The "Dark Ages" of AA vs non-AA war has begun thanks to the impressive D800E


surrephoto

Senior Member
Jan 14, 2009
3,411
3
38
27
Chinatown
www.surrephoto.com
#1
I know everyone is excited but we should be ready for an onslaught and slew of comparisons between the D800E vs AA filtered D800/D4/D3X.

Honestly this is really unhealthy to the market considering that the high-megapixel war supposedly ended. Now that high-megapixels is no longer enough, Nikon decides to remove the AA filter to make life more difficult for everybody and earn additional USD$300 per D800E.


On the contrary, I am very happy that the D800-series is lighter than D700... which is honestly a pig with AA-batteries and MB-D10.

The expected (but not 100% confirmed) trickle down of the AWB/Meter/AF system from the D4 is impressive. But I'll wait for actual hands-on and test as D700 really had bad AWB vs D3 although it was sort of a trickle down.

Other features such as the OVF level will be really useful for landscape photographers.

When time comes where people own the D800 or D800E I hope there will not be pro/anti-AA advocators flaming and scorning fellow D800-series users because this is the last civil war I would want to see.

Good luck to all of us!
 

Last edited:

surrephoto

Senior Member
Jan 14, 2009
3,411
3
38
27
Chinatown
www.surrephoto.com
#3
I don't understand the logic that you are paying more for having less. :bsmilie:
Hi bro edutilos... precisely... but if they did come out with only a D800 AA version you still would need to pay around that price to remove the AA-filter and void the warranty.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#4
Hi bro edutilos... precisely... but if they did come out with only a D800 AA version you still would need to pay around that price to remove the AA-filter and void the warranty.
Yes, but certainly when they produce the D800E it's not going to be a process whereby they install the AA-filter and remove it subsequently, i.e. this comes at the production stage. I wonder if there's a logical explanation for this, or it is just an attempt to earn more money by promising higher megapixels. Perhaps the sensor goes hand in hand with the anti AA filter already? Not a technical person.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,447
34
48
Singapore
#5
I don't understand the logic that you are paying more for having less. :bsmilie:
The first principle of capitalism: price is not determined by the cost of a product - that only sets a lower limit. The upper limit of price is determined strictly by how much consumers are willing to pay for the product.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#6
Unless the other way to interpret "In-camera disable AA filter" is true. which means we are the master to control the availability of the AA filter used for each shot. It's a long shot, but this capability surely worth $300 USD.
 

JasonB

Deregistered
Jun 2, 2009
871
9
0
#7
You again!

Happy to see that you are finally you are happy with something.

;)

I know everyone is excited but we should be ready for an onslaught and slew of comparisons between the D800E vs AA filtered D800/D4/D3X.

Honestly this is really unhealthy to the market considering that the high-megapixel war supposedly ended. Now that high-megapixels is no longer enough, Nikon decides to remove the AA filter to make life more difficult for everybody and earn additional USD$300 per D800E.


On the contrary, I am very happy that the D800-series is lighter than D700... which is honestly a pig with AA-batteries and MB-D10.

The expected (but not 100% confirmed) trickle down of the AWB/Meter/AF system from the D4 is impressive. But I'll wait for actual hands-on and test as D700 really had bad AWB vs D3 although it was sort of a trickle down.

Other features such as the OVF level will be really useful for landscape photographers.

When time comes where people own the D800 or D800E I hope there will not be pro/anti-AA advocators flaming and scorning fellow D800-series users because this is the last civil war I would want to see.

Good luck to all of us!
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#8
The first principle of capitalism: price is not determined by the cost of a product - that only sets a lower limit. The upper limit of price is determined strictly by how much consumers are willing to pay for the product.
Yes, of course, I am more than acquainted with that logic.

Disagree with the lower limit being the cost of the product. There are more than sufficient examples of what is known as a "loss leader" to simulate sale of other products or future products.

And Nikon has determined that people are more willing to pay more for something without an AA filter - ok. I suppose this will be the case based on the number of people going gaga about the D800E. :bsmilie:
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#9
Unless the other way to interpret "In-camera disable AA filter" is true. which means we are the master to control the availability of the AA filter used for each shot. It's a long shot, but this capability surely worth $300 USD.
That would be tough to engineer, I suspect.. The AA filter is a physical object, so when it is removed, it has to be substituted with something with similar optical properties (e.g. refractive index) to prevent potential problems such as focusing/etc.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#10
That would be tough to engineer, I suspect.. The AA filter is a physical object, so when it is removed, it has to be substituted with something with similar optical properties (e.g. refractive index) to prevent potential problems such as focusing/etc.
Yeah, I suspected as much. Just wait for 2 more days for further clarification during the showcase in Yokohama.
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#11
from Nikon Rumors:

Leica M9, Fuji X100, X-pro1 and many medium format cameras have sensors without AA filters (or with very "weak" AA filters). With this move I believe Nikon is directly targeting medium format users by offering a 36MP sensor without the AA filter in a much smaller and affordable package.

Moire can be removed in post processing. Capture NX also has a moire reduction tool.....

Why remove the anti-aliasing (AA) filter in the Nikon D800E? | Nikon Rumors
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,447
34
48
Singapore
#12
That would be tough to engineer, I suspect.. The AA filter is a physical object, so when it is removed, it has to be substituted with something with similar optical properties (e.g. refractive index) to prevent potential problems such as focusing/etc.
Flip it mechanically like the mirror, perhaps?
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#13
i guess how fast n efficient the software can reduce the moire will determine one's decision. seems like shooting raw for best quality but slow down ur workflow. :think:
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#14
How come everything is also "dark ages"?

Camera sensor noise performance has never been better. Resolution has never been higher. Pricing remains about the same as the replaced model when it was first released (adjusted for Japanese yen)... how come we are back into the dark ages once again?

*shrugs*
 

N-user

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2006
2,459
2
38
TPY
#15
I don't understand the logic that you are paying more for having less. :bsmilie:
ermmmm same like you go see tiger or lion show... the more the xmm take off, the more it will cost you.... :devil:
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,447
34
48
Singapore
#16
UncleFai said:
Flip it mechanically like the mirror, perhaps?
Re-read the descriptions. Nope... D800E no AA filter, period.
 

surrephoto

Senior Member
Jan 14, 2009
3,411
3
38
27
Chinatown
www.surrephoto.com
#17
How come everything is also "dark ages"?

Camera sensor noise performance has never been better. Resolution has never been higher. Pricing remains about the same as the replaced model when it was first released (adjusted for Japanese yen)... how come we are back into the dark ages once again?

*shrugs*
Haha... actually it's an intended pun. Since nikon is known as the dark-side... I'd call any nikon user crisis the "dark ages".
 

pbear1973

New Member
Jun 7, 2011
330
0
0
www.flickr.com
#19
Yes, of course, I am more than acquainted with that logic.

Disagree with the lower limit being the cost of the product. There are more than sufficient examples of what is known as a "loss leader" to simulate sale of other products or future products.

And Nikon has determined that people are more willing to pay more for something without an AA filter - ok. I suppose this will be the case based on the number of people going gaga about the D800E. :bsmilie:
Yep.. given the well known crisp image qualities of the M9 and X100 - both cameras having no AA filter - I'm not at all surprised that people would spring US$300 to have the filter disabled. Add to that the problem of moire patterns seems to be exaggerated. Over 1000 shots later on my X100 I've seen moire patterns only once. And damn the pictures are crisp!

Nikon makes great DSLRs.. but more importantly they're really astute marketers. From what I understand the 1-series is a pretty decent success despite the small sensor.
 

fatigue

Senior Member
Sep 26, 2005
2,924
14
38
49
Blk138 Bedok North Ave3
forums.clubsnap.org
#20
I don't understand the logic that you are paying more for having less. :bsmilie:
Just a guess. Although there's no AA filter they still need to place a material in front of the sensor. The material works as sensor protection and to maintain the same focal plane as the non E version.

Maybe, this material cost more than the AA filter and since D800E is a special camera, the production quantity could be smaller. This means it will cost more to produce compared to D800
 

Top Bottom