Re: Would you prefer D800 with or without AA filter ?
Kittyk wrote:
MF maybe have heritage in astronomy and landscapes but it was film, which had no moire issues. Nowadays i would guess it is mainly used for commercial, fashion, high end art and product photography. I believe that if there would be many problems with it, there would be models with and without AA filter in MF world or some aftermarket mods at least. I shoot with high res cameras for a long time and my P65+ have over 50k photos count on it so i believe i would see the problems if they would exist.
and dont judge the capabilities of software moire removal by my photo. it was so simple in that case that i didnt even take some special care to find really the best option. I just slided it until it looked good enough and moved to another from 200 photos. Also keep in mind that it is very high ISO, and close to wide open (focused wrong to add to it) on milion years old lens. You might not be impressed to see texture of jacket on 4/5 body shot but i find it fully ok for live portrait (as in, barely posed)
I think I\'m coming across wrongly. I\'m not saying your is terrible or your techniques are bad or anything. I\'m saying that as a viewer, I\'m not primarily thinking about that at all. It\'s 1) does the image appeal in some way then 2) how does it appeal and why does it appeal. Somewhere around 10) or 11) might I go \"ooh, I wonder what the fine detail\'s like\"
You use software to deal with moire (and take more care where the effect matters more). Another poster mentioned that he stops down to f/11 to remove it (by using the lens as his AA filter). Some have (mentioned I\'d imagine that my reaction would be the same to their images. Only later would I maybe think \"I wonder how fine detail is\".
For a product shot, it may be different as the intended use of the image is different.
Ratatosk wrote:
ausemmao,
Thank you for very informative and easy to understand posts.
I\'m learning a lot here from you and Kittyk.
I actually do some astro-photography too and am member of some Astro-photography forums where I\'ve discussed equipment. This AA thing has not come up.
For my astro-photography then, a non AA-filter camera would be preferred?
I do have issues getting those real sharp detailed shots of celestial objects and, before, I thought it was ALL about me not having one of those computerized GPS tripods to follow the celestial bodies. Guessing one of those tripods and a non AA-filter camera would be the optimal choice here (for detail that is)?
It won\'t matter. The (real) projection of a star onto a camera sensor is far smaller than an individual pixel, and then you have atmospheric and lens distortion on top (it\'s one of the reasons why the older Nikons were worse than Canons for astro photography - the hot pixel removal Nikon used was a nearest neighbour one, and that would remove stars in addition to hot pixels). For long exposures, compensating for the Earth\'s rotation is going to be more important than an AA filter could ever be.
Feb 05, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Previous versions of ausemmao's message #10313013 « Would you prefer D800 with or without AA filter ? »
