[quote name='CSpronken' timestamp='1291073088' post='4584']
Klaus would you have preferred the K10D AA filter approach knowing that with 16.3mp there would be less of a problem anyway?
[/quote]
Yes. That said I would perfer a Panasonic-style AA filter. The K10D filter had a rather odd characteristic - no vertical filtering, heavy horizontal filtering.
There is a dpr D7000 review out there. Compare the K5 with the D7000 images (JPEG/RAW). The K5 is performing quite good.
FWIW, it seems as if I've found a consensus with Falk.
The K5 has a weak AA filter in absolute terms (reads: still some moirees, technically "good effective resolution") but a comparatively strong one vs other DSLRs (reads: other DSLRs have a "seamingly higher resolution" out of the box but also more moirees).
I reckon this means happiness all around. ;-)
Hi Klaus
I understand that you decided to go on with this AA filter removal. When you get the camera back, I would be very nice if you could comment on the + and - of such an action (for instance auto focusing). Concerning the artifacts, hopefully we will see them on the pictures you always put online when you test a lens.
By the way, if I remember well, AA filter have special coating to help dust removal. Any change of AA filter could influence that.
12-01-2010, 09:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2010, 09:39 AM by Klaus.)
[quote name='morgon' timestamp='1291194737' post='4630']
Hi Klaus
I understand that you decided to go on with this AA filter removal. When you get the camera back, I would be very nice if you could comment on the + and - of such an action (for instance auto focusing). Concerning the artifacts, hopefully we will see them on the pictures you always put online when you test a lens.
By the way, if I remember well, AA filter have special coating to help dust removal. Any change of AA filter could influence that.
[/quote]
According to the service company the dust removal mechanism remains functional. As far as the "coating" is concerned - they claim to be able to reattach the membranes again.
BTW, the filter is not just removed - it is replaced with a different one. This is necessary because the original filter has a certain color characteristic and the replacement filter needs to mimic this. If you just remove it the WB would be way off. The posted sample from the E-520 have a extreme blue tint in the original RAWs for instance because the filter was just replaced with a neutral filter.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291195651' post='4632']
According to the service company the dust removal mechanism remains functional. As far as the "coating" is concerned - they claim to be able to reattach the membranes again.
BTW, the filter is not just removed - it is replaced with a different one. This is necessary because the original filter has a certain color characteristic and the replacement filter needs to mimic this. If you just remove it the WB would be way off. The posted sample from the E-520 have a extreme blue tint in the original RAWs for instance because the filter was just replaced with a neutral filter.
[/quote]
That's quite a bit of trust you have to put in the company's hands.
I would be curious to know how it fares after the change, as reliability issues can arise from the filter change.
Even if the price for a AA filter change was cheaper, I don't think I'd take the risk of messing up my K5...
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1291198220' post='4634']
That's quite a bit of trust you have to put in the company's hands.
I would be curious to know how it fares after the change, as reliability issues can arise from the filter change.
Even if the price for a AA filter change was cheaper, I don't think I'd take the risk of messing up my K5...
[/quote]
They've an excellent reputation and a broad warranty. e.g. they guarantee that the new filters are free of tensions. In fact they even claim that the color rendition is superior to the original filter (which is actually no suprise because AA filters are rather complicated beings). You also pay them post mortem and not in advance.
Klaus, it is great that you could reach a consensus with Falk.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291191686' post='4628']
I reckon this means happiness all around. ;-)
[/quote]
Yes, it would indeed, if you are serious about the wording "other DSLRs have a 'seemingly higher resolution' out of the box". But if you are then you might as well not have your K-5's AA filter removed? If the resolution is only "seemingly higher" why spend the money? Just playing the devil's advocate here, of course.
I believe it is not necessary/helpful to remove the AA filter. I understand Falk wouldn't remove it either. Why do you still want to do it?
D7000 doesn't do that well in resolution on DPR review. A55 scores better.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page10.asp
"The A55 makes good use of its 16 megapixel resolution and shows some detail up to approximately 3000 lp/ph which puts it in a similar ballpark as the 18MP Canon EOS 550D and a step ahead of the 12MP Nikon D90. The JPEG output is also fairly clean and free of artifacts and moiré."
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page13.asp
"There is a clear difference in detail resolution between the D7000's JPEG and RAW output. Whereas in the JPEG files, the D7000 cannot accurately describe the 9 lines on our test chart beyond 2200LPH (roughly), the RAW file still shows all nine lines distinctly at 2400LPH, and they only begin to merge at around 2600LPH."
12-01-2010, 11:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2010, 02:43 PM by mst.)
Is it me, or K-5 RAW looks rather soft here?
[url="http://snap-studio.co.uk/rokas/pentax.jpg"]http://snap-studio.co.uk/rokas/pentax.jpg[/url]
