Confirmed: No practical advantage to removing D7100 AA filter

Started Apr 25, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Whalligeo Regular Member • Posts: 245
Re: The only thing around here less credible
1

Jared Huntr wrote:

Whalligeo wrote:

Shunda77 wrote:

Whalligeo wrote:


I didn't bother to read the DPR review,

Then you aren't even qualified to comment.

This is getting utterly ridiculous.

The pixel peepers don't even have to read the review to have an opinion on the review! truly amazing talent!!

I am more qualified than you think.

You have taken what I have said out of context. To get the true meaning read ALL of my comment. If you don't like it, use the forum block facility, thats what its there for.

Good. Someone that knows what they are talking about.

Can you please describe a practical use-case where the difference in IQ caused by the removal of the AA filter on the D7100 makes a difference? Please describe the post processing steps taken that would preserve such a miniscule difference.

Note: we are discussing the D7100 only, not other models like the D800.

(this is a serious question. I'm open to your viewpoint if you can prove it)

I would be absolutely delighted. However as you are too lazy to figure it out yourself, you will have to agree my fee in advice. Also, the evidence is actually on the DPR web site, Reilly has even pointed it to you guys.

-- hide signature --

They said it couldn't be done, so I encouraged my peers not to bother.
HooRoo!

Jared Huntr OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,854
Re: The only thing around here less credible
2

Whalligeo wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Whalligeo wrote:

Shunda77 wrote:

Whalligeo wrote:


I didn't bother to read the DPR review,

Then you aren't even qualified to comment.

This is getting utterly ridiculous.

The pixel peepers don't even have to read the review to have an opinion on the review! truly amazing talent!!

I am more qualified than you think.

You have taken what I have said out of context. To get the true meaning read ALL of my comment. If you don't like it, use the forum block facility, thats what its there for.

Good. Someone that knows what they are talking about.

Can you please describe a practical use-case where the difference in IQ caused by the removal of the AA filter on the D7100 makes a difference? Please describe the post processing steps taken that would preserve such a miniscule difference.

Note: we are discussing the D7100 only, not other models like the D800.

(this is a serious question. I'm open to your viewpoint if you can prove it)

I would be absolutely delighted. However as you are too lazy to figure it out yourself, you will have to agree my fee in advice. Also, the evidence is actually on the DPR web site, Reilly has even pointed it to you guys.

Typical cop-out.

That's ok, I understand.

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,260
Re: Confirmed: No practical advantage to removing D7100 AA filter

Let's face the unspoken subtext here.  Some posters are simply covering up for the fact that they cannot afford the D7100 or the associated good lenses to go with and making themselves feel better about not having the funds to do the upgrade, or, as in the case of the OP, any Nikon at all.

Most of them are spending many hundreds of dollars on smart phones and the hefty monthly payments attendant thereto, so I guess it's all about priorities, isn't it?

D800e plus 24-70   $5200 over 5 years equals $86 per month. 50% resale value.

Smart phone $200 plus monthly payment equals 100 plus per month. 0% resale value.

Dirck Forum Member • Posts: 79
Re: Here's the key statement of the whole deal....
1

Here is my two cents. Sold some Canon gear a year ago ( 7D and some good lenses, including 70-200L and 135 F2.0L) and was using a hired pro for motorcycle photography for a while. Needed own gear again and decided to buy into the Nikon system. Bodies come and go, but lenses do not. I wanted DX, because the depth of field generally works better for my purposes...I can more easily keep lenses in their sweet spot (f5.6 to f8, in general), but I like reasonably fast glass for low light (but don't always like to pay for it).

The lenses I have bought are excellent, and easily the equal of my Canon lenses. They include the 70-200 F4 (really love carrying this lens versus a 2.8 monster), 85mm F1.8G (wow is this sharp), 24-85 D600 kit lens (really outstanding on a DX body, and bought cheap from a D600 owner) and 35mm F1.8 (my only DX specific lens, but an incredible bargain).

I wanted the build of a 7D, but the D300S sensor needs updating, and I wanted the best DX sensor available. When I heard about the D5200, and saw that it had the same focus system as the D7000 and D600 (which I have used for tracking motorcycles at high speed with some success), I started to look at sample images and was really impressed. Bought one with a battery grip (body is too small without it), and have been really pleased. This was before the D7100 was announced.

Have been looking at D7100 files carefully, but I don't see a significant difference for my purposes. I agree that the removal of the AA filter offers some improvement in overall resolution and micro-contrast. Color saturation SOOC also appears deeper and more pleasing. Having said this, I still think D5200 files have a special look that the D7100 files do not. In any event, I want to see if Nikon will release a D300S successor, and take a look at that. I was spoiled by the much larger buffer on the 7D. I think a D400 might be 19 or 20 megapixels, which would be fine (there is a reason the pro sports bodies are under 20 megapixels).

Here are a couple samples I shot with the D5200, including one with the 70-200

F4 and one with the 85 F1.8.

Dirck Forum Member • Posts: 79
Re: Confirmed: No practical advantage to removing D7100 AA filter
1

Might be true, in part, but that is just an ad hominem argument.

coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,890
Re: Confirmed: No practical advantage to removing D7100 AA filter

marike6 wrote:

Again, if you can see that D7100 images are sharper than D5200 images in the RAW Studio

Exactly, sharper, but about the same resolution. Apply some sharpening to D5200, you'll be surprised how they compare then.

As I keep pointing out, the only thing that's gonna give you more resolution is, well, more megapixels. So, anyone wanting more resolution than D5200 better start asking for a 36mp DX Nikon..

 Nothing is confirmed other than the fact that DPR has it's own biases, it's own conclusions.

I don't think it's really bias, it's just that dpreview are rarely critical enough. They write their reviews for both you, me and beginners.

Honestly, other than test pictures they provide (Imaging Resource has better selection, though), I don't know of how much use dpreview reviews can be to a knowledgeable and informed user.

And like their flat out wrong opinion that "for the majority of users to get better IQ than the OMD you need to go to FF"

Or you can buy any APS-C camera. Despite the hype, OMD is not equal to APS-C cameras.

blue_cheese
blue_cheese Senior Member • Posts: 1,725
Worst titled post ever
2

Of course there is a practical advantage... it saves Nikon money not to have to put the thing into the camera.....

Since when is cost not a practical thing? Oh wait... this is a photography gear forum.

peevee1 Senior Member • Posts: 6,247
Re: Wishful
2

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

I agree with Reilly... FWIW my kit 18-105 definitely appears sharper on my D7100 than it does on my D7000.  Images seem to "pop" a little more than before as well.
Cheers, D. Hamments
My Flickr Page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhamments2013/

Courtesy of no AA filter.  Hear it now, folks, believe it after you've actually used it.

One is 16 mpix, another is 24. Yeah, right, it is AA filter.

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 327
D7000 vs D3200

Wouldn't comparing D7000 vs D3200 show what you get in resolution difference between 16 & 24mp, this would also be Sony vs Sony sensor.

 jjoyce's gear list:jjoyce's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600
Russell Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 11,766
Re: The only thing around here less credible
2

Jared Huntr wrote:

Defining practical means you have to tell us how you present your images in practice. Not test images, not comparison images, but images your are taking to present to others for viewing.

Now or in the future? I'm young enough to hope to see 8k (7680 × 4320) screens in my lifetime. If I was taking photos of my children, I have to suppose they will have access to even better technology in their lifetimes. Digital is more portable, so I am supposing longer use of the files. Tagging will make the photos more memorable in the future as well. Are you old enough to have a box of photos from your parents that you have lost the history of, but still can't force yourself to send off to be recycled?

Does it seem stupid to assume higher resolution output will be possible in the future? Then doesn't it seem logical to shoot with the idea of capturing as much detail as possible today?

Thank you
Russell

Patco Forum Pro • Posts: 12,430
Re: Wishful
1

peevee1 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

I agree with Reilly... FWIW my kit 18-105 definitely appears sharper on my D7100 than it does on my D7000.  Images seem to "pop" a little more than before as well.
Cheers, D. Hamments
My Flickr Page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhamments2013/

Courtesy of no AA filter.  Hear it now, folks, believe it after you've actually used it.

One is 16 mpix, another is 24. Yeah, right, it is AA filter.

Don't spoil the filter-less euphoria with facts & logic

-- hide signature --

Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,260
Actual

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?  Everyone says so (even poor old DPR) except for a select few pontificating from a great distance who don't own such a camera, or in the case of the OP, any camera at all.

Nikon has handed you the keys to the DX image quality kingdom at too reasonable a price, and all some of you can do is mumble  "Is that all ya got?"

Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,662
Agreed
1

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?

Nope, and no one said it wouldn't...just in the case of the D7100, it made no practical difference.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,260
Re: Agreed
2

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?

Nope, and no one said it wouldn't...just in the case of the D7100, it made no practical difference.

To you, perhaps.  But not to anyone wanting the best possible resolution from the DX format.  Which may indeed be a secondary consideration, as noted by several above.

I can keep going with this until we hit 150, no problem.

Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,662
With what?
1

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?

Nope, and no one said it wouldn't...just in the case of the D7100, it made no practical difference.

To you, perhaps.  But not to anyone wanting the best possible resolution from the DX format.  Which may indeed be a secondary consideration, as noted by several above.

I can keep going with this until we hit 150, no problem.

Going on with what? The review's conclusions have already been validated in full. Your examples confirm that as well.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

kewlguy
kewlguy Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
the problem is....
1

...those who claim there is not much difference between D5200 and D7100 never really use AA-less cameras, I'm afraid. Use them in the field, don't just download the samples. Shoot in varying lights and ISOs. See if there's too small difference to talk about.

I've used M9 and D800e (plus a Canon 600D astro-mod w/o OLPF) and I would never go back! It's like a thin mist is removed from the photo Clarity, for sure, is improved due to better micro contrast.

I'm sure some Pentax users could confirm that they like the output from K5 IIs better than the K5 II

 kewlguy's gear list:kewlguy's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5DS R Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Pentax K-1 +89 more
Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,260
With what? This.

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?

Nope, and no one said it wouldn't...just in the case of the D7100, it made no practical difference.

To you, perhaps.  But not to anyone wanting the best possible resolution from the DX format.  Which may indeed be a secondary consideration, as noted by several above.

I can keep going with this until we hit 150, no problem.

Gone on with what? The review's conclusions have already been validated in full.

Nonsense.  Validated only to those who wish to believe that everything's the same, nothing to see here, move along.  I can see the difference, others can't.  No surprise there!

Your examples confirm that as well.

How is a fuzzier picture from the D5200 "confirm that as well?"  Curious.

Daisy AU
Daisy AU Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: The only thing around here less credible
1

Jared Huntr wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

is DPR's reviewing staff who apparently won't look at their own comparison widget which clearly shows a difference between the D5200 and the D7100.

DPR never said there wasn't a difference.

"Our conclusion after viewing dozens of comparisons was that outside the controlled environment of our studio, even extremely minor shifts in focus or (potentially) sensor alignment could trump the absence of an OLPF in accounting for any visible differences between the D7100 and D5200."

The take-away is that there is no PRACTICAL advantage. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult to grasp.

And before anyone attempts to extrapolate these results into a general statement that removing AA filters make no difference, DON'T. We are only referring to the D7100.

In my view, there is a difference between the D7100 and D5200 even in the shots taken outside the controlled lab tests.  I guess it's all about what "practical" is for one or another.  The "practical" difference is not enough for me to upgrade from the D7000, but for others (who pixel-peep and/or do large prints, etc.) it might be an important factor.  The bottom line is:  Did the removal of the low pass filter make a difference?  YES.

Is this difference important to me in my "practical" use?  Absolutely NOT.

If I didn't have the D7000 and was upgrading from another model, I would probably get the D7100 instead of the D7000.

Each to their own.

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane

 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,260
Re: the problem is....

Oh my goodness, someone (besides myself) who's actually used a camera such as we're discussing chimes in!  Will wonders never cease?  You're a brave soul, KG.

Thin mist indeed.

Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,662
Points well
1

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Boy, they're out today.  Everyone who can't get a D7100 is out for scalps and running loose.

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the lack of a blur filter would enable a sharper picture?

Nope, and no one said it wouldn't...just in the case of the D7100, it made no practical difference.

To you, perhaps.  But not to anyone wanting the best possible resolution from the DX format.  Which may indeed be a secondary consideration, as noted by several above.

I can keep going with this until we hit 150, no problem.

Gone on with what? The review's conclusions have already been validated in full.

Nonsense.  Validated only to those who wish to believe that everything's the same, nothing to see here, move along.  I can see the difference, others can't.  No surprise there!

No one said they could not see a difference...only that the difference is of no practical relevance to photography in general per the context of the review.

Your examples confirm that as well.

How is a fuzzier picture from the D5200 "confirm that as well?"  Curious.

Because the mis-focus seems to have a bigger over all effect than the presence of a AA filter. That points well to the reviews conclusions.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads