The results from the D200 mod do look worthwhile from what they have on their website. The results for the 5D less than impressive, when looking at the actual raw files in different raw apps that I use regularly. The cost is not a big deal, but if I see a nearly miniscule to no difference at 100%, then what in the world does a print comparison add. So maybe the price of the mod for the 5D isn't worth it. If I don't see much of a difference then comparing to a digital back is of little value.
The jpeg samples they show do look very different. But that is not the case looking at the raw files. And in the end they are trying to sell a service here. If someone is trying to squeeze one more percent of detail out of an image through some hardware mod, then maybe they are into the gear more than the art of photography.
And one bit of truth, color moire can be reduced through software, luminance moire patterns are hard as hell to get rid of. I would like to spend less time in front of the computer not more.
actually you'll be surprised at the difference a print makes vs computer screen, even at 100%.
As we speak now I'm slowly uprezzing a file and sharpening it for 4ft x6ft to 240 dpi.
it took alot of trial and error of printing on the epson and comparing to the print to realise that what's on a screen can translate differently in print, in terms of what the human eye perceives as photographic or not (when is sharpening too much sharpening to the point of looking flatly digital?)
Talking about sharpening an AA-ed image, when I uprez my 1DsMkII file and I sharpen it I find that it's impossible to bring back minute detail that's soft through the obvious AA filtering in the first place.
You can sharpen an image to bring back local contrast but then when details are mushed in the first place,sharpening it later leaves pretty half-assed details. And using local contrast sharpening before uprezzing the image just leaves a degraded image.
When you look at images 100% on a computer screen you're seeing a rendering of square pixels forming an image, and when you print it out you're looking at dots. Too many people make comments based on looking at computer screen images, would you consider printing the pictures out to see if you can tell a difference?
I think at small print sizes you can't tell much difference but there was this image I shot on a H39 and I always thought it was unspectacular, until one day I had to blow it up to 5 ft and suddenly the picture seemed to pop out alot more compared to my 1DsMkII file, details rendered differently although on the computer screen you would be drawn to the 1DsMkII file instead
I'm weighing in on this topic because I personally feel that images do benefit from a lack of AA filter.
I shot with a Kodak Pro Back quite awhile back and even then I already felt that the images rendered at the optimal ISO was providing me images that had finer details and a more photographic, dimensional look than my MkII which, as much as I love it, does seem like its images have been shot through some soft cloth sometimes in terms of rendering details.
People are willing to pay alot of money to buy a zeiss lens simply for subtle gains in terms of rendering of an image, so I don't see why there's so much negativity regarding the service being offered.
once again it's abit of a specialist service, and not suited for everyone I'm sure.
Personally I would do it in a flash if only they offered it for my camera.
I'm sure that the company is willing to provide more samples should you email them
Plus there's a forum member who's had his 5D modded and he seems happy with it. Perhaps you can ask him for his opinion on it.