check out this close-up picture of one
Very interesting link !!!
So yes this make lot of sense, just replace both horizontal and vertical filters with clear glass to keep the same thickness and voilà ! Manufacturing fab should have to take a filter or a non-filter and just place it in same way. Why the R is more expensive is funny anyway ...
ben egbert wrote
I want the low pass filter replaced by clear glass, not some stack of self canceling AA filters.Very interesting link !!!
So yes this make lot of sense, just replace both horizontal and vertical filters with clear glass to keep the same thickness and voilà ! Manufacturing fab should have to take a filter or a non-filter and just place it in same way. Why the R is more expensive is funny anyway ...
Feb 05, 2015 at 02:14 PM
p.3 #17No low pass filter
If both LPFs are in one stack, then replacing them both with soemthing cheaper than optical grade lithium niobate should reduce the cost. However, for the 5D , for example, the two are in separate subassemblies, so they may not be able to replace them both that easily. Either way, it's a short term measure (like for Nikon) to have the "cancelling" version, and later the no LPF version. Actual pricing issues probably don't relate directly to these issues, though: you want $harper image$?
Feb 05, 2015 at 02:54 PM
p.3 #18No low pass filter
AJSJones wrote:
I think the reason they do it this way is so they don't have to set up a new manufacturing operation. The same system will be used for both, except in one, they rotate the second LPF - no other changes needed. In some cases the two LPFs are not in the same stack These assemblies are not just for AA and are pretty fiddly Check out this close-up picture of one
I broke the sensor assembly while cleaning my 1dS3, I know a lot about how they are assembled. Glad I had insurance, but that was the last sensor I cleaned. My 5D3 has never needed cleaning.
ben egbert wrote
I want the low pass filter replaced by clear glass, not some stack of self canceling AA filters.I broke the sensor assembly while cleaning my 1dS3, I know a lot about how they are assembled. Glad I had insurance, but that was the last sensor I cleaned. My 5D3 has never needed cleaning.
Feb 05, 2015 at 03:07 PM
p.3 #19No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
I broke the sensor assembly while cleaning my 1dS3, I know a lot about how they are assembled. Glad I had insurance, but that was the last sensor I cleaned. My 5D3 has never needed cleaning.
Bummer. Worst I've done is to sneeze on one while I was cleaning it. That was a mistake.
I broke the sensor assembly while cleaning my 1dS3, I know a lot about how they are assembled. Glad I had insurance, but that was the last sensor I cleaned. My 5D3 has never needed cleaning.
Bummer. Worst I've done is to sneeze on one while I was cleaning it. That was a mistake.
Feb 05, 2015 at 03:17 PM
p.3 #20No low pass filter
jcolwell wrote:
Bummer. Worst I've done is to sneeze on one while I was cleaning it. That was a mistake.
I cleaned my 10D 20d and 5D.and had some experience but the 1ds was the first that had the top filters separated from the sensor so it had a gap (first anti dust model for me). In addition, the 1ds3 used thinner filters than the 5d2. So it took very little pressure to break it.
The 1ds3 also had lots of oil splatter from the shutter because it was not dust I was cleaning.
ben egbert wrote
I broke the sensor assembly while cleaning my 1dS3, I know a lot about how they are assembled. Glad I had insurance, but that was the last sensor I cleaned. My 5D3 has never needed cleaning.I cleaned my 10D 20d and 5D.and had some experience but the 1ds was the first that had the top filters separated from the sensor so it had a gap (first anti dust model for me). In addition, the 1ds3 used thinner filters than the 5d2. So it took very little pressure to break it.
The 1ds3 also had lots of oil splatter from the shutter because it was not dust I was cleaning.
Feb 05, 2015 at 03:23 PM