The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

For the "everyday shooter" (non-professional), is there that much of a difference in pictures shot with a camera with or without an AA Filter?

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Please forgive my ignorance but what is an AA filter?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Anti aliasing. In digital sampling, when the sampling rate of the waveform is inadequate compared to the frequency/wavelength of the signal (light in this case), artifacts which are not actually present on the waveform can appear -they are referred to as aliases. To prevent this phenomena, digitizing systems use low pass filters prior to the A/D converter, so that frequencies too high to be adaquetly sampled are attenuated (Nyquist theorem specifies two samples per cycle of the highest frequency/shortest wavelength present to prevent aliasing and recreate the waveform). This prevents moire patterns (sometimes seen in shots of fabric or window screens) from appearing in the digitized signal, but can cost some sharpness loss. Many Nikon Cameras (and some others) do not use AA filters and benefit from increased sharpness, but I can’t quantify the amount or percentage increase.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'd have to say no. I have a few DSLR'S without an AA filter and several with and with the exception of my Canon EOS 5DSR you really don't notice the difference. A pixel peepers probably would but realistically, how many people truly concern themselves with details at that level. Sure, a camera without an AA filter is capable of slightly sharper images but under normal viewing conditions, whether it be a print or video screen, most people won't see a difference. As for moire, it is quite rare unless you are shooting a lot of objects with fine line patterns, and then it's really only a problem under certain lighting. In my opinion, unless you are a professional photographer, which I am not, you really don't need a camera without an AA filter, but if that's what you want then you will probably be ok, just look out for the occasional moire that may appear in your images.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Odd you'd ask it that way. Some pros might be the only ones who need a senor with an AA filter. Say a Wedding or Fashion photographer might be the only ones concerned with Moire' effects showing up on fabrics in their images. No AA filter means more resolution sharpness. An Anti-Aliasing filter blurs the image slightly to reduce the moire' effect. On low res., say <8-10 MP sensor it (an AA filter) keeps straight diagonal lines straight with staircase-like steps (of clumps of larger pixels). On a 24MP or greater sensor, there is little need for a AA. But it gets more complex than that and there are ways of avoiding Moire' without features of the camera itself. Well beyond the scope of this post.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I answered your question with in my reply to The Villages. But while I was composing two others posted replies I see. Not that I fully agree with them.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'd have to disagree. I have a Pentax K-5 (the original model) and a K-3 I recently obtained used. Sure the K-5 is a 16MP APS-C camera and the K-3 is a 24MP one (one reason I bought it). But the K-3 is way sharper than then the K-5. The K-5 has an AA filter, the K-3 has no AA but does have a AA-filter simulator when turned on to control moire'. I have not tried the AA-simulator yet. No reason to use it. The first thing I did after I put the battery in my K-3 camera was trip the shutter indoors to be sure it worked (remember it was a used camera). So I got a barely focus but handheld blurred picture. But even with the blurred image on the back screen of the camera I could see it had more resolution (in the streaks of sharp edges) than I'd seen before. In intentional pictures I see a difference too. My first real project with the K-3 was create a 6 image focus stack. This camera is amazing. Now I'll likely find half my lenses are junk! Most DSLR cameras right now have no AA filter. At least most models or Nikon and Pentax don't.

Yes, the moire' effect is very specific. It is affected by focal length, angle to subject, lighting, lighting angle, size of pattern (fabric, fence, lattice, grid, etc.). Change things a bit and moire' can vanish on its own. I have one sofa cover that is a strong moire' maker. This fabric can create a moire' effect for my older K-5 and K-20D cameras that have AA filters!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I think it's more marketing hype than anything else!
I doubt most Pros would even care.
It's great to have more choices but I'll guess most choose to not have an AA for all the wrong reasons!!!
SS

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I have a D800 and a a D810, and have used a D800E. The D800 has an AA filter, the D800E has a modified "weaker" AA filter to make it seem as if there isn't one. and the D810 has none. The D800 records slightly less detail than the other two. All are the same resolution.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A camera's sampling, aliasing, and AA filter have nothing at all to do with the wavelengths of light. The above quote is a grossly incorrect misunderstanding of what happens in a digital camera.

The sampling rate of significance is the pixel pitch of the sensor. A 24 MP APS-C sensor such as that of a Nikon D7200 has a higher sample rate, and is more critical for the AA filter, than are sensors such as in a D800 full frame camera.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I would not worry about the with or without. Manufacturers are removing them on high and now mid-range cameras so a non issue.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Here we go again. What part of LOW PASS FILTER or sampling RATE (neither of which has anything to do with pixel density) did you not understand? The pixel spacing of a Nikon D7200 is 3.89 um or 3890 nm while the wavelength of violet light (the highest frequency/shortest wavelength that the eye can see) is ~380 nm. Now explain (if anyone is interested) how the pixel spacing can have anything to do with the spatial sampling of a wave that is 1/10th the distance between pixels.

After posting the below, I am unwatching as you again take a simple question from the OP off to yet another divergent argumentative path - carry on and argue with yourself...

From Wiki:

An anti-aliasing filter (AAF) is a filter used before a signal sampler to restrict the bandwidth of a signal to approximately or completely satisfy the sampling theorem over the band of interest. Since the theorem states that unambiguous reconstruction of the signal from its samples is possible when the power of frequencies above the Nyquist frequency is zero, a real anti-aliasing filter trades off between bandwidth and aliasing. A realizable anti-aliasing filter will typically either permit some aliasing to occur or else attenuate some in-band frequencies close to the Nyquist limit. For this reason, many practical systems sample higher than required to ensure that all frequencies of interest can be reconstructed, a practice called oversampling.

Optical Applications

In the case of optical image sampling, as by image sensors in digital cameras, the anti-aliasing filter is also known as an optical low-pass filter (OLPF), blur filter, or AA filter. The mathematics of sampling in two spatial dimensions is similar to the mathematics of time-domain sampling, but the filter implementation technologies are different. The typical implementation in digital cameras is two layers of birefringent material such as lithium niobate, which spreads each optical point into a cluster of four points.[1]

The choice of spot separation for such a filter involves a tradeoff among sharpness, aliasing, and fill factor (the ratio of the active refracting area of a microlens array to the total contiguous area occupied by the array). In a monochrome or three-CCD or Foveon X3 camera, the microlens array alone, if near 100% effective, can provide a significant anti-aliasing effect,[2] while in color filter array (CFA, e.g. Bayer filter) cameras, an additional filter is generally needed to reduce aliasing to an acceptable level.[3][4][5]

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It has everything to do with pixel density and nothing to do with the wavelength of light. Your quote virtually said that is true and did not even hint at your absurd misunderstanding.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I hesitated to reply this but here it goes:

To Apaflo: Who gives a s**** about your pseudo sciences?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Everyone who wants to evaluate the effects of AA filters needs accurate science rather than absurd misunderstandings such as what TriX posted and you are subcribing to now.

AA filtering for light wavelengths is truely "pseudo sciences"! Filtering for pixel pitch is reality.