Any discussion of the pros and cons of AA filtering that never mentions the raison d'être of the OLPFm namely the demonstrated image degradation due to aliasing (including but not limited to moiré) is rather pointless.
Any discussion of the pros and cons of AA filtering would have
to mention the cons of image degradation, otherwise it wouldn't be a discussion of pros and cons
. (Although, in the case of the D800E the cons could relate to non-image factors such as price.)
However, my post wasn't specifically about the pros and cons of an AA filter but the significance of small improvements in some aspect of technical performance, such as resolution, which may be given undue attention by people who only judge image quality at 100% size on their monitor, a size which is usually representative of a much, much larger print than such people may ever produce from their images.
For example, if one compares 100% crops of D800 and D800E images on an average 24" monitor with HD resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, and one sees a minor degree of extra crispness in the D800E image, one should be aware that such differences would only be apparent (hopefully) on a print from the same crop that one sees on the monitor, and at least the same size as the crop one sees on the monitor. If one were to make a print of the entire uncropped image it would be approximately 7ft wide and 4ft 7" high, and to see the same differences one noticed on the monitor at 100% one would need to view the 7ft wide print from the same distance one views a monitor.
(I think my maths is correct here. I'm working on the basis that the D800 image after conversion is about 109Mb in 8 bit mode, that a 24" monitor is about 20-21" wide, and that the resolution of such a monitor, if it's HD, is about 90 ppi.)
So far, the differences I've seen in the few comparison crops that are available, in respect of the D800 and D800E (refer Erik's example in reply #15), are not a cause for excitement, especially when one considers the disadvantages of more frequent and more severe aliasing artifacts.
I can understand a manufacturer of expensive MFDBs omitting the AA filters to keep costs down. The customer can then be positive about the slight advantage of a lack of AA filter, as MFDB owners generally are, and downplay the disadvantages of moire. But it doesn't make the same sense for a manufacturer to charge extra for the privilege of not having an AA filter when the advantages are so slight and the disadvantages sometimes significant.