| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Cleaning inside a no LPF body | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 12:37 | 1st Post |
| Perhaps a silly question .... I assume the LPF when removed from some bodies is replaced with a plain glass filter ...to protect the sensor? I wondered if these models attracted dust bunnies more or less than models with the LPF still fitted? Do these models still have the 'shaker' inside, to clean the 'sensor'?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 13:17 | 2nd Post |
| If the sensor is constructed the same as earlier types it is encapsulated and sealed with a glass pane in front of the actual sensor surface. The LPF is a component of the UV/IR filter i.e. visible light pass filter, so I expect that would have to remain. Also the (LPF/)visible light pass filter is a part of the light path for 'digitally corrected' lenses, as such it would have to remain. So I think the answer to your question is that as far as the user is concerned there is no change with regard to 'sensor' cleaning. I 'enclosed' the word sensor because you don't actually clean the sensor, you clean the LPF/vis pass filter in front of the sensor.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 13:40 | 3rd Post |
Robert wrote:If the sensor is constructed the same as earlier types it is encapsulated and sealed with a glass pane in front of the actual sensor surface. 'so did I'  So they have merely removed the antialias effect of the UV/IR filter? I didn't notice any info on shaker systems in the D7100 camera spec and wondered if it had been removed it (which on reflection I suppose would be a retrograde step). I guess the modified filter is likely to have the same 'bunny attraction coefficient'.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 16:10 | 4th Post |
Eric wrote:
 That is my take Eric, you can't just remove the LPF/Vis pass filter because unless you are using a zero shift lens like the Nikkor 105 UV then the image will be contaminated with UV and IR information that will be out of focus and of course it will contaminate the colour contrast of the image for a start. Not causing the LPF to slightly blur the image which I think they do by briefly dipping in acid to create a ripple of micro lenses on one side should make it cheaper to produce, having taken at least one step out of the process of creating the filter. Does this mean a D800E is on the horizon?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 16:26 | 5th Post |
| He has a Fuji XE1 which has a 'sensor' shaker for cleaning and no LPF. But he may be considering a D800E instead of his D3. As Robert says the LPF does a number of things but I guess that the IR and UV filtering is now being performed by another filter in the stack. All they have done is remove the anti-more effect by removing the interference filter component that reduced the image sharpness. There is also the Bayer filter that sits directly above the sensor. See here for the current design. http://dpbestflow.org/camera/sensor This diagram shows it very well. Attachment: image.jpg (Downloaded 34 times)
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Dec 25th, 2013 17:35 | 6th Post |
jk wrote:He has a Fuji XE1 which has a 'sensor' shaker for cleaning and no LPF. Thanks guys...having a senior moment....of course the Fuji has a shaker. Duh....too much Christmas fayre. Nope ....not planning a D800.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 03:58 | 7th Post |
jk wrote:
Well it sort of does but it's grossly over simplified and way out of scale, missing out the vital lightpath details which are crucial to understanding what is going on. There is a much better diagram on a Leica site somewhere which shows the lightpath clearly and understandably. I may have it bookmarked in my collection of links, I will try to find it.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 04:09 | 8th Post |
OK, not quite what I was looking for but perhaps better, coming directly from Nikon and being exactly on topic (for once)!  http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Images/Learn-Explore/Camera-Technology/D-SLR/2012/Moire-D800-D800E/Media/OLPF_schematic.pdf Another interesting and related link from a respected source: http://www.lifepixel.com/blog/anti-aliasing-low-pass-filter-removal
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 04:33 | 9th Post |
Robert wrote:OK, not quite what I was looking for but perhaps better, coming directly from Nikon and being exactly on topic (for once)! Interesting different functions between the two LPFs in each system. Not just as simple as removing a coating.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 05:14 | 10th Post |
| Yes, that is interesting, obviously more to this just leaving out a bit of glass, it's a different system. Eric, have you noticed your D200 being sharper than expected? That doesn't have an anti-aliasing filter either. Generally the D200 isn't known for it's razor sharpness, the D200 anti-aliasing filter is said to be rather stronger than ideal.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 07:24 | 11th Post |
Robert wrote:Yes, that is interesting, obviously more to this just leaving out a bit of glass, it's a different system. Not sure I understand you Robert....if the D200 hasn't got an antialiasing filter....how can it be perceived as stronger than ideal? I only have the IR converted D200, which as you know produces softer effects anyway. But that raises another interesting question ....what is removed when the IR fitted? When I converted the D70 I swopped over the LPF for the IR filter. I assume this model had antialiasing. So was that 'attached' to the bit of glass I removed? I can't say I noticed any 'above normal' sharpness in either IR cameras...so it may be only a minor improvement to sharpness unless you use a tripod and primes.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 08:35 | 12th Post |
| When you had the D200 converted David removed the LPF and fitted the IR filter effectively blocking UV and visible light. The anti-aliasing 'filter' went because it's a component of the LPF. in fact as I understand it, it's simply a micro ripple effect on the surface of the LPF which creates sufficient blur to stop any moire effect in images. Removing the LPF should have resulted in a sharper image but as you say IR images do tend to be slightly soft so perhaps I was being silly (again)!
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 09:45 | 13th Post |
Robert wrote:When you had the D200 converted David removed the LPF and fitted the IR filter effectively blocking UV and visible light. The anti-aliasing 'filter' went because it's a component of the LPF. in fact as I understand it, it's simply a micro ripple effect on the surface of the LPF which creates sufficient blur to stop any moire effect in images.Not really...it's a complicated picture, because one doesnt really know what the AAF would have contributed in the IR spectrum.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by novicius: Fri Dec 27th, 2013 22:56 | 14th Post |
| Not sure I understand any of this ...the AAF is a micro-ripple effect on the surface of the LPF which greates blur, but would that not cause soft/unsharp images , KODAK omitted the AAF on the slrN claiming X-treme sharpness without it ?
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by Robert: Sat Dec 28th, 2013 01:45 | 15th Post |
| The Micro ripple effect does cause soft(er) images, that's the point, but the coa**er grain (lower resolution) sensors are very prone to moir© which is very difficult to remove in post processing, so it's a trade off. Nikon have given users a choice with the D800E. It depends a lot on your subjects, Moir© would be a big issue for architectural photography for example. For portraits it may not be, but portraits tend to be softened anyway, so it's down to the users needs.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sat Dec 28th, 2013 12:09 | 16th Post |
| I dont think I have found any moire effects with my D800 or D600 and I tend to look for this especially in the fabrics of clothes in portraits.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Dec 28th, 2013 13:26 | 17th Post |
jk wrote:I dont think I have found any moire effects with my D800 or D600 and I tend to look for this especially in the fabrics of clothes in portraits. So, given the conventional wisdom of 'the bigger the pixels the better the image', which is better IQ, Jonathan....the D600 or the D800?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sat Dec 28th, 2013 15:35 | 18th Post |
| For me the D600 (dust spots included, apparently they disappear after >4000 shots, only 1700 more to go.) is more useful on a daily basis. The D800 is great but it is bigger, heavier and its image size at 36MP is more than I need unless I want a grain free image blown up for the side of O2 Arena. Strangely I havent had too many of these requests. I really need to get out and find some banking customers!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Dec 28th, 2013 16:55 | 19th Post |
jk wrote:For me the D600 (dust spots included, apparently they disappear after >4000 shots, only 1700 more to go.) is more useful on a daily basis. The D800 is great but it is bigger, heavier and its image size at 36MP is more than I need unless I want a grain free image blown up for the side of O2 Arena. Strangely I havent had too many of these requests. I really need to get out and find some banking customers! Whilst that is a very good reason for using the D600, it doesn't answer the question.... Are the smaller D800 pixels better than the D600 pixels? The 'grain free image blow up' you mention suggests that''s true and the conventional wisdom of best IQ = big pixels has changed? Using the 100% crop comparison method recently discussed... Does the D800 file look better at 100% in CS, than the D600 file? So many restless questions....clearly cake deficiency setting in.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sun Dec 29th, 2013 02:33 | 20th Post |
| Like for like at 200ISO I cant tell the difference unless I blow up on screen to 400% At 100% there is very little difference not that I have ever done an identical shot/lens comparison. I'll see if I can do that in the next few days if there are some good opportunities.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| This is topic ID = 814 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Cleaning inside a no LPF body | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1009 seconds (81% database + 19% PHP). 139 queries executed.
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1009 seconds (81% database + 19% PHP). 139 queries executed.