[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']
Frankly the industry should simply offer two, possibly three versions of a camera with different AA filters setups - they do so in the 645D, fine, do it for consumer DSLRs as well, please. The extra production costs for this would be next to zero and consumers could simply choose according to their preferences.
[/quote]
You must have seen the various "what should I buy" threads around elsewhere if not so much here. Imagine the increase confusion that would face 1st time buyers if they had to make this choice before they have really experienced it. Maybe it'll be appropriate for higher end DSLRs but probably not the entry level and mid range models. While the manufacturing cost itself shouldn't be much different, there would still be a logistical cost at having yet more variations to produce, manage and stock.
More generally, this only really applies if you do need every pixel as good as it can get. I think for the vast majority of people, this isn't *needed* even if it is a *want*.
All this take has made me wonder though, when I did my own IR conversion on a camera I wonder where the AA filter is, and if I removed that too... although with focus issues and the longer wavelength it'll be tough to get value from that.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1290847093' post='4487']
Great camera. You can order it with or without AA filter.
Here's a quote by Falk Lumo: " But as long as uneducated photographers cry for a weak or no AA filter the industry will listen and give us dirty colors in fine textures. Thank's everybody." In the same post he says " No AA filter means lot's of ugly color moiré and artifacts. The appearant softness from an AA filter is easily removed with an USM radius 0.5 filter.".
It would be great if he could join this discussion or have a chat with Klaus.
I don't know about others but I'd love to hear more from Klaus about justifying his statements about the K10D vs the K-5. It still doesn't add up for me.
[/quote]
Right, right. But what if, I'm not saying that's the case, but just if it's the other way round? Pentax provides the choice regarding the AA filter because medium format photographers *are* educated enough to understand the implications? Or would you rather say that most of Hasselblad / Phase One / etc folks don't know what they're doing?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']
I'm already discussing with him under the hood.
[/quote]
Good!
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']A USM of 0.5 produces sharpening halos and increased noise as well as reduced (unrecoverable) micro contrast.
[/quote]
Whether or not halos are created depends on the strengths of the sharpening. The introduction of noise can be controlled by using appropriate threshold values. USM should increase micro contrast, not decrease it. Hence, appropriate capture sharpening should not do any of the things you describe but only compensate the round shoulders of a step response.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']
This is hardly a non-lossy approach and whether this is any better than a rare false color pattern (of a weak AA filter) is debatable.
[/quote]
In a pragmatic sense, yes, but I don't think in an information theoretic sense.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']
It is, of course, a matter of taste whether you'd like to go left or right here.
[/quote]
Again, I'm not convinced it is a matter of taste. I'm not convinced that an inappropriate AA filter strength provides an actual benefit (as opposed to a perceived one) for colour photography. Black and white scenes might be a different affair but are irrelevant outside lab conditions.
Neither am I convinced that your comparison between the K10D and the K-5 is adequate (even if restricted to B&W scenes). Hopefully your discussions with Falk will help illuminate this matter.
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1290856976' post='4490']
Pentax provides the choice regarding the AA filter because medium format photographers *are* educated enough to understand the implications?
[/quote]
Do you know that's the real reason?
Maybe Pentax believes that moiré is rarely a problem for landscape photography (one of the primary applications for the 645D) and that users are craving for 100% crops that look crispish without any capture sharpening?
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1290856976' post='4490']
Or would you rather say that most of Hasselblad / Phase One / etc folks don't know what they're doing?[/quote]
I would never say such a thing and I wonder what makes you think I would? I only said that I don't know why companies like Leica and Kodak offer products without AA filters. Above I offer a speculation, but have no insights into the true reasons.
[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1290859150' post='4494']
Do you know that's the real reason?
Maybe Pentax believes that moiré is rarely a problem for landscape photography (one of the primary applications for the 645D) and that users are craving for 100% crops that look crispish without any capture sharpening?
I would never say such a thing and I wonder what makes you think I would? I only said that I don't know why companies like Leica and Kodak offer products without AA filters. Above I offer a speculation, but have no insights into the true reasons.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-82/TABLA3.jpg"]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-82/TABLA3.jpg[/url]
e.g. diffraction is a natural AA filter from ~f/8 on high MP APS-C DSLRs. That's also easily visible in the local tests actually where the curves start to decrease from f/8 onwards (high performance lenses). f/11 for MP FF DSLRs and f/16 from MF cameras.
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1290856976' post='4490']
Right, right. But what if, I'm not saying that's the case, but just if it's the other way round? Pentax provides the choice regarding the AA filter because medium format photographers *are* educated enough to understand the implications? Or would you rather say that most of Hasselblad / Phase One / etc folks don't know what they're doing?
[/quote]
no text, mistake post, sorry for the inconvenience
[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1290847093' post='4487']
Here's a quote by Falk Lumo: " The appearant softness from an AA filter is easily removed with an USM radius 0.5 filter.".
[/quote]
After the initial discussions with Falk this (aggressive post-sharpening) is obviously the fundamental difference in our positions.
The good news is - my K5 is a perfectly valid sample.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290864030' post='4497']
After the initial discussions with Falk this (aggressive post-sharpening) is obviously the fundamental difference in our positions.
The good news is - my K5 is a perfectly valid sample.
[/quote]
I would welcome any manufacturers to provide at least 2 types of AA filters (a strong and a weak one). However, I don't think it would ever happen. Most people would get even more confused.
Klaus, have you already tested the 18-135 lens?
What's your take on it?
Thanks.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290849853' post='4488']
Frankly the industry should simply offer two, possibly three versions of a camera with different AA filters setups - they do so in the 645D, fine, do it for consumer DSLRs as well, please. The extra production costs for this would be next to zero and consumers could simply choose according to their preferences.
[/quote]
That will be ideal. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
I remember the first batch of Canon 1000D had very weak AA filters. While Phil Askey from DPReview got all excited and was singing praises about this feature, Imaging Resource completely slammed the same camera for horrible moire. You can check their respective reviews. Hilarious.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290864030' post='4497']
After the initial discussions with Falk this (aggressive post-sharpening) is obviously the fundamental difference in our positions.
The good news is - my K5 is a perfectly valid sample.
[/quote]
Do you like the K5 relative to alternatives (7d, gh2, nex 5, nikon ?). I guess the question is a bit too broad since like is a very personal thing; do you think the rendering, colours, resolution, auto focus, dr are pretty much just as good; radically better, a lot worse or matter of personal preference (being different but neither better no worse)
|
