Anti-alias & moire

[Thwarp]

I'm seriously considering moving from the nikon D5100 to the newer d7500.
In reading reviews and specs on the d7500 I've seen mentioned the lack of anti-alias in the d7500 as offering much better performance and image clarity, but with one small though probably insignificant draw back.

They mentioned that the lack of anti-alias runs a risk of increased chances of "Moiré" in some instances.

1. Has anyone with cameras lacking anti-alias run in issues of unwanted moire more often than they care for?

2. Are there ways around instances when you can't avoid the possibility?

3. Can you cite instances where moire might show up (other than screen windows)?

I appreciate the forums very much. Lots of lurking about offers much insight.
I appreciate the time the well seasoned photographers take to come to the forums and offer the wisdom of their experience.

 

[benhasajeep]

Moire can happen with lines, dots, things with repetitive patterens that the sensor can't resolve. You can get miore from fabric for instance. It can be mitigated somewhat in Photoshop and Lightroom.

I just recieved my first DSLR without an AA filter (D850). Have not tried to test for moire with it.

 

[fmw]

You will want to restate "much better" performance to "subtly better" performance. I use the Fuji system which has a sensor called X-trans which doesn't have nor need anti aliasing. I've never encountered moire on the system. I'm not sure what Nikon uses but it is probably a better setup than they had before. I wouldn't spend a moment worrying about it.

 

[Thwarp]

Subtly better?
I've read that older sensors like in the D5100, though similar to the newer can have significantly improved performance.
I've read that the 7500 has the same sensor as (gees I can't remember exactly) d750 or was it the 850 which are both fx cameras. But as far as d7500 vs the d7200, there really is no significant improvement in picture quality. Performance wise, the buffering is better, the screen can be slid up or down, which for me is good since I use it on the D5100, especially when I need to get real close to the ground, because of my disability, getting down that low without the feature is a difficult task.

So with the dern close to being twins with the d7200 and the d850, I'm even more confused now. I guess this is one of the other difficult nuances I'm finding it hard to sort out when justifying the cost difference of only $200-300 between the d7200 and the D5100. Probably like trying to decide between a ram 1500 tradesman and tradesman SLT.

 

[dunfly]

The D7500 has a significantly better sensor than the older D5100, so the image quality difference is not because of the lack of an anti alias filter. The D7500 has the same sensor as the top of the line DX camera the D500 not the FX cameras.

To show the difference the anti alias filter makes, you can compare the D5200 and the D5300, which both have 24 mp sensors, the D5200 with an anti-alias filter and the D5300 without. I have a D5200 and have been looking for a reason to upgrade. I have searched numerous tests as to image quality compared to the D5300 and all show no significant difference. As mentioned above, any moire can be fixed in post production.

Based on your previous post, I would suggest you look at the D5300 or, if you like touch screens, the D5500. They have the articulating screen like yours, a very good sensor, and are MUCH lighter than the D7xxx series. So unless you like the extra buttons and tougher case, I don't think they are worth the extra weight. Of course, this is my personal opinion, but I don't like shoulder strain.

 

[Braineack]

The D7500 has the same sensor as the top of the line DX camera the D500 not the FX cameras.

incorrect, the D500 has a 20MP DX sensor. The rest have the same 24MP sensor.

I've read that older sensors like in the D5100, though similar to the newer can have significantly improved performance.

the D5100 sensor is junk.


The "issue" with the lack of AA filter and moiré are only things you read about online. It's a non-issue. Nikon removed it for a reason.

So with the dern close to being twins with the d7200 and the d850, I'm even more confused now.

these are no where close to being twins.

I honestly think you're reading too much, confusing yourself, and getting caught up in things that aren't important. I think you'll do better if you ask us.

for example: I'd highly consider a D7200 over a D7500. IMHO I think the D7500 is a downgrade over it in a few ways without any real improvements.

 

[dunfly]

The D7500 has the same sensor as the top of the line DX camera the D500 not the FX cameras.

incorrect, the D500 has a 20MP DX sensor. The rest have the same 24MP sensor.

I've read that older sensors like in the D5100, though similar to the newer can have significantly improved performance.

the D5100 sensor is junk.


The "issue" with the lack of AA filter and moiré are only things you read about online. It's a non-issue. Nikon removed it for a reason.

So with the dern close to being twins with the d7200 and the d850, I'm even more confused now.

these are no where close to being twins.

I honestly think you're reading too much, confusing yourself, and getting caught up in things that aren't important. I think you'll do better if you ask us.

for example: I'd highly consider a D7200 over a D7500. IMHO I think the D7500 is a downgrade over it in a few ways without any real improvements.

I believe you are incorrect. The D7500 has the same 20.9 mp sensor as the D500.
Nikon D7500 DSLR | 20.9 MP DX Format Digital SLR Camera

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

 

[Braineack]

whoops, my mistake. Just another one of those downgrades of the D7500 I was talking about.

 

[Ysarex]

Subtly better?
I've read that older sensors like in the D5100, though similar to the newer can have significantly improved performance.
I've read that the 7500 has the same sensor as (gees I can't remember exactly) d750 or was it the 850 which are both fx cameras. But as far as d7500 vs the d7200, there really is no significant improvement in picture quality. Performance wise, the buffering is better, the screen can be slid up or down, which for me is good since I use it on the D5100, especially when I need to get real close to the ground, because of my disability, getting down that low without the feature is a difficult task.

So with the dern close to being twins with the d7200 and the d850, I'm even more confused now. I guess this is one of the other difficult nuances I'm finding it hard to sort out when justifying the cost difference of only $200-300 between the d7200 and the D5100. Probably like trying to decide between a ram 1500 tradesman and tradesman SLT.

I'll second Fred on this one. Not a feature difference to spend money on. The difference is subtle if you can see it at all. Here's a comparison for you. Two different cameras: one has an AA filter and the other doesn't. Can you pick them out? If you can't make your decision based on other more important criteria.

Joe

iris_one
iris_two

 

[fmw]

Subtly better?
I've read that older sensors like in the D5100, though similar to the newer can have significantly improved performance.
I've read that the 7500 has the same sensor as (gees I can't remember exactly) d750 or was it the 850 which are both fx cameras. But as far as d7500 vs the d7200, there really is no significant improvement in picture quality. Performance wise, the buffering is better, the screen can be slid up or down, which for me is good since I use it on the D5100, especially when I need to get real close to the ground, because of my disability, getting down that low without the feature is a difficult task.

So with the dern close to being twins with the d7200 and the d850, I'm even more confused now. I guess this is one of the other difficult nuances I'm finding it hard to sort out when justifying the cost difference of only $200-300 between the d7200 and the D5100. Probably like trying to decide between a ram 1500 tradesman and tradesman SLT.

Yes, I would say subtle. The 7200 has a penta prism instead of a penta mirror. It has a focusing motor opening it up to the use of more lenses. It has a sturdier body. It has two adjustment wheels instead of one, It has countless other less important things such as a horizon level that can be useful. Sensors aren't all that important these days. All of them are quite good. Definitely worth more money.

 

[Gary A.]

I've been using non-AA filtered cameras for years. I agree that with modern sensors, the difference is subtle. High quality lenses are more important, than AA Filtration or lack thereof, for capturing consistently sharp images.

 

[john.margetts]

Not just digital cameras - you can get moire patterns on film when the grain size is close to line resolution. I have had wood cladding on buildings cause moire patterns on film before now.

No, it is not a major problem in general unless you are photographing something with lots of lines at the critical resolution.

 

[Thwarp]

Wow, all of you offer great, consistent advice. I also appreciate the open discussion on sensors.

Braineack put it best when he said : "I honestly think you're reading too much, confusing yourself, and getting caught up in things that aren't important. I think you'll do better if you ask us."

For this very reason I came to the forum in the first place. "you can learn a lot from a dummy" (wink wink, nod nod, nudge nudge nude)

This is a also why I posted this thread, to get assistance in assessment of the issues which as I suspected where pretty much inconsequential/insignificant; and as such you've helped me rule out the D7500.

Articulated screens are nice and I've used mine on the 5100 to get nice pictures of critters and pets. Just articulate, use live view, compose and shoot without having to get down and dirty. Just bend over and, click!

But will I use it as much as I have? Doubtful, because when I did use it I was merely dinking around, examining the creative possibilities of low angle shots. The notion of having wifi, Bluetooth in a camera doesn't excite me one bit either. Neither does touch screen. We're already spoiled enough with all the things these cameras do for us with bells and whistles and the ease of post production software that offer amazing photos such as HD. I prefer reality based photos, what we see is actually best in my book. Though I certainly appreciate those stunning HD, multiple bracketed, added colors of the milky-way from places like the Arizona desert and Utah, it's not what we see with the naked eye, not even with the most powerful telescopes. Despite this they do offer the benefits of letting us see the incredible detail of creation which we don't normally see. Incredible detail!

I'll be looking at the d7200 and the d5500 instead of the d7500. I've seen more than a few video reviews of the d7500 which confirms everything you folks have said. Other than the bells and whistles, it's not worth the additional money.

 

[fmw]

Braineack makes a good point. A reality in hobbies is a common interest in details and trivia. Hobbyists like to get into those things to a great extent. Photography becomes about cameras more than it does about images.

I've been contributing to a thread in another forum that is comparing two prime lenses of the same brand and focal length but with different maximum apertures. The hobbyists are talking about things like bokeh contrast and the rendering of "transitions" whatever those are. They show images made with both lenses at common apertures and you would not know one from another if they didn't label them and then they dissect things I can't even see in their jpegs. It reminds me of the discussions I have read in audiophile forums which go well beyond nonsense.

The internet can provide good information and it can also provide information overload. There is a lot of misinformation posted on the internet as well. I've posted some myself unwittingly. The trick isn't to find information. The trick is to figure out what is correct and applicable to you and what is not. And the internet doesn't help you do that.

My advice about camera equipment is to buy what you like. All of it does what it is supposed to do. There are differences in approach and conveniences but they will all make about the same images. If the images are what matter - and they should - then the equipment is generally trivial. You've seen the old saw that good images are about good photographers, not good equipment. It is true. It is true that better equipment rarely results in better images. It is all about what is between the photographer's ears.

Back in the 1960's I attended one of Ansel Adams' workshops in Colorado. Adams is probably the most famous American landscape photographer in history. He took us out to make images in Rocky Mountain National Park. He brought a beat up old wooden 8X10 view camera and a wooden tripod. He made some images along with the rest of us and then showed us what Ansel Adams was all about in the darkroom the following day. We all had images of the same subjects Adams made that day but none of us came anywhere near ending up with a print comparable to his in the darkroom. The man was genius in the darkroom. It wasn't the camera. It wasn't the subject. It was the photographer. No wonder his fame has endured all this time.

Don't worry about the equipment. Go make some images.