Adielle is correct though. While a camera without an AA filter will produce more "sharp" photos, this detail is false, and is an artifact of sampling theory. I also am upset that there is not a viable option with an AA filter, and have delayed upgrading because of this.
When you are sampling a signal (perhaps music), the highest frequency you can record accurately is one half your sample rate. So, if you want to sample music up to 20 kHz, you had best sample at 40 kHz. This is your "Nyquist frequency".
The issue is that any frequencies above your Nyquist frequency are still recorded, but they appear as frequencies lower than reality. If you are sampling at 40 kHz, a 21 kHz signal will appear to be 19 kHz, etc. This is distortion that degrades the quality of ths signal.
For this reason, electrical engineers will put an anti-aliasing filter in front of the digitizer, in order to remove signals above the frequency that can be accurately sampled. To not do so to improve your bandwidth would get you laughed out of any review.
For digital cameras, the mathematics is identical, but in 2 dimensions rather than one. You are sampling a signal in space. Any detail smaller than the sample rate is not sampled properly. If you lack an AA filter, you will see "sharp detail", however this detail is most often false. It is impossible for the sensor to resolve it accurately.
The absence of Moire (which camera algorithms tend to look for to remove) does not mean that there is absence of image artifacts. Moire is caused by a strong single frequency above Nyquist getting folded down through sampling (like the 21 kHz to 19 kHz example above), but this is only common in man-made objects. Foliage tends to look weird in a lot of photos... certainly not like you would see it with your eyes. Someone showed some very nice pictures above including one of a nice suit. I would be surprised if the suit fabric looked as "sharp" as the image appeared to show.
Anyway, this is the end of my rant. I hope it's useful to someone.