Can someone (I am thinking of you, jrista) explain why no low-pass filter is better than a non anti-aliasing one (except to Nikon, who can probably save some money).
No OLPF is better in that there are fewer layers of material over the photodiodes (the OLPF is two layers of lithium niobate plus a 1/4-wave plate, not sure of the material, maybe quartz?). Same idea as using a top quality UV/clear filter vs. no filter – probably not much of an IQ hit, but maybe some under certain circumstances. With the D800/E, the 'inactive' OLPF was in there so everything else could be the same (image sensor mounting, piezo drive for the self-cleaning sensor, etc). Standardizing on one model means they can eliminate the OLPF entirely.
There's still the IR cut filter over the sensor to protect from dust and to vibrate for the self-clean.
I was also under the erroneous impression that it is the OLPF that does the dance.
I'm not sure about Nikon, but on Canon cameras it's the IR-cut filter and one half of the OLPF that are moved, while the other half of the OLPF stays with the fixed sensor.
Yep and Canon will end up selling about 10 cameras to us lot on forums and totally kill their regular sales with such a niche product. The beauty of the 5DIII and 1Dx cameras is that they are increadibly versatile, more than any other DSLR in history...is it no wonder they are selling so well and for such a premium?