Originally posted by Ash Slightly blurry images will be slightly blurry no matter what sensor is used to capture them.
Slightly blurry images captured with a filterless sensor are less blurry compared to those that receive additional blur through a Bayer-AA-filter. That's why you are seeing a sharpness gain with a K-5 IIs.
Originally posted by Ash Real world shooting just doesn't exemplify this phenomenon, and yet the added sharpness is not immeasurable between the filtered and filterless versions of the Sony 16Mp sensor.
Real world shooting involves some level of blur from one source of another.
As I wrote, if your image taking is less than painstakingly optimised for sharpness, you'll typically generate enough blur for the Bayer-AA-filter to become superfluous. But if you use a tripod, flash, optimal focus, etc. and have high spatial frequency in the scene, you'll see moiré and colour artefacts. Both will appear sooner than with a regular camera whose Bayer-AA-filter is designed as a compromise between avoiding moiré and destroying image detail.
I believe there is a misconception about the potential market for cameras like the K-5 IIs. The majority of shooters will in most of the cases benefit from it (as they generate enough blur to retire the Bayer-AA-filter). It is a smaller population of shooters that is after the best image detail and knows how to obtain it that has a problem with the K-5 IIs.
A 16MP camera without a Bayer-AA-filter is an incomplete imaging system. This remains a fact, even though many people manage to create enough blur that there is no need for a Bayer-AA-filter.
Originally posted by gaweidert Probably a stupid question, but does moire show up in prints as bad as it does on a computer monitor?
Moiré has the property that it makes a problem at the microscopic scale (subsampling of spatial frequencies) visible at the macroscopic scale (mesh like patterns). So if you are unlucky, large areas could be affected by moiré and these will be visible in prints.
Color artifacts that do exist in details (e.g., colour were there should be just a sharp B&W transition) that do not combine to create an emerging moiré pattern, will go unnoticed in most prints because they are rarely big enough to allow such details to be discriminated.
Originally posted by gaweidert However, once hit the "+" button the enlarge the print a little the moire all but disappeared.
It is most likely that the moiré you've seen was generated by a crude scaling algorithm.
In other words, the displaying of the image is to blame, not the image (or camera).
Originally posted by gaweidert Using this technology on the better "photo quality printers" out there would produce image quality that may rival conventional photographic prints. I may also make moire a thing of the past.
Yes, stochastic printing rocks.
But it cannot do anything against moiré in the source.