Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thein, The whole concept of AA filters has me a bit baffled. If they improve acuity so much, why do camera companies like Nikon and Canon use them in their top end cameras. I mean, they have smart engineers. So AA they must be there for a reason. And Leica, by not using them, must gain something; but they also must be giving up something, too. I have my own opinions of what those somethings are, based on using a D200 that had the hi pass filter removed. A lot probably depends on what type of photography a person does. What may be an issue with some subject matter may not be with another. Acutance is important in some types of photography. But not so much in others. If the ability to resolve fine detail dwarfed all other factors, Tech Pan would have outsold TriX, instead of visa versa. I've always put a lot of stock in low light performance. But that's just me. Probably because I learned long ago that if I have to shoot at too low a shutter speed any potential acutance in the tools I'm using disappears in a hurry. DaveR -----Original Message----- From: Ming Thein [mailto:mingthein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:27 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: D3x vs 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples You still have to use sharpening all the time to get optimal acuity. You don't with the M8. Thein Onn Ming Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2009, at 0:39, "David Rodgers" <drodgers at casefarms.com> wrote: > Thein, > >>> The D3x still has an AA filter, and while it has the best per- >>> pixel detail I've seen, it doesn't come close to the M8/DMR/CFV. >>> Those cameras have no AA filter.<< > > Could you please be moir? specific regarding "doesn't come close"? > > DaveR > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information