Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 22, 2015 at 10:15 comment added Digital Lightcraft As an "EVERY DAY" example, I find they are particularly useful to have when shooting people in shirts with thin stripes (very common) and distant roof tiles/bricks.
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:08 comment added Joseph Rogers good explanation. Possibly of note is that some recent camera bodies (I am only aware of the Pentax K3) have no physical filter but are able to simulate one by moving the sensor during the exposure.
Oct 20, 2015 at 2:35 comment added Michael C With the highest resolution sensors, the resolution limits of the lenses themselves begin to function as the AA filter. And many times moire attributed to the sensor is actually caused by scaling errors when the image is resized for viewing.
Oct 19, 2015 at 22:22 comment added Mark Ransom @Ako most of the time it makes little difference. To see moiré in your image you need to have very fine detail in your scene, and a very sharp lens with perfect focus and the right F-stop and no motion blur. Certainly you can find examples, but it's rare. The ability to get away without a filter goes up as the sensor resolution goes up.
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:57 vote accept Omid Kamangar
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:56 comment added Caleb Depends what you want. Basically, there's such a thing as "too sharp" for general photography. I think manufacturers include a low-pass filter on most of their cameras because it yields better images. But as with most things, whether it's "good" or not depends on your needs. If you're a novice looking to get into digital photography, it's probably better to have an antialiasing filter than not to.
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:44 comment added Omid Kamangar So, is it good to have it on a camera?
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:39 history answered Caleb CC BY-SA 3.0