I think I'm going to have the AA filter removed from my D5...

sk66

Advertiser
Messages
8,650
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm fairly certain that 21MP on FF is enough resolution to minimize the risk of moire, and for what I use it for (wildlife/action) that's of minimal concern anyway. The cost isn't bad ($425), and the camera is/will be out of manufacturer's warranty. They replace the AA filter stack with an IR only filter and recalibrate focus. Plus they provide a 1yr warranty on the parts/work. I can't really see any major negative drawback... Am I missing anything?

After years of using the D810, the reduction in resolution in the D5 due to the AA filter is rather annoying...
 
Last edited:
seems like a good call, d500 would be a nice addition though :) I do notice though FYI that cropping on both my APS-C units the D500 and X100F that the detail is retained a lot better, than if I crop into my 43meg files on my Sony A7Rii not too sure how and why but it always feels like I don't lose anything when I crop APS-C vs FF.. weird science
 
I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the more MP the higher the risk of moire ...
seems like a good call, d500 would be a nice addition though :) I do notice though FYI that cropping on both my APS-C units the D500 and X100F that the detail is retained a lot better, than if I crop into my 43meg files on my Sony A7Rii not too sure how and why but it always feels like I don't lose anything when I crop APS-C vs FF.. weird science
High MP's reduce the need for an AA filter as the images are almost always displayed at a reduced resolution (smaller size)... it's called "oversampling," which is one way to reduce moire. Additionally, most lenses at most apertures cannot resolve details to that small of a pixel size. This creates an inherent "diffraction limited" softening, which is what an AA filter does to reduce moire.

Oversampling also has the additional benefits of greater color accuracy/information, DR (to a lesser extent), and noise reduction (ISO performance)... it's effectively "less information" per pixel, but with greater accuracy (smaller point samples). But when you crop those images you loose the oversampling advantage and the results will very likely be worse... almost certainly not any better.

IMO, there is no practical resolution advantage above ~16-20MP on FF sensors for most applications... to actually record more than 16MP requires excellent lenses, optimal settings (wider apertures), and excellent technique (tripod). But the oversampling advantage is still there even if you are not actually recording the full resolution potential. I know that I am seldom getting anywhere near 36MP out of my D810... for wildlife it's usually with a 400/2.8 +2x TC, higher ISO's, and *handheld.
 
Last edited:
Watching with interest to see how you get on.
Who is it that offers this service Steven as I would like to read up on the service and maybe consider doing the same for my D5.

Graham
 
Watching with interest to see how you get on.
Who is it that offers this service Steven as I would like to read up on the service and maybe consider doing the same for my D5.

Graham
Over here in the US the best company seems to be LifePixel.com

But TBH, it's probably not going to make that huge of a difference...
 
Last edited:
So AF doesn't work properly and it needs butchering to get good image quality ... what does this say about Nikon's flagship?
 
Ha!

It's more like AF works differently (and I don't like it), and an IQ improvement similar to a lens upgrade (hopefully).
There's more information about discussions with Nikon on FM and DPReview ... Nikon apparently unaware of the issue and looking for examples, as if they couldn't test it themselves! :rolleyes:
 
Steve just sell it now and get the A9 :p
 
There's more information about discussions with Nikon on FM and DPReview ... Nikon apparently unaware of the issue and looking for examples, as if they couldn't test it themselves! :rolleyes:
AFAIK, Nikon isn't looking for examples... I've been in discussion with them (and Steve Perry on FM)...
 
I'm fairly certain that 21MP on FF is enough resolution to minimize the risk of moire, and for what I use it for (wildlife/action) that's of minimal concern anyway. The cost isn't bad ($425), and the camera is/will be out of manufacturer's warranty. They replace the AA filter stack with an IR only filter and recalibrate focus. Plus they provide a 1yr warranty on the parts/work. I can't really see any major negative drawback... Am I missing anything?

After years of using the D810, the reduction in resolution in the D5 due to the AA filter is rather annoying...

Presumably you've seen results and there are no hidden pitfalls? Then go for it (y) FWIW, I find the moire correction brush in Lightroom to be a very easy and effective cure. Be interesting to know how you get on :)
 
Presumably you've seen results and there are no hidden pitfalls? Then go for it (y) FWIW, I find the moire correction brush in Lightroom to be a very easy and effective cure. Be interesting to know how you get on :)
No results to be found, at least none that I can trust highly. There's the D800/800e/810 comparisons. And there's the Leica M8 (10mp) and M9 (18MP) which don't have AA filters for an idea of how much sensor resolution is needed to reduce AA requirements (the M8 seems to be rather prone to the issues). I've seen some other "before/after" examples, but some of them are questionable in technique and I'm hesitant to accept the examples from a modification supplier (i.e. https://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm).

Interestingly, one of the worst cases of moire I've gotten in recent memory was with my Nikon1 V2 which has an AA filter and very fine pixel pitch.
 
No results to be found, at least none that I can trust highly. There's the D800/800e/810 comparisons. And there's the Leica M8 (10mp) and M9 (18MP) which don't have AA filters for an idea of how much sensor resolution is needed to reduce AA requirements (the M8 seems to be rather prone to the issues). I've seen some other "before/after" examples, but some of them are questionable in technique and I'm hesitant to accept the examples from a modification supplier (i.e. https://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm).

Interestingly, one of the worst cases of moire I've gotten in recent memory was with my Nikon1 V2 which has an AA filter and very fine pixel pitch.

A leap into the unknown then Steven! Great stuff :)

I'm not surprised you get moire with a Nikon V2. I get it with my Canon 5D2 (21mp plus AA filter) and in some comparisons I happen to have (various camera bags with lots of fine textured fabrics) it's actually quite similar to a 5DSR (50mp with AA cancelling). Nikon V2 is only 14mp and it's not fine pixel pitch that reduces moire but total pixel count.
 
Both I believe...
If the lens cant resolve to the size of the pixels then there is some level of diffraction blurring which has the same effect as an AA filter.

Yes, I see what you mean.

I have an interesting example of diffraction acting as a moire filter with some tests I did with the Canon 100-400 Mk2 on a 5DSR - aperture/sharpness comparisons of a building with the front covered in fine protective mesh over scafolding. Moire is clearly evident up to f/5.6, just visible at f/8, but gone by f/11.
 
Yes, I see what you mean.

I have an interesting example of diffraction acting as a moire filter with some tests I did with the Canon 100-400 Mk2 on a 5DSR - aperture/sharpness comparisons of a building with the front covered in fine protective mesh over scafolding. Moire is clearly evident up to f/5.6, just visible at f/8, but gone by f/11.
And that's the issue with AA filters... in general (there is variability) the AA filter is set to 50% (nyquist) and then there is some sharpening applied during the demosaicing process (even on raw files) to compensate. When the setting is higher (less blur) there is an increased risk of issues... where do you draw the line? Nikon seems to think not having AA filtration is ok for pixels < ~ 5um (24mp APS, 36MP FF), but there is no hard and fast rule... it's always possible to encounter moire because some pattern could always match up. Still you can never truly regain sharpness/detail that is not recorded.

Interestingly Nikon patented an AA filter that can be switched on/off. Twice, one was mechanical (2011) and the other was electrical (2013)... but it's never been implemented. One reason might be because it's about impossible to identify moire issues on a camera's LCD.

If moire is encountered/recognized then there are a few ways to possibly deal with it. You can change the size of the pattern so that it doesn't match up any more, by changing composition (distance/FL). You can change the angle to the pattern so it changes and no longer matches. You can use diffraction (smaller apertures) or possibly lens errors (wider apertures) to eliminate it. Or you might be able to put it outside of the DOF (or farther out).
If none of that is possible or it's not recognized, once it is recorded you have two options... reduced output size (oversampling) or moire corrections (which can have negative effects).
 
Pentax has switchable moire reduction in the K1, using their Pixel Shift feature. My own preference, based on what I've experienced and read, is that I'd prefer no AA filter with a moderate to high pixels camera. Moire just isn't a problem for most of us, most of the time, and I've found it easy to control in Lightroom. No doubt I'll come unstuck one day, but I'll take that risk for the definite sharpness upside you get.

I wish the Canon 5D4 was AA-less as that's likely to be my upgrade camera sometime soon - unless this new Sony A9 turns out to be as good as it claims ;) That'll be expensive :eek:
 
My own preference, based on what I've experienced and read, is that I'd prefer no AA filter with a moderate to high pixels camera.
Me too... that's why I'm probably going to do it. I've talked myself into it.
But first I think I need to get a good/commercial test target for before/after shots (my printer doesn't seem to do well enough).

unless this new Sony A9 turns out to be as good as it claims ;) That'll be expensive :eek:
20fps, full 4k, and a truly silent mode... not that anyone really needs 20fps.
 
Back
Top