dct
perpetual amateur
Agreed.
Add the Foveon sensors and the Monochrom one of Leica and you are back to the analog comparison discussions. Decades ago we agreed (i did at least), that you cannot compare two images just because you used the same or similar photo gear. Too big was the impact of underlying film, the development and print process.
Having similar variables in modern photo workflow: Why would someone expect a die hard comparison between two digital images would work?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The simple reason Beyer cameras with mild AA filters (they almost all have some sort of spatial filter even now, regardless of marketing drivel) don't show much moiré in 2015 is that the pixels are sufficiently small that the resolution delivered to the sensor plane is almost always oversampled.
The bigger the pixels the eaiser it is to see moiré. As pixels shrink, more adept optimization of the rest of the imaging chain is required to excite moiré.
Specifically: with modern 36-50 mpix sensors very few photographs are taken with a combination of lens, aperture, camera support, shutter speed, and focus precision that the sensor resolution is actually limiting. In addition, many (most) subjects do not have high-frequency repeating patterns (e.g., fabric) that make aliasing obvious.
Consequently, there are few situations where aliasing is obvious in pictorial photography when a high-density Bayer sensor is employed. Most photographers don't work close enough to the resolution of the latest sensors to actually excite it in the first place, most subjects don't make the aliasing obvious — even when it's there, and most sensors are not as free of antialiasing devices as consumers imagine.
Put a D800E or an A7R on a heavy, well-damped tripod with a top modern lens, and shoot at f/4 with critical focus under a single strobe (not a set of inexactly-synchronized strobes). Do these things and if you're shooting fabric with the right sort of pattern you'll sure as heck see moiré, and plenty of it too. Even with the XTRANS sensor, which is indeed comparatively immune versus a Beyer sensor with identical pixel spacing.
The bigger the pixels the eaiser it is to see moiré. As pixels shrink, more adept optimization of the rest of the imaging chain is required to excite moiré.
Specifically: with modern 36-50 mpix sensors very few photographs are taken with a combination of lens, aperture, camera support, shutter speed, and focus precision that the sensor resolution is actually limiting. In addition, many (most) subjects do not have high-frequency repeating patterns (e.g., fabric) that make aliasing obvious.
Consequently, there are few situations where aliasing is obvious in pictorial photography when a high-density Bayer sensor is employed. Most photographers don't work close enough to the resolution of the latest sensors to actually excite it in the first place, most subjects don't make the aliasing obvious — even when it's there, and most sensors are not as free of antialiasing devices as consumers imagine.
Put a D800E or an A7R on a heavy, well-damped tripod with a top modern lens, and shoot at f/4 with critical focus under a single strobe (not a set of inexactly-synchronized strobes). Do these things and if you're shooting fabric with the right sort of pattern you'll sure as heck see moiré, and plenty of it too. Even with the XTRANS sensor, which is indeed comparatively immune versus a Beyer sensor with identical pixel spacing.
willie_901
Veteran
I know from direct comparisons with a D700 the XTrans system will display moiré patterns.
The odd thing is the D700/300 also display moiré when the XTrans does not and vice-versa. Specifically, when the cameras are in the exact same position using a tripod and Swiss Arca mounts the XTrans generally shows less moiré. The XTrans, 10-24/4 images are crisper compared to the D700 with the 16-35/4 Nikkor. Perhaps this is just be due to pixel density differences.
I photograph a lot of materials that are strong candidates to show moiré. I prefer the Xtrans system to the Bayer cameras I've used for the same purpose. For one thing OCD pixel peeping indicates the XTrans raw renders some detail without rendering artifacts in objects with closely spaced, regularly structured opening and patterns (screens, speaker covers, etc.). I doubt these differences would ever be visible in prints.
With both Bayer and XTrans moiré, the LR moiré filter brush is effective,
The odd thing is the D700/300 also display moiré when the XTrans does not and vice-versa. Specifically, when the cameras are in the exact same position using a tripod and Swiss Arca mounts the XTrans generally shows less moiré. The XTrans, 10-24/4 images are crisper compared to the D700 with the 16-35/4 Nikkor. Perhaps this is just be due to pixel density differences.
I photograph a lot of materials that are strong candidates to show moiré. I prefer the Xtrans system to the Bayer cameras I've used for the same purpose. For one thing OCD pixel peeping indicates the XTrans raw renders some detail without rendering artifacts in objects with closely spaced, regularly structured opening and patterns (screens, speaker covers, etc.). I doubt these differences would ever be visible in prints.
With both Bayer and XTrans moiré, the LR moiré filter brush is effective,
Hsg
who dares wins
99.9% of what i shoot ends up archived and if some of these are due to moiré, it makes no difference to me.
What I like about X-trans is how it captures highlight detail.
What I like about X-trans is how it captures highlight detail.
