"But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: "But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

6000X4000? You'll need a 36MP or higher camera.

There are two forms of "resolution" used in digital photography.

No, actually Basalite, there are not, any more than there are two or three forms of specified resolution for your 720p vs 1080p vs 4K computer monitor or TV or Bluray vs DVD. Pixels is pixels, period. If you had Photoshop, you could zoom to the pixel grid and view each individual pixel and count all the way from one side of the picture to the other. The finer you chop up the analogue input, the better. More pixels equals higher resolution, period. Everyone except you seems to know that. If you're trying to tell us that 4000 pixels can ever somehow magically formulate a more detailed picture than 6000, you have drunk deep of the wrong KoolAid.

First off, you are just you, not "us." Others in this discussion can think and speak for themselves.

Oxford definition of resolution: "the degree of detail *visible* in a photographic or television image."

In the past, you even claimed the Sigma could outresolve the D800, but I see you have backpedalled on that. Baby steps.

You are lying. I said the finest detail, *for the level of resolution recorded,* will be finer since the Foveon does not interpolate image data. Feel free to quote me.

The first one simply defines the size of the image (pixel dimensions) recorded by a particular sensor, which is inexplicably the only one you mentioned.

The most important "resolution" is how much *actual detail* a sensor can discern and record within those pixel dimensions. Since current Foveon sensors record all three colors at each pixel, at least at low ISOs, and since they do not use a blur filter, they record far more detail than an equivalent, and beyond, *megapixel* sensor.

If that were even slightly true,

Oxford definition of resolution: "the degree of detail *visible* in a photographic or television image."

as per every professional review rating the Sigma at about 16-18MP as opposed to rabid Sigma fanboy internet floop,

LOL, what review has rated the Sigmas at "about 16-18P?" I thought you also said that resolution boils down to "pixels is pixels, period?"

the end result would be a jpg you could actually post which had higher resolution and better detail than the newer high res cameras.

I never claimed the Sigmas have "higher resolution" than say the D800s or the new Sony equivalent. I did say *for the amount of resolution the Sigma is capable of* *the finest detail* will be superior since the Foveon doesn't interpolate image data, something a Bayer sensor does.

That said, it is clear that the Sigmas deliver higher resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, and in this case not just at the finest detail for their given resolution (megapixels), than any 24MP camera on the market, APS or 35mm sized sensor, further supporting the widely accepted claim that the current Foveon sensor is delivering resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, at around the same resolution a 30MP Bayer sensor would, if one existed.

But you can produce no such picture, because it can't physically exist.

LOL. There are plenty of Foveon sensors online for you to sample. I have posted a couple.

I would work on understanding what the meaning of resolution is, first.

The consensus by those who know such things is that it takes a doubling, or so, of Bayer pixel dimensions to match an equivalent level of Foveon pixel dimensions. In other words a 30MP, or so, Bayer sensor of high quality that does not use a blur filter. This shouldn't be surprising since much of the image data with a Bayer sensor is simply interpolated. Most of those sensors also use a blur filter, something the Foveon does not need or use.

You're out of date. Not any more.

Negative. The vast majority of Bayer sensor cameras still use a blur filter.

So, no, there is no 24MP camera, APS or 35mm sized sensor, than can record as much detail as the Foveon sensor at around 15MP. It's very easy to test and see. I suggest you look into that.

There is as well a lot of grainy noise, some of which has to be down to oversharpening.

You must be used to the typically soft, low resolution images you see with Bayer sensors that have their resolution ruined by excessive noise reduction and a blur filter. Perhaps you are even a jpg shooter.

Your bridge picture is noisy, period. The overetched outlines around the bridge and buildings are nothing to write home about either, also the result of overzealous processing. The noise is a very significant detriment for your pic or any other landscape photo. You tried to crank up the sharpness to impress us and to make the Sigma appear sharper than what it actually can produce given the number of pixels available and paid the price in crud.

  • It's not my picture.
  • There will be a bit more noise noticeable in such night shots.
  • No reasonable person and no knowledgeable photographer would consider that "significant" noise.
  • Number of pixels is just one measure of resolution. See the Oxford definition I provided, again.
  • Someone who prefers lower resolution, as per the Oxford definition, would likely see better detail as "crud."

As to blur filter, once again, you need to catch up.

No, as I said, the vast majority of Bayer sensor cameras still have blur filters.

You'll be looking at the individual, unblurred pixels with the new stuff.

I thought you said "pixels is pixels, period?"

It looks more like ISO 1600 on an APSC camera. In any event, it is not what I would call a relaxed presentation of fine detail.

Good luck getting such detail with a Bayer sensor camera that is not the D800e or medium format.

It's as easy as pie with a D5300 at a very reasonable price with far better results in every department.

No, because you simply couldn't. I proved that to you and everyone else in a previous thread. You were in denial then and you still are.

Anyone who would choose this cheap piece of junk Sigma camera over say, the Sony a6000 would have to have rocks in their head.

Hyperbole, that you actually believe in, is a good indication of less than objective thinking.

There are maybe 18 or 20 "perceptual" MP worth of apparent "sharpness" owing to the high degree of microcontrast, which is standing in for actual resolution.

That's ridiculous. I suggest you go learn how the Foveon sensor works.

I don't need the technical hooha, thanks anyway.

Sure, that makes sense. Why bother learning how something works before dismissing it? 

I can certainly understand the appeal of a fairly high res camera in such a compact package, but how limited do we really want to be for ISO, lens selection and overall camera performance?

Maybe you are young and inexperienced if you can't appreciate the fact that most film photography was done at the low ISOs the Sigmas excel at.

Once again, you're as wrong as wrong gets. Don't you ever tire of that, perchance? Well over fifty years shooting everything from a Brownie to 4X5 and all film sizes in between.

And yet you, for some bizarre reason, have no grasp on the definition of resolution.

And yes, I now own a D800e and some nice lenses, because I'm dedicated enough to true high res photography

Bayer sensors interpolate most of their image data. How is that in accordance with "true high res photography?"

and don't mind carrying the weight or paying the money. It's a lot lighter and cheaper (and better) than 4X5, that's for sure.

A Sigma DP series camera costs a fraction of the price of a D800e and delivers resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, that is almost as good. That's what really bothers you, doesn't it? You showed that in the previous Sigma thread.

Lens selections? One could buy all three cameras and have world class leading primes in three small bodies. You never heard of photographers using prime lenses? They are the kind of people that actually understand what resolution means.

Great. Three cameras where one with say a SIGMA zoom would do better.

LOL. Find me an interchangeable lens camera with the same sensor *and a zoom lens that is as good as the lenses on each Sigma DP series camera at each of their focal lengths* and I'll buy them. You couldn't achieve that even with Sigmas own DSLR, the SD1. Why? Because no such lens exists.

Enjoy your Sigma, there are one or two worse cameras, but stop with the B.S. claims already, you're making a spectacle of yourself.

"BS claims?" That coming from some that says "I don't need the technical hooha, thanks anyway."

You're in deep denial and you have a bizarre obsession over trashing Sigma's cameras in other threads. You don't even have a basic grasp of what resolution is. I've concluded that your anti-Sigma/Foveon behavior has to do with simple photographic snobbery. It bothers you greatly that such a tiny camera at such a cheap price can come so close to the image quality of your D800e. You showed that in another thread.

One last thing before my final post to you. You know your D800e still works as I use my Sigmas, right?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow