05-25-2016, 10:58 AM
An AA-filter was more than necessary with Sensors around 4...6 MP (and less, of course), because alasing was very prominent.
These days with 36 MP and more for FF - what is a reason to keep a softening filter in front of a sensor? I cannot imagine one. As each photography is influencing reality in a lot ways (bringing 3D into 2 dimensions, altering colour, redefining ambivalent light or taing the picture entirel with artificial light) I also cannot a single reason why an AA filter should provide more "reality". I also don't accept the idea of the "pixel-level bite", because you never ever will see a "real" pixel - you just see waht's the monitor doing with it or how precise a printer can define it, but never ever you will see the form of a pixel coming out of a printer at normal printing conditions (meaning, not printing a 500% crop on A3).
That's kind of a reasoning to keep or stick with old techniques. Thought to the end, we would still paint mammoths on cave walls, if we don't like progress in taking pictures. Tradition is the passing on the flame, not the adoration of the ash (that was from Mahler, I believe). Same goes for the "shadow pulling fad" - just because Canon is less competent there, it doesn't have to be a bad thing not to blow off the highlights and get a good share of more information - if one wants it.
As for the macros: As long as I don't have any better samples of butterflies in the morning with water drops to enlarge the facet eyes, I keep my mouth shut. It's inspiring for me. I just wondered, if the eye itself with all the facets was not so detailed because of pixelshift or because one needs to come much closer?
These days with 36 MP and more for FF - what is a reason to keep a softening filter in front of a sensor? I cannot imagine one. As each photography is influencing reality in a lot ways (bringing 3D into 2 dimensions, altering colour, redefining ambivalent light or taing the picture entirel with artificial light) I also cannot a single reason why an AA filter should provide more "reality". I also don't accept the idea of the "pixel-level bite", because you never ever will see a "real" pixel - you just see waht's the monitor doing with it or how precise a printer can define it, but never ever you will see the form of a pixel coming out of a printer at normal printing conditions (meaning, not printing a 500% crop on A3).
That's kind of a reasoning to keep or stick with old techniques. Thought to the end, we would still paint mammoths on cave walls, if we don't like progress in taking pictures. Tradition is the passing on the flame, not the adoration of the ash (that was from Mahler, I believe). Same goes for the "shadow pulling fad" - just because Canon is less competent there, it doesn't have to be a bad thing not to blow off the highlights and get a good share of more information - if one wants it.
As for the macros: As long as I don't have any better samples of butterflies in the morning with water drops to enlarge the facet eyes, I keep my mouth shut. It's inspiring for me. I just wondered, if the eye itself with all the facets was not so detailed because of pixelshift or because one needs to come much closer?