Removal of Anti-Aliasing Filter

OK, I don't want this to be seen as a non-Pentax related thread, but this is the first time (of which I am aware) that a manufacturer has offered a camera without an AA filter:
So, is this a good option (considering it costs an extra $300) and would people like this option from Pentax?

Interesting idea, but I wouldn't be keen especially at a premium rate

I thought the 645D had no AA filter?

It doesn't John as most, if not all of the MF size sensors don't.

It is a first for a DSLR manufacturer to offer as std though. The M9 also is without AA but it's not a DSLR.

Best regards

And Leica M9 has no filter? Edit: K10D is fast!!

It would be way down on my list of prioryties.

I wouldn't have one removed as it's part of the imagining process in the camera. If it's designed that way that's one thing, but if it's not then taking it out would seem unwise.

There is a function in the imaging process for the AA filter.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the MF cameras didn't have this.

I agree that it shouldn't just be 'removed' - something still needs to be in its place, but it makes me wonder whether if (like many others) I never shoot JPEGs if it isn't actually reducing the quality of my images rather than enhancing them?

Having never really seen the difference it is hard to say.

I've seen results from the M9 and they are very impressive. That said, so is the glass on the front of it. Once I've seen real images from the D800E, I can say ye or nay.

an example link

If the IQ is improved markedly, other manufacturers will follow. They are sheep after all.

Best regards

greynolds999, even a RAW capture has some processing by the camera to translate the black and white image into a colour one that makes sense - this involves some clever electronics taking the Bayer filter information and doing its trickery, before the file is ready to be used. The AA filter will be programmed into this process, so if it wasn't there it may have some strange side effects.

Ultimately the AA filter is there because it needs to be, to avoid interference patterns on fine detail. We used to see something similar on tweed jackets on TV - that shimmering, distorting effect on the fine detail.

Yes, I appreciate that. But moiré can be corrected in PhotoShop.

I think it will be interesting to see some real-world usage of this. It's really going to be down how it's received by the pros.

As for me, I will wait and see what happens.

The new XPro1 does not have it either and it does not have a version that does like the D800. Nikon is reportedly providing a version of their software with the camera that takes care of the moire patterns. I think it provides an extra level of control over your final image which for people buying a 2500£ camera might be a welcome option.

Also it is not like you pay to have it removed, you pay for the option and Nikon expects it to be a smaller run so they have to recoup the expense.

This is what I fear the future may hold, to our detriment. Manufacturers can avoid making the product complete on its own and to get the right results from it we might need software. This could apply to lenses too. Too difficult to make the lens with full corrections? No problem, just put the corrections in the software.

The when we buy a second hand camera or lens we'll need tro investigate it, get the apprporiate software, and of course it won't work properly with more recent lenses and bodies, and so on....so we have to buy new.

I'm not liking the thought as in the very long term it could be a possibility.

John,
I strongly suspect that if Pentax go this route that their in-camera processing will deal with it

For example, I had a chance to look at some Pentax Q JPG + DNG files - and the JPGs were all nicely corrected for distortion and vignetting already. The DNG files were handled in LR3, but of course other software will have to be checked.

Personally I'd rather have more resolution available - at least in RAW - with the work load of anti-moire in software. If it the AA filter can be performed in-camera for the JPG then I would like that a lot

Matt

I'd rather have a camera that works in its own right.
I have enough difficulty getting suitable results out of photoshop for the odd times I have a go that it woulkd drive me to distraction if every shot had to be PP'd to get rid of a recuring "fault"


Bernard