[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1291200911' post='4639']
Klaus, it is great that you could reach a consensus with Falk.
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?
[/quote]
*sigh*
I do well believe Falk's mathematical analysis that you can recover the maximum of details via sharpening but sharpening itself is lossy in terms of increased noise and sharpening artifacts - it will cost you probably something like one ISO step in terms of noise to do so just to point to the most obvious effect. Don't nail me on "one" - it could be less or (more likely) more - I haven't measured this.
The sharpening itself may not affect the validity of the MTF tests so I could leave the K5 as is - this is correct. However, it does diminish the field quality of the K5 -> for me<-. There's a use for the K5 beyond the sheer testing. And ... as discussed .... it is, of course, a matter of taste. :-) If you prefer to have a sharp output at ISO 400 with an equivalent ISO effect like at ISO 800 (after sharpening), well fine - just go on - but I prefer to have a similar sharp output at ISO 400 with an equivalent ISO effect like at ISO 200 (because I need to apply less sharpening). I reckon the trade-offs of either approach are well understood. As mentioned I would prefer to have a weak AA filter rather than none but this option is not available out there.
Regarding the tests - it is quite meaningless whether there's an AA filter in the camera or not. This will NOT CHANGE THE RANKING of the lenses nor the technical quality of a lens and THIS IS THE ULTIMATE ESSENCE of it all.
Readers do already put too much emphasis on the max. LW/PH values because they try to cross compare systems although we do always stress that this is invalid - here and elsewhere. In the very theory I could even use straight JPEGs from a factory K5 resulting in max. LW/PHs around 2000. It would be an obvious approach and also a technically valid one - finally this is "recommended by Pentax" (it wouldn't be the default otherwise, wouldn't it ?). I reckon there would be an outcry in the community if I did so though. So as always in life - the truth is always gray and neither black nor white.
Klaus, it is great that you could reach a consensus with Falk.
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?
[/quote]
*sigh*
I do well believe Falk's mathematical analysis that you can recover the maximum of details via sharpening but sharpening itself is lossy in terms of increased noise and sharpening artifacts - it will cost you probably something like one ISO step in terms of noise to do so just to point to the most obvious effect. Don't nail me on "one" - it could be less or (more likely) more - I haven't measured this.
The sharpening itself may not affect the validity of the MTF tests so I could leave the K5 as is - this is correct. However, it does diminish the field quality of the K5 -> for me<-. There's a use for the K5 beyond the sheer testing. And ... as discussed .... it is, of course, a matter of taste. :-) If you prefer to have a sharp output at ISO 400 with an equivalent ISO effect like at ISO 800 (after sharpening), well fine - just go on - but I prefer to have a similar sharp output at ISO 400 with an equivalent ISO effect like at ISO 200 (because I need to apply less sharpening). I reckon the trade-offs of either approach are well understood. As mentioned I would prefer to have a weak AA filter rather than none but this option is not available out there.
Regarding the tests - it is quite meaningless whether there's an AA filter in the camera or not. This will NOT CHANGE THE RANKING of the lenses nor the technical quality of a lens and THIS IS THE ULTIMATE ESSENCE of it all.
Readers do already put too much emphasis on the max. LW/PH values because they try to cross compare systems although we do always stress that this is invalid - here and elsewhere. In the very theory I could even use straight JPEGs from a factory K5 resulting in max. LW/PHs around 2000. It would be an obvious approach and also a technically valid one - finally this is "recommended by Pentax" (it wouldn't be the default otherwise, wouldn't it ?). I reckon there would be an outcry in the community if I did so though. So as always in life - the truth is always gray and neither black nor white.
' /> I'm including myself in this, of course!
' />