10-05-2010, 03:49 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1286242902' post='3481']
Well as you might have noticed my saying in that thread, I have a AA-filterless 50D an I really see no improvements in image quality, even with the best lenses out there. What you see at 100% are slightly blocky details in areas of high-frequency detail (e.g. grass in far distances)...GTW
[/quote]
That answers my question perfectly, and saves a lot of time and thought. If you took the anti-aliasing filter off of your 50D, and no angels appeared, then removing AA filters are not worth thinking about. Certainly a bit less blocky details in high-frequency parts of the image, only visible at huge magnification, are not worth pursuing by removing the AA filter, and needlessly creating moire problems in many different images.
Thanks for the rather elevated discussion, folks.
And it is rather amusing to see in general, how casually people talk about whether or not their particular camera system can produce what sounds to me like flawless 1 meter x 1 meter prints. Am scratching my head to remember when any client of mine in the last 35 years has wanted a perfect-quality final print bigger than 8.5 x 11 inches (25x35cm). Certainly doesn't come up in magazine or web journalism, or wedding albums, or marketing materials (well maybe the occasional two-page spread) that people hold in their hand, or ordinary portraiture. Now I suppose tons of extra resolution or pixels from an unnecessarily-large-format sensor would let you crop a picture a bunch and still have it look great. But statistically am getting a higher percentage of perfectly sharp photos than ever, from the new small (APS-C 16x24mm) decent-ISO-800 sensors. With wonderful depth of field for a given natural light level, F-stop and shutter speed.
Well maybe lots of hobbyists and intense artists are making huge prints for personal pleasure or special effects.
/Ru
Well as you might have noticed my saying in that thread, I have a AA-filterless 50D an I really see no improvements in image quality, even with the best lenses out there. What you see at 100% are slightly blocky details in areas of high-frequency detail (e.g. grass in far distances)...GTW
[/quote]
That answers my question perfectly, and saves a lot of time and thought. If you took the anti-aliasing filter off of your 50D, and no angels appeared, then removing AA filters are not worth thinking about. Certainly a bit less blocky details in high-frequency parts of the image, only visible at huge magnification, are not worth pursuing by removing the AA filter, and needlessly creating moire problems in many different images.
Thanks for the rather elevated discussion, folks.
And it is rather amusing to see in general, how casually people talk about whether or not their particular camera system can produce what sounds to me like flawless 1 meter x 1 meter prints. Am scratching my head to remember when any client of mine in the last 35 years has wanted a perfect-quality final print bigger than 8.5 x 11 inches (25x35cm). Certainly doesn't come up in magazine or web journalism, or wedding albums, or marketing materials (well maybe the occasional two-page spread) that people hold in their hand, or ordinary portraiture. Now I suppose tons of extra resolution or pixels from an unnecessarily-large-format sensor would let you crop a picture a bunch and still have it look great. But statistically am getting a higher percentage of perfectly sharp photos than ever, from the new small (APS-C 16x24mm) decent-ISO-800 sensors. With wonderful depth of field for a given natural light level, F-stop and shutter speed.
Well maybe lots of hobbyists and intense artists are making huge prints for personal pleasure or special effects.
/Ru