Anti -Aliasing Filter ?? (Page 3): :sm24: :sm24:...

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

CHG_CANON wrote:

BTW, everyone knows it's the UV filter that impacts the image sharpness most ...

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

billnikon wrote:

OK, you post one of your's using a filter and I will post a better one using a filter. Talk is cheap, time for action folks. What have you got. Probably nothing, as usual with talking heads.

Science trumps pissing contests as well.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

CatMarley wrote:

Science trumps pissing contests as well.

Science ?, I am not talking science. Really, pissing contests? How juvenile. I am talking put up your best shot not using a filter and I can match it every time using one.
All I am saying is, in the real world of actual photography, it's the photographer, not science, that makes the difference.
And in the real world, not science, the D5 is capable of taking an exceptionally sharp image, and, a camera without a filter can take an exceptionally sharp image. IN THE REAL WORLD.

TucsonDave Loc: Tucson, Arizona

billnikon wrote:

Science ?, I am not talking science. Really, pissing contests? How juvenile. I am talking put up your best shot not using a filter and I can match it every time using one.
All I am saying is, in the real world of actual photography, it's the photographer, not science, that makes the difference.
And in the real world, not science, the D5 is capable of taking an exceptionally sharp image, and, a camera without a filter can take an exceptionally sharp image. IN THE REAL WORLD.

Why don't you guys stop this pissing match and agree to let each photographer decide for themselves or take it private?

hoola

Original poster back . Wow . I'm sorry that my post caused such arguing . I am new here . Seems like an awful lot of arguing goes on here . Also an awful lot of veering off subject . Think I might re-consider having joined this site .

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

CatMarley wrote:

YES! Anti-aliasing filters are used to blur the li... (show quote)

With today's editing software I see no reason for having an AA filter. My D750 has one but my Fuji XT2 does not. Yes, I realize we are not talking apples to apples here - the D750 is FF while the XT2 is crop sensor.

Robby418 Loc: Brooklyn, New York

hoola wrote:

Original poster back . Wow . I'm sorry that my post caused such arguing . I am new here . Seems like an awful lot of arguing goes on here . Also an awful lot of veering off subject . Think I might re-consider having joined this site .

I won't apologize for everyone but please take into account the human psyche🤔🤨. The benefits of this forum far outweigh these outburst as, if you continue, you'll realize. Hopefully opinions, which we all have and differ, will cause us to further research and impact us positively on our photographic journey emotions aside. For what it's worth, if you have another body compatible with your lenses, do your own test. If you don't, rent one of similar specs for the weekend and make the comparison. Inevitably it's your decision on the results which will satisfy what you want to achieve. Continued good shooting and stay strong and vigilant during our present state of affairs 😎🙏.

danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD

jeep_daddy wrote:

Con - reduces sharpness

Pro - gets rid of a funky pattern you get from frequency of repeating patterns.

It might but not on any of my Fujifilm mirrorless cameras.
When shooting against a Canon 7D and 80D and enlarging on a 65" TV monitor, the Fuji was clearly sharper.