If they can achieve 6fps at full resolution and improve ISO by a full stop as was done on the D4s, I will buy one. The D300 only shot 6fps which was adequate for my own needs. Plus if they get 6fps full rez it will likely do 7 or 8 in DX mode which would be awesome.
Thanks for correcting me. It's been a while since I read the explanation. While it is true that there is not an additional element in the filter arrangement, if you look you will see that it has the same number but "separates in vertical direction" and then recombines the image in another filter element. Seems rather odd. Simplicity almost always win in design.Looking at the explanation of the OLPF for the D800/E it looks like no additional filters were added for the E; the E just replaces the wave plate with optical glass (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr...features01.htm). This likely does not lower the light transmission efficiency.
The two most critical aspects of achieving optimum IQ are sharpness and noise performance. There is NO substitute for a sharp image and noise reduction software works well but detail is still lost. For the VAST majority of people, it likely makes no difference. But why not start with the highest quality image possible? Though I haven't seen it specifically validated, I suspect that at high resolutions now being realized on camera sensors, a combination of pixel pitch and slight softening due to natural lens diffraction greatly reduce the incidence of moire. Since other manufacturers are dropping the OLPF, I suspect they have validated this with testing etc. Of course their motives for doing so are simply to save a few dollars per camera in production cost by eliminating unnecessary parts. I doubt they would be doing it if they expected wholesale complaints from the user base.What are the pros and cons of having an OLPF? It seems like a very slight increase in resolution for quite a bit of liability in terms of moire and false color.