Panasonic GX series

WhiteBeard wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Keithpictures wrote:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.