The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

NEX w/o Anti-Aliasing Filter

Jerry_R

New member
That would be really good. Question of side effects of course.

When I attach "M" lenses and see results - it is day and night in comparison to M9...
 

roweraay

New member
Seems like the AA filter and the IR filter are bonded together, based on pictures posted by Peter Ganzel a while back, and thus you cannot remove one of them, while leaving the other one on. So if you are removing (both) the filters, then you can probably get the IR side taken care of via on-lens IR filters (to be tested, of course).
 

waardij

New member
It seems to me that the AA filter of the NEX (either) is already very week, if it is there at all. I have tried several lenses (mostly old manual focus Nikon lenses) on a resolution chart and it seems that the resolution goes fare beyond the Nyquist limit.
Especially with longer and retrofocus lenses the resolution of the NEX (3 in my case) amazes me again and again. I often prefer the results over those of my a900.

Hans

ps I have been looking in on this forum for a long time, but never before contributed.
 

Jerry_R

New member
M8? I was comparing it some time ago against u43, and... stayed with u43.
It is not competitor. It is great comera for RangFinder experience.

People who used cameras with confirmed lack or weak AA should give opinions. On DPReview forum - othey M9 users, who also bought NEX for attaching "M" lenses - share my opinion. It is different world, different league... Unfortunately. If you watch small sizes, full HD - then yes, you will see kind of Leica glass climate. But even at full HD size - smaller details in hair area seem to be visible...

When my M9 will come back from calibration, I can make the same photo with NEX + Leica 24mm and M9 + Leica 35mm and share here 100% crops.
 

douglasf13

New member
You linked an M8 comparison above that I was addressing. I'm certainly not saying that an aa filtered sensor should natively match a non-aa sensor in resolution, especially one with higher resolution. I'm just saying that the NEX aa filter seems on the weak side, and I've had moire issues with it as it is.

Samples from the M9 and NEX would be fun. Would you mind posting raws, because I can't really compare until optimum sharpening is used for each.
 

Jerry_R

New member
As I mentioned before - NEX has very strong AA filter and shows LESS details than u43 cameras.

Pls open DP Review RAW results:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page12.asp

Select additionally to E-5: GF2, NEX-5, Pentax K-5.
You can set them all on ISO 200.

Move the square on right bottom corner showing hair and feathers.
Move it. Compare.

PS: it is not question of lens, I attached M lenses and observed the same.

PPS: it is also not question of sharpening - as it will not bring details which are simply lost and bring additional artifacts, especially when photographing people or using higher than base ISOs.
 
Last edited:

waardij

New member
When comparing camera's on DPR it is perhaps also interesting to compare the resolution page of the E5 with the resolution page of the NEX3/5. Here the difference in resolution is gone and the NEX performs just as well as the no doubt very good (resolution wise) E5.
 

douglasf13

New member
I'll say again that I get more moire with my NEX-5 than any other camera I've owned, outside of my Leaf. Could that be a product of anything other than a weak AA?
 

Jerry_R

New member
Recently there was video comparison (Full HD resolution) between GH2, Canon 600D and even there was moire.

You need to check how many details you get. From NEX you get everything bigger, but without more details.
 

waardij

New member
Video is a much lower resolution than the resolution used for photo’s. Aliasing there has more to do with the way in which the image is downsampled inside the camera than anything else. Aliasing at maximum resolution means that the AA filter does not stop spatial frequencies near and above the Nyquis limit. If visible moiré or aliasing is good is another discussion, but it is a measure for the strength of the AA filter. The NEX3/5 are capable, with the right lenses, of delivering superb resolution. I have no other camera with such a high per pixel sharpness (other camera’s are D2x and a900).
 

douglasf13

New member
Yeah, moire in video is a different issue. I'm getting occasional moire at full resolution. Here are two pics, one the whole scene and the other a 100% crop. Only sharpening used is LR3 default settings.





(the tall, white building in the center of the scene also shows a little moire, too.)
 

Jerry_R

New member
It looks like real moire indeed. Which lens was it?

I plan to make the same shot soon with M lens on NEX and M9.
I am still waiting for M9 and lenses for coming back from calibration.
 

Jerry_R

New member
This photo taken with Fuji X100 looks exactly like typical photo made with NEX with attached good manual lens.:
http://d2b8yfhnsfhl3f.cloudfront.net/x100/DSCF3983.JPG

This sensor, with its AA - simply can not resolve details (likek in hair), that can be taken by sensors without AA or with very weak filter.
The same show DP Review results, the same I observe daily.

It is something different than sharpness. I downloaded few JPGs from X100 and they sharpened well. But when EDGES can be sharpened.
And they can be sharpened - when they can be recorded in RAW after digitizing process. Too strong AA doesn't allow for it for areas eg. like hair.
 

Jerry_R

New member
I'm getting occasional moire at full resolution. Here are two pics, one the whole scene and the other a 100% crop
Yesterday I was reviewing some of my photos taken with 18-55mm. And? I saw the same effect like moire on regular patterns.

The lens for sure is not as sharp as good manual lenses...

PS: M9 is supposed to arrive today, so direct comparison soon.
 

douglasf13

New member
That Fuji shot is just an out of camera jpeg, so using it as a way to judge isn't a great idea. Using a raw converter with very good demoisacing, like RPP or Raw Therapee, will give you a better idea as to the detail from various sensors. When I want the upmost in detail, I use RPP over LR3. Of course, no AA-filtered camera will compete with the M9 in detail, without proper sharpening equalizing the two. The point is that, for a camera with an AA filter, the NEX is on the sharper side, from what I can tell. The NEX won't compete with the M9 in unsharpened detail, but it is a trade off. Detail vs. moire. I've yet to make a print with a good lens on the NEX and thought that it wasn't sharp enough.

p.s. the shot above was with the Contax G 35 at around f8.
 
Top