"As far as I'm aware, the advantages and disadvantages of no AA filter tend to canel each other, on balance. The initial impetus to produce a camera without an AA filter was probably due to the cost savings for cameras which were already too expensive for many.
16 bit versus 12 bit may be of some significance. However, the current latest cameras that have the best DR, at the pixel level, without doubt and by a wide margin, are the D7000 and Pentax K5, which are both 14 bit."
I have been shooting with a D7000 since november - and while the DR is amazing - it certainly doesnt appear to beat my MFDB by a "wide margin" or at all for that matter. The D7000 files fall apart quickly when recovering detail from shadows, the 16 bit MFDB file holds up much better. The DR seems pretty close between the D7000 and the MFDB.....usable files the edge still goes to the MFDB for me. As far as the AA Filter - I find it a huge advantage when fine detail is involved - branches and grass for example seem mushy even with the D3X. 16 bit and no AA filter are a great advantage to me that is why I own a MFDB. Shooting in low light at ISO6400 and producing a clean file with great DR is also a great advantage, which is why I own the D7000. Horses for courses i guess
Between the D3X and 645D......tough choice....I think I would go D3X for an all around system as I own a ton of nikon glass.
nice to have choices...I love what i have seen of the 645D too.....awwww hell....I need them both !.....oh...and a Phase IQ180 too !
Regards,
Dennis
Dennis,
I really think you are confusing issues here and attributing certain obvious advantages of the larger sensor, with its higher pixel count, to the 16 bit pipeline.
My claim is that the D7000 has a far better DR
at the pixel level, than any MFDB that DXO have tested, whilst also maintaining similar tonal range and color sensitivity etc. This augurs well for the future of FF 35mm. There is no reason to suppose that Nikon (or Sony) will not produce a 40mp FF 35mm sensor in the near future, comprised of D7000 pixels. I would consider such a camera an irresistable upgrade, if the price were right.
Nevertheless, I don't wish to appear arrogant after your claim you are using both a D7000 and an MFDB, because clearly you have the opportunity to make comparisons that I don't.
I would be very interested to see a comparison
at the pixel level, between your D7000 and whatever MFDB you use.
In order to exclude influences such as the DB's larger sensor and greater pixel count, so we can see just what effect might be attributable to the 16 bit pipeline, (but including also any advantages of the lack of an AA filter and the differences of the CCD design in general, which are impossible to exclude), I think it would be necessary to shoot the same high-DR scene choosing appropriately different focal lengths so that
same FoV crops are the same file size.
On the basis that the D7000 has greater pixel density than your DB, this would entail using a slightly
longer focal length with your D7000 than you would use with the MFDB, instead of the usually shorter FL to equalize the FoVs of the entire frame. (I think I got that right. Too early for a glass of wine
).