erick.boileau
Member
Is there any confirmation somewhere from Leica that the new M will not have a AA filter ?
for the moment it is unclear
for the moment it is unclear
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I am not sure to understand without any doubtYes, without any doubt, there will be an AA filter.
on the M9 time to time I get moiréIf the M9 has no blur filter and if you still do not see moire in most cases then anti aliasing applied somewhere.
yes ! it is already orderedIf that is your concern (new sensor), I would not be worried.
I can wait , and I am not sure to change my 50 Summilux for the SummicronI hear a murmur that Leica have postponed (by an year) the production of the AA 50 due to QC problems.
An AA filter is essentially a beam splitter, and it is the same thing as what is usually referred to as a blur filter. The M9 doesn't have an AA filter, especially not attached to its inexpensive IR filter (Kyocera BS7,) and the camera exhibits moire rather frequently. Assuming the M 240 also doesn't have an AA filter, it should exhibit less moire than the M9, because of the smaller pixels.There always is, has been.
The filter used in cutting IR in the M8 (however insufficiently), for example, is also an AA filter.
It is not a blur filter.
If the M9 has no blur filter and if you still do not see moire in most cases then anti aliasing applied somewhere. Whether it is hardware or software is a different matter.
The whole point of Leica using a very thin filter (minimal glass) on the M8 sensor was to the minimize the aberrations (spherical and others) induced by flat glass. When it is in the front of a lens (any filter) this is negligible but when it is close to the imaging plane (sensor) the effects are substantial.
The question is, how thick a filter Leica will use in the new M and what sort of an effect we will see.
I got definite confirmation from my dealer that the 50 cron asph is delayed.Hi There
Without going in to a discussion about the definition of an AA filter. The situation with the M(240) is the same as that of the M9, and, as such, it's possible that there will be moire and coloured specular highlights just like you do on the M9, together with the same kind of detail you get with the M9.
As for the 50 'cron APO Asph. I don't think it'll be a year, but anyway, postponed by a year might as well be from the original date (May 2011). I've heard many stories, and several different ones.
Also. . .you can't do AA in software. You can *try*, but you can't really do it. The best you can do is guess - "uh, this is real detail! and that over there, that's false detail due to aliasing. . .sure, that's the ticket!". But there isn't even a good way to guess about it. False detail due to aliasing can take on almost any form. . . that's the whole point of aliasing. Frequencies higher than the Nyquist rate masquerade as lower frequencies, and they can show up as anything from baseband to the Nyquist, there's no way to tell them apart from the "real" frequencies in that range.An AA filter is essentially a beam splitter, and it is the same thing as what is usually referred to as a blur filter. The M9 doesn't have an AA filter, especially not attached to its inexpensive IR filter (Kyocera BS7,) and the camera exhibits moire rather frequently. Assuming the M 240 also doesn't have an AA filter, it should exhibit less moire than the M9, because of the smaller pixels.
The interesting thing is that so many shooters seem to prefer the look of AA-less files, despite all of the false detail.Also. . .you can't do AA in software. You can *try*, but you can't really do it. The best you can do is guess - "uh, this is real detail! and that over there, that's false detail due to aliasing. . .sure, that's the ticket!". But there isn't even a good way to guess about it. False detail due to aliasing can take on almost any form. . . that's the whole point of aliasing. Frequencies higher than the Nyquist rate masquerade as lower frequencies, and they can show up as anything from baseband to the Nyquist, there's no way to tell them apart from the "real" frequencies in that range.