Anti-Aliasing Filter-less DSLRs.

[Derrel]

T

Cool sample photos,bro. I plan to drink a few beers this weekend, and stare at these two shots for a while.

 

[unpopular]

^^ "beers" huh?

 

[Derrel]

The Kodak 14n and its various derivatives were free of AA filter arrays. That camera had one heck of a lot of sensor problems...the problems were legion...

The Leica M-series rangefinders are all as I recall, free of AA filters; a good number of people have made posts on the interwebs, stating that in their opinion Leica got about the same overall resolving power out of an 18MP sensor without an AA filter as the Nikon D3x did with a 24.6 MP Sony-sensor equipped with an AA filter.

I honestly doubt that the majority of 35mm system lenses are going to play nicely with a 36MP FF sensor, especially at even remotely smallish apertures...I'm tired and headachy today and can't think all that great, but my thought is that f/4 is going to be about as small an aperture as one will be able to go before diffraction sets in on a 36MP 24x36 sensor that's free of an AA filter...I really do not see the benefit of that many Megapixels on a camera like a D800...I just do not think the "majority" of lenses will be able to utilize that high of an MP count at the apertures where the lenses are at their best...

 

[unpopular]

I think small format is just kind of a dead horse. It just does not make much sense to keep cramming more and more pixels onto a small format - it doesn't make sense from a manufacturing POV, an optical POV or an electronic POV.

One of these manufacturers is going to build a medium format body, then instead of a race to see how many pixels you can cram onto a 35mm frame, it will be who can build the biggest sensor.

They'll be making a new line of lenses every three months!

 

[Markw]

That's what I said on a recent NR thread. I don't see why Nikon hasn't already made a MF sensor, or a sensor between FX and MF. Something like a 0.9x crop factor, or a little less, at 16-20MP instead of 30-60MP would create a camera with incredible dynamic range, and incredible ISO capabilities to boot. Making a mid-level sensor size between FX and MF would allow them to keep processing time down, frame rates relatively up (combined with the low-ish MP count). It'd be an incredible camera. I'd definitely have one.

Mark

 

[Patrice]

I, for one, would think long and hard before buying into a larger digital format from Nikon. I have a cupboard full of Nikon glass dating back a few decades and all of them can be used on all the Nikon bodies I presently own. A larger format would render more than a few of these way less useful than they presently are.

Besides, there are already quite a few choices if you want a sensor bigger than 35 by 24 but smaller than 60 by 60.

 

[eric-holmes]

Looks like the rumors were right about the D800E.

 

[Garbz]

That was a wonderful description Garbz, thank you for that! But, is there no chance since there will be 36MP jammed into the sensor, that the light will diffract the light enough to hit the correct color pixels, and the aliasing won't be a problem? I'm not 100% certain how this would affect the moiré issue, but for aliasing, this seems like it would fix most of the problem, if I understand the problem correctly in the first place.

My only disgruntle is that I can't believe Nikon would produce a camera to the caliber of their Dxxx line, and hinder the ability of it to do what it is supposed to do, take proper photos. I think if we all know it would be a waste of R&D funds, and production funds, then charge an extra $900 for the camera without the filter, and it still had such serious problems as aliasing, they know it, and they wouldn't make it if that were the case...

Mark

The thing is Moire is a very specific problem in a number of usage cases. It's a problem that can be mostly eliminated in post processing but is very hard to do for video. There are several applications where moire will likely never be a problem. One of the specific ones is photographing nature, specifically landscapes. Under the assumption that you don't have a repeating fine pattern in the image, your lens is sharp enough, and you're shooting where diffraction is a non issue then you can achieve a sharper photo without an AA filter. However for a general purpose camera something as simple as a tiled roof can generate problems. In the general purpose case yes no AA filter can be crippling in many scenarios. In the specific case you can squeeze more performance out of your gear.

Having extra resolution really helps too. The higher resolution changes the Nyquist frequency and thus requires a finer pattern to generate a moire effect. Combined with the imperfections in a typical lens, and the diffraction effects limiting sharpness you end up with something that may not be field relevant. However a word of caution, if the lens and diffraction causes moire not to occur than you're likely looking at a combination which wouldn't benefit from having the AA filter removed either. In any case I'm pleased to see that they have opted to offer both options to end users.

Video users looking at the D800 as Nikon's answer to the 5DmkII would definitely opt for one with an AA filter. It is very hard to edit out moire effects in post processing in video, and the BBC have effectively banned the use of a 5DmkII from more than 25% of any program shoot due to the poor performance with moire. Case by case exceptions were granted, but in cases where you're photographing people wearing cloths moire can appear suddenly and without warning. Take a step closer and it can disappear, take a step further away and it can also disappear.