Winsor Crosby wrote:
>The Kodak DSLRs, which use software to deal with the resultant moire
>problems, are the exception to the rule. No anti-aliasing filters.
>
>
Ah, didn't know that. Then again, I've never seriously looked at them.
>I read somewhere that none of the digicams have anti-aliasing filters.
>Not sure if it is true.
>
I think it is, if only for the simple reason that the filters are
expensive. With complete control of the lens design and the fact that
more resolution costs size, weight and money (not necessarily in that
order :-) ), it would seem more practical to design the lens to the
purpose and leave out a filter.
I seem to recall that the lens that had served the 'D' series and A1
well had pretty well reached its limit with the higher sensor resolution
of the A2. Probably other examples I don't know about where an increase
in resolution with the same sensor size outstripped the capability of
the lens.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|