Originally posted by Class A
No, it isn't.
In both cases there is some pre-processing (underexposure, blur) that needs to be counteracted in post (pushing exposure, sharpen).
Yes, it is.
Again, the difference is in the fact that we are talking about something that cameras have the ability to get "right" as regards exposure (and it should be obvious in light of the fact that we can be either over or under IRT exposure). This is NOT so with detail/information. No camera is anywhere near capturing all the detail in any scene presented to lens and sensor. That's why we are having the conversation in the first place; we are trying to squeeze more detail into our images.
From there, it is, I think, simple elementary reasoning. There is something in front of most digital sensors in the form of an AA-filter (Bayer or not). It isn't an element like a lens that is designed to pass more precise scene information to the sensor; contrary. It is specifically designed, for lack of a better term, to
confuse the information by way of blurring it. Now, whether you call it microcontrast or detail (while there is a difference, these are often confused for a reason), at the end of the day either the IIs or the II is going to have more, or equal, microcontrast or detail.
We already know the sensors themselves are equal. One has a filter in front of it that, obviously, blurs fine detail/causes a loss of microcontrast. It is obvious that it affects the entire image, albeit pleasingly in some situations.
Quote: . . . except that a camera without an Bayer-AA-filter rarely truly captures more detail.
You admit that it does at least sometimes, then. And, I think this is a personal opinion that will not be shared by many people.
Quote: The fact that images have more micro-contrast out of the box makes many believe that there is more detail . . .
This confirms what I was saying above. No matter what we call it pedantically, it is something desired to have more of and gives the impression of more detail.
Quote: but typically one can achieve the same visual acuteness by sharpening an equivalent image from a camera with a Bayer-AA-Filter.
Which is true . . . until we apply the same technique to the system that gave us a less blurred microcontrast to begin with. Really, I think this comes down to complaining that the IIs has gotten a head start. Well, yeah! And that's why I'd bet on the IIs to win the race for most detail.