AA filter, replace or remove?

[sk66]

My D4 has a scratch on the AA filter that shows in some images. I've never been too concerned with it, but now I want to sell it. I have three choices; sell as is, have the AA filter removed, or have it replaced by Nikon.
If I were going to keep it I would probably have the AA filter removed (not too worried about moire with wildlife), but that might not be a great idea if the camera were going to be used for weddings and the like.

Cost is not a concern... insurance will pay for it. So, which do you think has more "value."

 

[PaulButler]

Given cost is no concern have it replaced. Most people I would think would want to buy a D4 as it is made so to speak.

 

[jerry12953]

There will probably be an excess on your insurance policy. But I'd probably want to sell it in as new condition if possible.

 

[sk66]

There will probably be an excess on your insurance policy. But I'd probably want to sell it in as new condition if possible.

No deductible... covered for all forms of neglect/stupidity...

 

[HoppyUK]

Replace the filter.

I'm not at all sure you can just 'remove' the AA filter anyway. Think of all the trouble Nikon went to with the AA-cancelling filter in the D800E, ditto Canon with the 5DSR.

 

[sk66]

Well, no... something has to be there. And 16MP on FF is a bit low on resolution for not having an AA filter (potentially problematic for uses other than wildlife).

 

[Kodiak Qc]

have it replaced by Nikon.

•


This would be my favourite option as it restores
the camera and the reasons you bought it.