Can we talk about this? According to the rumors, there will be two versions of the D800, one with the antialiasing filter removed and one with it included. The one with it removed will allegedly be more expensive than the one with it.
For the sake of argument, lets just assume the rumors are true. I don't want to debate how valid the rumor is, I just want to understand it.
I have two questions: First, why would the one without the filter be more expensive than the one with it? Generally, when you remove something you remove cost and lower the price.
Second, can someone with more technical knowledge explain to me the advantages of having, or not having this filter?
In other words, lets' assume I am going to buy a D800 - Which should I buy and why?
First- Pricing is about value, not cost. (for example: How much did you house cost and what are you willing to sell it for?)
Second- I think this is impossible to answer because we don't know the spec for the sensor on the Dwhatever. If it is the purported 36MP, then the unfiltered version may offer sharper images out of the camera with an acceptable chance of higher moire. If is is a 16MP camera the trade off may be unacceptable to most people.
I'll eat another membership card if there are really two versions of the Dwhatever along these lines. (please send more spices.)
It must have been just minutes after I posted the above question that Nikon Rumors posted the following:
"Why would Nikon release the D800E with the anti-aliasing (AA) filter removed? The simple answer is to produce sharper images with more details and better resolution. The AA filter removes information that cannot be recorded correctly by the sensor. It's basically an extra layer on top of the sensor that reduces the image quality in order to remove certain undesired artifact. If you remove the AA filter, the drawback is that you can get moire patterns in certain situations (see example above)."
I am still not sure that it clarifies, for me, which one I should get. But, maybe that clarity won't be there until comparative test shots are posted somewhere.
Sat 04-Feb-12 07:58 PM | edited Sat 04-Feb-12 08:11 PM by Hektor
The D800/D800E (with AA filter/without AA filter) is one of the worst kept secrets in Nikon’s history. I am 99% sure that it will be announced this Monday, 2/6/12 at ~ 9:00 PM PDT. There is always that 1% uncertainty. We’ll soon find out for sure (100%.)
I’ll be live on NikonRumors this Monday night. I could not care less about the D800 with or without the AA filter. I’m hoping for the new 70-200 f/4 VR. Even though a new lens is not expected or worse, discarded, you know what they say: “hope springs eternal.”
PS: I just added the following thoughts. Since I do not contemplate purchasing the D800 or D800E, I will not be facing the dilemma and sheer agony of whether to spend $1,000 more to get less (no AA) or $1,000 less to get more (with AA.)
Nikonians is our Safe Port and Home in the World Wide Web - Participate as a Full Family Member.
Leica Q - Fujifilm X-T2 (~ October) - Nikon D5500 (IR) - Nikon D750 Member since 2007 - Previous User Name: Ramesses (2035 posts) A combined total of 2735+ posts and counting. "Photography is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get." Forrest Gump - The Photo Reviewer.
Sat 04-Feb-12 07:08 PM | edited Sat 04-Feb-12 07:14 PM by dm1dave
The AA filter slightly blurs the image in order to remove moiré. This is the reason we need to apply capture sharpening at the beginning of our post processing workflow.
So removing the AA filter could give you sharper images with a risk of moiré showing up with some subjects.
The idea is that some people may be willing to pay more for that added sharpness. There is already at least one company that will remove AA filters on existing cameras at a cost of about $500. Since some people are will to pay for this modification it is logical that some will be willing to pay a premium to get a camera without the AA filter.
I have seen one or two comparison using a D300 with and without the AA filter. Strait out of the camera the image without the filter was sharper. However after both images are post processed, including sharpening, there was no significant difference in the final image.
The drawback of having no AA filter is that moiré can be difficult to remove in post processing.
It would be interesting to see the same comparison with a high megapixel camera.
I would probably stick with a AA filter until I could do some comparisons myself.
So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a) if you boosted up the sharpening either in-camera or post processing you are not likely to see any, or little, difference in sharpness than from the camera without the removal of the filter; and b) with the filter you at least have the option of removing/lessening the moire effect; and c) the base unit would be less expensive.
If all of that is true, than it is an open and shut case in my mind. Don't pay for the higher priced unit with the filter removed.
For me the decision would be easy. For as long as I have been shooting digital, I never felt the need to remove the AA filter. No need to change that now and potentially add additional steps to my workflow.
Has anybody been wondering what lenses will hold up with a 36mp D800? It gives me pause since I think a lot of my lenses would fall short, especially on a non-AA cam. I"m glad I kept the 14-24. maybe the 85 1.4. Or will Nikon start conditioning us to buy $10,000 lenses? Thoughts? Sure fire keepers?
I would disagree with you in that the crop sensor in the D7000 uses only the central portion of the non-DX lens. Recall some of the issues uncovered in the 70-200 VR version I when the D3 and D700 were released. Edge sharpness is an issue with some lenses and I suspect that this will be amplified in a high pixel density sensor image. I think the D800 will perform best with Nikon pro glass.
Sun 05-Feb-12 02:48 PM | edited Sun 05-Feb-12 02:48 PM by Leonard62
I wouldn't worry too much about lens performance unless you crop everything to 100% and start pixel peeping. The same concern about lenses was brought up when the D3X and then the D7000 was released. I have not seen a lens that performs poorly on my D3X or my D5100. And that includes Nikon prime lenses from the 60's and 70's. I'm actually amazed at how good most of the older lenses are even by today's standards. If I were in the market for a 36MP camera, which I'm not, I wouldn't worry about lenses at all.
Here's a 100% crop of a photo taken with the D3X and Nikon's 500mm f5 reflex lens made in 1965. Except for the crop there is no post processing.
I will wait for hands-on reviews by knowledgeable users. I'm not at all sure I NEED to move beyond my D700 to a 36 MP D800 ... and if I do, I have no idea at all about the value of a non-AA version. So far, Thom Hogan's brief comments suggest he sees little sense to paying more for the non-AA version.
Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico My Faves: D800E 14-24 PC-E 85 80-400 VRII & Tamron 90 macro
Actually, I am sure that I will not NEED a D800. Which, of course, I said before I bought my D300, and before I bought my D700, and I will say it again, and which will have nothing to do with my buying one.
I'm using a D200, and hankering for more detail, so I plan to pre-order a D800. Removing the AA will apparently get noticeaably more detail, at the possible cost of moire. After much agonizing thought, especially difficult because the camera hasn't been released yet, I plan to get the stock model, with the AA filter. Then I'll keep my eyes and ears open, and see if there's much consensus that removing the AA filter is a trouble free advantage. If so, I can send the body to MaxMax for a HR conversion. That way I'm covered for either scenario. I hope.
I've had enough shooting experience with cameras lacking an AA filter that I don't worry about problems with a D800e, especially with LR4 and NX 2.3 now having features for removing or suppressing it. Capture One already had a feature for removing it, but I've hardly ever needed to resort to it for the types of shooting I do. In fact, I can only think of one instance where I used Capture One on a shot vs. LR3.
You can see the kinds of subjects I photograph on my website. Most of them aren't ones that create moire problems, but benefit from resolution. The only time I've seen moire has been in fine gratings on buildings (specifically the grate on an air conditioning unit). Textiles are a different animal, though. They can be much worse and can be difficult to mitigate. LR4 will have a tool for that minimizes it locally, and NX2 will have one that reduces it more globally. If you do a lot of textile shots, you might prefer the version with the AA filter as it could save you some time in post-processing without too much of a loss in resolution.
I would say that going from a 12MP D700 to a 36MP D800 ( not the E ) would give you quite the boost in detail, without the concern of moire creeping in. It's going the be a big jump.
However, going from the D800 to the D800E, to me anyway looking at the one comparison example Nikon has posted so far, isn't going to get you that much more and only introduce potential problems you'll have to deal with in post.
I am on the fence also between a D800 and D800E, having started being "off the fence" and wanting a D800E, but after seeing the examples provided so far I am tending more toward the D800. They appear to have created a very well matched AA filter for it that does not destroy much fine detail.
You are right about from 12 to 36 to make a big difference. But I am still hung up on e or not, knowing there is some difference in IQ.... I shoot textiles a lot at the same time I shoot other motifs (can be textiles too) to enlarge extreme scale for printing..
But it is design / art work and I could get by. But I would like them to be as sharp as it can be..
I researched Medium format DSLRs, in which many do not have A/A filters.
Now my decision is I will go for E version and let software to deal with the problems if it becomes a problem. At the same time I will use my second D700 as a back up for the situations where moire can be a problems.
Ideally, if I can also replace my second body to regular 800, that would be ideal.
>I would say that going from a 12MP D700 to a 36MP D800 ( not >the E ) would give you quite the boost in detail, without the >concern of moire creeping in. It's going the be a big jump. > >However, going from the D800 to the D800E, to me anyway >looking at the one comparison example Nikon has posted so far, >isn't going to get you that much more and only introduce >potential problems you'll have to deal with in post. > >I am on the fence also between a D800 and D800E, having >started being "off the fence" and wanting a D800E, >but after seeing the examples provided so far I am tending >more toward the D800. They appear to have created a very well >matched AA filter for it that does not destroy much fine >detail. > >Luis Gonzalez >Everlasting Photography, Inc.
This sums up my own thinking as well. I have placed a pre-order for both models while I'm trying to sort out which one I want. There is still about a month to cancel the other order.
But I lean towards the regular D800. The extra sharpness from the E model appears to be very minor. I have downloaded the examples from Nikon, applied just a small touch of sharpening to the D800 file and then it looked exactly like the D800E. On the other hand, the D800E moire example looks bad, but it will probably be a very rare issue. So bottom line, the only noticeable difference between these models is probably $300.
According to a B+H rep, Nikon only manufactures the D800. Then, in a very small portion of that production run, Nikon took out the already installed AA filter and replaced it with a different filter (without AA properties). This is based on Nikon's assumption that the vast majority of customers would opt for the D800, not the E. This explains the extra cost, as the D800E requires another production step and another part.
I happen to have looked at your gallery last week and based on your textile work I feel you aren't the best candidate for an 800E. But if you detect the moire and can reshoot with the D700 then of course that moderates the problem. Be aware you may not detect the problem until post processing. At this point we all need to know more how prevalent the problem is going to be and how well software can correct.
Tom did you also sharpen the E version?
I am leaning towards 800E in 2013, by which time I will have a side benefit of seeing how everyone is making out!
I have the same benefit of being able to select which one to get by the time Berger Brothers gets their first D800 shipment in. At that time I can choose to get one of those or wait until they get their first D800E shipment and get one of those, so I still have some time left. As we get more and more image examples out there the choice will be easier to make. I would like to see more sample shots showing moire, and then play around with those in LR4 to see how Adobe's moire reduction works on them.
I just downloaded some full res JPGs shot at ISO 6400 and ISO 25600 on a regular D800 and have been playing around with those. The noise levels look pretty good. I was able to take the 25600 shot, apply a couple of different, careful passes of noise reduction on it, then downsample it to 12MP and get quite a usable image out of it. Better than I could get with a D700 shot at ISO 25600.
I hope you guys are all correct. I changed my order at B&H from a D800E to an E-less version. Somewhat based on this thread, my own looking at some images and some thoughts elsewhere. Even though Moose Peterson is suspect that the D800E is the landscaper's camera.
What I did of course was bump myself further down on the delivery list. B&H says I am now about 2,000 on the pre-order list.
Hope my 24-120VR f4 and my 70-300VR that I have been using on my D300 and D7000 will be up to the task.
>I hope you guys are all correct. I changed my order at >B&H from a D800E to an E-less version. Somewhat based on >this thread, my own looking at some images and some thoughts >elsewhere. Even though Moose Peterson is suspect that the >D800E is the landscaper's camera. > >What I did of course was bump myself further down on the >delivery list. B&H says I am now about 2,000 on the >pre-order list. > >Hope my 24-120VR f4 and my 70-300VR that I have been using on >my D300 and D7000 will be up to the task. > >Jerry
How did you find out how far down the queue you were? Did they have any idea of initial quantities they might be receiving? Thanks
Thu 09-Feb-12 01:28 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 01:30 AM by jerry r
Anthony, I asked the B&H person when I made the switch and he said that there were about 2,000 people on the list ahead of me. He said they were ordering related to the number of orders, but did not comment on the actual size of the order.
Is the cat in this picture Platinum Tonkinese. I also have a Tonkinese and I think yours are the prettiest ones I'v seen. Trying to decide whether to order a D800 or D800E. Still not sure. I am waiting to see if either have unforscene issues after a few have used them. Janice
The two cats in the photo are Tonkinese half brothers, 3 months apart in age. White when we got them, champagne now. At time of the snapshot they were about 9 months old, now about 3 1/2 years old. They are beautiful, energetic, adorable, loving, cuddly cats. Their blue-grey predecessor, Deja Blu, was a complete charmer. I'll try to email you her photo within this forum.
Gator Bob in Gainesville FL D700 & SB800 * D800 on order Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8 Tamron 90mm Macro
My D800E should be here Monday or Tuesday. While I don't have a D800 to compare it against I will be putting it and the D700 through a full comparison. Will probably throw an old D50 in there just to see how far we have come.