Do I need D800E or D800 ?

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I was hestitated when the store clerk told me that I need special software in post-production (I'm using PH CS5 and Lightroom 3) if picture taken by D800E.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will need to upgrade from LR3 to LR4 to get the ability to use D800 files. LR4 has the "special software" you need, a "moire reduction algorithm". The problem with that kind of software is that it don't always work. There's a reason they call "aliasing" aliasing, it's because it makes something in the image look like something else, an "alias" or a "disguise", as it were. Sometimes, it's a good disguise: a human photographer can look at the image and see something's wrong, but a computer can't look at the image, figure out what a human would see, and fix it.</p>

<p>I've shot enough no-AA filter cameras to have some insight.</p>

<ul>

<li>Pretty much anything you shoot handheld under available light will not have moire, because camera shake provides enough blur to get rid of it. All an "anti-aliasing" filter does is add "just enough" blur to kill the moire.</li>

<li>Pretty much anything you shoot in a studio at your "customary" deep DOF apertures, like f11 on a FF DSLR, or f16-f22 on medium format, will not have moire, because the lnes produces enough blur due to diffraction to kill the moire.</li>

<li>Pretty much anything you shoot at an artsy-fartsy shallow DOF aperture like f1.4 or 2.0 on a FF, or 2.8 on a medium format camera, will not have moire, because the plane of focus is so shallow that only a small amount of the "moire causing" patterns like hair or clothing will actually be in focus.</li>

<li>The way to get a lot of moire is to be on a solid tripod and shoot at just the wrong aperture. Shoot people at f5.6, and here comes the moire.</li>

</ul>

<p>Oh, and based on my experience with technical photography, camera design, lens design, and image software design, I can tell you that moire happens as much from magic, karma, and the capricious will of the universe as it does from conditions you can control. If there's one picture in a shoot of 200 that stands out as the best, that one will have moire, and it will be the sort of moire that the automatic moire reduction software can't find, and you will have to photoshop that hair for 2 hours to get the picture right. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there such a thing as a screw mount anti-aliasing filter that can be mounted in front of the lens for times when it's properties are needed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there is. But such filters are expensive, and very hard to use. Because they're on the object side of the lens, their action depends on focal length: a filter that is correct for a 50mm lens will blur an image horribly if you're using a 200mm, and have no moire reducing effect if you're using a 20mm lens. You typically see them used for digital cinematography, where cost is often not an issue, zooming is a rarity, and shoots are very, very planned.</p>

<p>Can I have Pete Hamm's "hero" badge?</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< Really? I wear glasses, and can easily see more detail in some subjects directly with my eyes than is easily captured by a 12 Mp camera with a good-quality "standard" 50mm lens fitted. >></p>

<p>Glad you mentioned 50mm lens, and I bet for nearby subjects? If it's 50mm aimed at a faraway landscape (not to mention using tele lenses) - unless one is extraordinarily far-sighted (LOL) - the human eye would be no match to a good camera-eye.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Can I have Pete Hamm's "hero" badge?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>why not? that was a great post.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>No need of it. If so, he should have a "Joseph Wisniewski`s" badge after his name... superfluous, I guess. :)</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Hmmmm... ... ... for those who could take it in the wrong way, I`m just kidding, obviously.<br /> And with all my respect and appreciation to Mr. Wisniewski, of whom I`m an avid reader since the first day.</p>