Okay, I admit I'm straying off-topic a bit, but I have a question about this.
Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso
Given that we accept the proposition that anti-aliasing (AA) filters are bad for color, tonal range, detail, etc., and that consequently less AA filtering is better, and no AA filtering is best of all... then why do Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc., etc., insist on including them in so many of their camera designs?
Is it because:
-- They're stupid? ("Whoa, duh, I'm gonna design in this thing that makes my camera take bad pitchers, and then I'm gonna stick my finger in this electric socket...")
-- They're part of an evil conspiracy? ("Bwah-hah-hah, we'll include an AA filter in our expensive DSLR so people's pictures will be all mushy and off-color, and they'll think it's the lens, and then they'll go out and buy our new expensive lenses! And then we'll foreclose the Widow Jones' mortgage and take her farm! Hahahahaha!")
-- They're wimps? ("Oooh, I wish I were a rugged, hairy-chested manly man, the kind who likes huntin' and fishin' and cold baths and can take his aliasing without flinching. But I'm just a 98-pound weakling wussy-pussy, so I'm going to design an AA filter into my new camera.")
Or is it possibly that AA filters have their place? I know, I shouldn't have said it, but I hang around in the gutters and dark alleys of the photography world, where twisted souls who have turned their back on the Gospel of Solms whisper perverted heresies of this sort... I was going to enumerate a few, but was afraid of shocking the kiddies...