lightweight camera and system needed.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Common sense: lets try the real world.</p>

<p>Leica M240 or Sony A7 something. Same bucks....In a less than a few years the Sony will be worth less than as paper chain.<br /> If you want really want bad boy Canon/Nikon.... the Sony is struggling to do anything in comparison...nether fish or fowl with those great honking lenses.</p>

<p>Lost in space.</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p>"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display".<br>

Allen - Likely, where did you get the "likely information from"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite simple, really, from a basic understanding of physics and optics. An AA filter is a low pass filter based on frequency. The principle and hardware are basically the same regardless of format. The same detail on a smaller format will constitute an higher frequency. Since high frequency detail is reduced by the filter, the greater the enlargement the greater the effect.<br>

----------------------------------<br>

I don't think the physics and optics are on your side: The lens will pass (or not pass) the frequencies near nyquist with amplitude sufficient for photon detection. This projects the image onto the sensor. Then the sampling (pixel size) of the sensor will determine whether or not aliasing will occur. The actual design of the AA filter will be adjusted to match the properties of the sensor. Does that make sense?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>What is the point of Sony A7 variations. Poor auto focus compared to basic DSLR'S; chunky and heavy with those huge zooms....seriously expenses with average build quality...look at those for sale with just excellent with very few activations...Ffordes.</p>

<p>Marketing and Edward are powerful tool.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sony produce some very good lenses...although rather large.</p>

<p>But compared to Zeiss, Fuji, Leica...hmm.</p>

<p>But above and far far beyond: its about the photograph and what it communicates...lets not be lost in space.... the gear space of fondle emptiness.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Nathaniel, there are other factors to take into consideration...</p>

<p>Lens quality, exposure, sensor, etc. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Nathaniel, there are other factors to take into consideration "Allen</p>

<p>That's if I believe what you have researched...</p>

<p>Im sure ,if I researched, I would find contrary = opinions.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>On further research, AA filters can be tailored to suit the sensor. The operating principal is a birefringent coating which can be adjusted by changing the thickness, but always less than the Nyquist limit of the sensor itself. Near that limit, sensors produce aliasing and moire, which the AA filter is intended to mitigate.</p>

[donbright]

<p>What I see is, Fuji X sensors without AA compared to sensors with AA look better to me, the images look, or seem sharper, in tandem with Fuji glass. Full frame sensors have other advantages, low light, less noise performance, but the Fuji X sensors without AA seems to have done very well rendering the appearance of images very well overall. "Overall," Meaning in the majority of cases viewed on my computer screen throughout the net viewing hundreds of images in comparison, for example to the 16MP full frame sensor of the Nikon Df. There's a difference, which is why I went with the XT-1. Whether or not the difference is within the magic of glass? I'm erring on the side of glass. The weight differential between the Df and the XT-1 is minimal with lenses attached, also build quality of Fuji is a consideration.</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 24, 2016; 06:16 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"Nathaniel, there are other factors to take into consideration "Allen<br>

That's if I believe what you have researched...<br>

Im sure ,if I researched, I would find contrary = opinions.</p>

<p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>

Allen, I take your point. In the overall scheme of things I simplified my discussion because the claim that the ideas expressed were in accord with the physics of the situation were just wrong. Perhaps you can find fault with my explanation, the the fact that there are contrary opinions on the net is not in doubt. You have to learn how to recognize truth when you hear it :=). On the net all opinions are equal but not all are correct.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The lens will pass (or not pass) the frequencies near nyquist with amplitude sufficient for photon detection. <br>

<br>

I'm not sure what you mean by "photon detection" but it sounds scientific ;-) By lens, you must mean the AA filter. An AA filter does not operate by absorbing light above a certain frequency. The frequency in question is image detail, quite apart from the properties of light. An AA filter uses birefringence to split each point of light into four closely spaced "dots", thereby limiting the resolution to less than that dictated by the cell spacing. The degree of spacing can be adjusted by altering the thickness of the coating (indium niobate) on the AA filter.<br>

<br>

In order to produce a "pixel sharp" image, the taking lens must have at least twice the resolution based on cell spacing. That spacing is 221 per inch on a full-frame, 42 MP sensor. There are lenses which meet this challenge on an A7Rii, mostly Sony G lenses. The only Nikon lens I've found is a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, but none of the f/2.8 zoom lenses. The same resolution on an APS-C sensor would have a cell spacing of 332 per inch. There is nothing in the literature that suggests APS-C lenses are any sharper than full frame lenses, much less 50% sharper.</p>

<p>Use of an AA filter precludes any chance of "pixel sharpness," regardless of the lens. Good test subjects are stars in a clear, dark sky, which are points of light (~0.02 arc seconds) even with the best telescopes.</p>

[donbright]

<p>The less Indium Niobite the better IMO! Fuji X-Trans sensors design counters moire anyway, not to worry.</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p>For <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 25, 2016; 10:14 p.m.<br>

Any decent lens will "pass" higher frequencies than can be faithfully recorded by the sensor array in today's caneras. <br>

Without an AA filter the lens projects an image on the sensor (focused by you). If there are enough photons you <br>

can get a useable image. If there is an AA filter, it is in front of the sensor and the lens projects that image on <br>

the AA filter, which removes or attenuates some higher frequency information. It is the sensor that is doing <br>

the sampling not the filter. Each sensel is averaging the signal from a little patch on the AA filter.</p>

<p>In the future it may be possible to make sensors with small enough sensels so that the lens no longer<br>

passess information above the Nyquist frequency. Then no AA filter will be needed.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The AA filter takes each point of the image from the lens and spreads it over a radius of two or three adjacent cells in the sensor. Consequently neither the sensor nor (probably) the lens is the limiting factor for resolution.</p>

<p>There are more than enough photons to go around at photographically useful light levels, even in the dimmest light. The actual photon count is limiting only for very dim, deep space objects. You are talking scientific gibberish.</p>

<p>Oddly, you are correct that if the cell spacing is significantly finer than the lens resolution Moire and aliasing are reduced. The lens itself diffuses the image enough. (That would be a very low quality lens by today's standards.) On the other hand, the smaller the cells, the lower the signal to noise ratio, hence the image quality decreases exponentially. Conversely Moire and aliasing are greater if the lens has significantly greater resolution than dictated by the cell spacing.</p>

<p>For high resolution sensors, Moire patters become smaller and less visible in the overall print. I get a lot of Moire with repeating patterns (e.g., corrugated steel) using a 16 MP Hasselblad, where the cell spacing is 100/mm, far below the resolution of the lenses. I have never found objectionable Moire patterns in fine patters with a Sony A7Rii, which has a cell spacing of 221/mm, using lenses which will resolve detail one pixel wide (e.g., star images). Neither sensor has an AA filter.</p>

<p>Hasselblad + CFV16 Back - enlarged section<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18226976-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sony A7Rii + Batis 85/1.8 - Overview with 100% crop insert (lower left)<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121292-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A Fuji X-Trans sensor differs only in the pattern of color patches from a typical Bayer filter. It helps reduce color aliasing, which is partly an interpolation issue, but has nothing to do with Moire or spacial aliasing, which are related to cell spacing.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Battles over formats and camera types are always interesting. I have and use both FF and APS C, DSLR and Mirrorless. My choice of tool is the DSLR unless there is a compelling reason for small and light. That said, both are very capable and deliver fine results on screen and printed. What amuses is the depth and detail of some defenses of one format / type or another -- "Methinks thou dost protest too much", or own a lotta stock?</p>

[donbright]

<p>People do love their camera's. Good thing we have so many platforms to choose from. It's more of a methodology thing than anything else I think. When someone is comfortable with a camera, be careful they will defend it to the hilt. Sometimes logic takes a back seat to emotion with camera's. Certainly in general there are signs of growth. The days of he, or she with the most megapixels wins, seems to be waining.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>How would you achieve the level of familiarity needed to field questions regarding a camera system unless you owned it? Why would you keep it didn't meet your needs or you simply didn't like it? How would you provide samples without something at your disposal? The so-called "vested interested" is nothing more than time and effort devoted to understanding how things work.</p>

<p>For some reason there is a cultural distrust of expertise in any form. In the anonymous internet, all opinions are equal.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Good point. Given enough time, anyone can immerse, or get familiarized with any camera. The burden is on the buyer, or shopper to get it right for them. As familiarization will come, does the targeted product or in this case camera deliver to their expectations, or beyond their expectations. Then there's decoding marketing methods. As for distrusting expertise? Perhaps that's true culturally, although I only know what I know in that as for mining expertise, I go here. It was this very forum that helped me decide on my first D-Cam in my case the XT-1. I found the information disseminated here to be quite useful. Kudos to all, but my advice to anyone looking to enhance their Photographic endeavors, do research ad-nausium until you are certain that your priorities are met. To the OP, how important is lightweight? As we've read, its not important to some and they too have good reasons for that. Here's one for you. I remember the thread where we were and I were clamoring for a D-Cam that had size and weight features of the Nikon FM3a. I have a Nikon FM3a and when placed on the table next to the XT-1, they're practically slicing hairs the same in stature and size. The FM3a being a little wider than the XT-1, but hight wise they're the same and I always wondered if Nikon did make a D-Cam utilizing the FM3a proportions, how could they fit a monitor on the back? Well Fuji did it, they must have read those threads, and as it goes it seems Nikon was asleep at the switch. When I saw that transpire, that was a turning point for me and a confidence builder in Fuji. I admire the beating to the punch. </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>In the end, though moderate research is necessary, when you hold the thing in your hand, and you can afford it, more often than not you will buy the thing you wanted from the outset. Minutia won't tip the scales. As an adult, you can choose to "eat your vegetables" do the sensible thing that others suggest, or not. Most important is enjoying the outcomes of your personal decisions.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>When making a complex decision, it helps to make a list of attributes you wish to consider, rank them from most to least important, and in columns, how each camera rates with respect to that attribute. These attributes don't necessarily come from sales literature. My attributes are not your attributes, and my priorities may be completely different. A matrix of this sort reduces a complex problem to digestible components, rather than pass/fall.</p>

<p>Budget limits, size, weight, system availability are attributes from the individual, not a spec sheet. Resolution is harder to pin down, since it depends on so many things besides pixel count. In fact, resolution is way down the list for sports photographers compared to focusing speed. A landscape photographer would probably value resolution highly, extending to the extreme corners of the image, and care less about auto focus, much less fast focusing speed.</p>

<p>I went a bit overboard on Moire, because it should be a problem as cameras get more pixels and AA filters are left off. Fortunately it's working out more the opposite. It's not that the Sony is so great, rather I don't have a 50 or 100 MP MF camera for comparison, nor even a Nikon D810 (which doesn't seem to produce Moire in examples I've seen).</p>

<p>We haven't discussed lag time, which is generally very short in a DSLR and often maddeningly long in a mirrorless camera. In the early years of this millennium, it might take 1-1/2 seconds from the time you pressed the shutter release until the camera responded. DSLRs have hovered about 30 msec shutter delay, and most high-end mirrorless cameras beat that mark. Time to wake up/power up is still ruled by DSLRs - practically instantaneous. My A7Rii takes a couple of seconds from sleep, or 3 to 5 seconds from power up (you can shoot within a second, before the viewfinder is fully awake).</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I would prefer a lighter and smaller system than the Canon 1Ds and L lenses, but that would require the invention of a new kind of lenses together with new materials for making lenses and bodies (for example, a one-piece self-focusing "plastic" lens ...) Getting rid of the mirror and using smaller sensors is not the answer. The Sony system is as heavy and as big if not more, and the P&S system is not as good (if not too bad)</p>