05-25-2016, 07:57 PM (This post was last modified: 05-25-2016, 08:36 PM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:"Fad" is your verdict, BC - nobody else calls it fad, if an underexposed picture has some rescue (="save my ass, I never see that place again in this light") capacities. But of course, you just don't know how to take an underepxosed picture neither on purpose nor accidentally? ^_^I was talking about the odd shadow lifting fad, and you bend it into lifting exposure to save a messed up image? Not exactly the same thing, now is it.
The theory of AA and how to bend the reality to make it fit to your theory - really, you're not remotely believing I want to get strapped into some AA-lowpass-filter-weirdness? As it's plain logic that adding elements which are supposed to blurr light beams will not increase sharpness? Keep your theory, no sensor these days is benefitting from AA-filters. Yes, aliasing-effects need to be filtered before the sensor records the scene - but if the resolution goes high enough, the aliasing effects decrease as well in frequency as in visibility. You'd have a hard time to provoke aliasing in real life photography.
Matter of fact, I don't care if a camera has or has no AA filter, it's the results which matter. but I never saw a better picture WITH an AA-filter. A very good sample are comparisons from D800 and D800E. It's very clear, that the D800's AA-lowpassfilter not only costs sharpness but also contrast. A second AA-lowpassfilter neutralizes the effects of the first. So, as it is no real "no AA-filter camera", one wonders why Nikon took a standard sensor and added another filter to neutralize the effects of the sensor's AA-filter? If there's no bad effect, then why waste the money to neutralize it?
Again a whole lot of nonsense written about aliasing, you simple do not grasp the subject.
You do not even understand what Nikon did with the D800E.