After all the technical talk, I still don't see your point or why aliasing is such a big issue.
Perhaps that's where the problem lies, a lot of people who use AA filterless images actually are not bothered by the aliasing?
Yes, that is my best guess. What to me is aliasing is to another person the ideal microcontrast.
Granted, there are times when it is visible (esp in certain highlights)
but from my personal experience no matter how much I sharpen images I still get a slightly mushy and blurred effect with DSLRs with their AA filters.
And the mushiness/blurring is MUCH more disturbing to me than any aliasing.
I can understand your point of view. For me, sharpening compensates for the OLPF very well, but it leaves me between a rock and a hard place when noise is high.
However, even if you use no sharpening whatsoever, you can completely remove the effects of the OLPF by simply buying a sensor with 1.3X more linear resolution than you need. If you need a sharp 12 MP, buy 20 MP. Then you get the rid of the mushy/blurred effect without sharpening and without aliasing. However, if aliasing is the very thing that you are trying to get, then you would not like it.
which goes back to your explanation of 3 pixel natural edge vs 2 pixel unnatural edge
I actually don't find 2 pixel edges unnatural. I actually think that's what makes lines so much more defined.
I think that helps explain the difference in perception. When you look at Image A/B comparsion from my earlier post, do you find Image A to be more pleasing?
Another thing is that how visible are aliasing effects when files are actually printed?
If the smallest details are visible, then so too is the aliasing. I see a ton of aliasing artifacts in prints all the time, but they're usually caused by the downsampling during post, not the camera itself. Photoshop does poorly with large resampling ratios, such as taking 21 MP down to 2 MP for a 4x6. Lightroom 2.0 was slightly better, and later in 2.x (I think) they improved the downsampling algorithm further, but it still results in far too much aliasing for my taste. Qimage, irfanview, and ImageMagick are much better.
So, pick your artifacts: mush or aliasing.
I pick mush.
As for artifacting, well, try as I might, on prints and at 300% on screen, I just don't see it, as long as sharpening is carefully and properly done. If I'm confusing artifacting with resolution, then long live the revolution.
One man's ugly artifacts are another man's fine detail. I think it's a difference in taste/perception.
I can clearly seen the benefits of MFD at low ISO and large viewing sizes. But to say that MFD is also superior in other ways (such as 8x10 size)...
I kindly disagree. There are many circumstances when a MF back is superior even at 8x10 size. For example, let's say the viewer's CoC is small enough to see 1000 LP/PH in the 8x10. On 35mm, that corresponds to 42 lp/mm. But on Medium Format the same print size is only 26 lp/mm due to smaller reproduction magnification. Many wide angle 35mm lenses are not able to provide the same level of aberration correction at much higher spatial frequencies, which is clearly reflected in their MTF charts. Worse still, they must operate at wider f-numbers to get the same depth of field and diffraction.