So the contention that 'its a bit tricky' to deal well in software holds does it? So far no has detailed an effective software solution apparently, at least not anyone who has actually done it themselves.

I can understand that its not just about removing the colours from the moire patterns - the underlying pattern interference is still there I presume?

I guess this must be why Pentax are taking it so seriously with in-camera technology?

Well, if the only method of removing it is blur, as it has been said here, then that would be a tricky matter. Bits of slightly out of focus areas on a photo can ruin the whole thing. If we are moving to cameras without aa filters generally then you'd expect software progrmmers to start to write in some special removal tools, if its possible, along the lines of Noise Reduction.

I'm not aware of any myself yet - but then again, maybe you can do it all with one click in Lightroom?

Yes, exactly, that was what I have been trying to say but couldn't put it quite that way! The aa filter is one 'method' of reducing moire. What Pentax have done is implement a different method. It simulates the 'intention' of the filter, but it does not simulate the filter itself (and therefore whatever comes with it).

So, as I said above, the intention of the method is to reduce / eliminate moire. But we do not know if the consequence of the new method will be quite the same as that of the aa filter - logically, as you have pointed out the difference in what happens to the light beams.

Which comes back to point I made earlier.... if its so easy to sort out in software, why would Pentax go to all this trouble of creating this new revolutionary technololgy if they could have just provided an update to PDCU??

I also saw on the official UK site that there is some sort of level control for it as well - so not just 'on or off' apparently The trick will be to get a feel for the right amount given any specific subject.

Anyway, the title of this thread should be changed - I have checked the Pentax Uk site specs for the K3. It details an 'anti-aliasing' simulator. Not an 'anti-aliasing filter simulator'

There is of course a difference. Simulating the effect of a 'filter' (as used on the earlier models, would imply that both the 'intention' (ie moire reduction and the secondary effects (ie blur) would be recreated by the simulator.

But it is not a 'filter' simulator, so I'm just questioning if we can really be so sure of the effects. We can expect it to carry out its its intention (moire reduction), but do we really know the secondary effect of a process which is not actually simulating the 'filter' we know of old?

The 'intention' of the aa filter is to eliminate moire - the consequence and secondary effect of the filter is blur. Yes, that is the method of removing the moire. This doesn't prove of itself that blur is the only way to eliminate moire.

So the intention of the 'shaky sensor' technology is to remove moire - do we know what the consequence and secondary effect of that process will be? If it is blur, my question was about whether that will be evident to the same extent as if casued by an aa filter.

Is it possible to be so sure when this is such new technology? The blurring is after all not the intention of the aa filter - it is the consequence and secondary effect, the 'price to pay'. What I was wondering here was whether that price will be the same, or maybe higher or lower with this new method? I know we'll have to wait and see, but don't we love to speculate!

What will be really interesting to find out is whether having it 'on' will add to blur, in the manner of an actual aa filter. And of course whether that translates into any practical 'resolution' loss and significance for various outputs.

This will of course determine which will be the preferred default mode for users - on or off. It would be interesting to know what the actual camera default is for this function? A factory default is usually set to what the manufactuer presumes will be the preferred option for the majority or the most common shooting situations.

The video shake reduction on the K7 is superb, amazing with a wide angle prime - even handheld it can look like you're using a full rack and rails moving rig.

I was aware that autofocus would be an issue with some noise recording from the lens, although it is negligable when using a microphone on the hotshoe.

I have never heard any 'shake reduction' noise on my soundtracks though, despite being aware of it when recording. But then I'm not doing any pro or critical work, and usually when I'm recording there's a fair bit of background noise going on.

The question still remains though about the system on the K3. Now you mentioned it Will I think I remember you talking about the SR during video on the K30 before and missing your K7