Is the SD1m the "poor mans" Nikon D800

Started Apr 22, 2012 | Discussions
Aku Ankka
Contributing MemberPosts: 585
Like?
Re: dynamic range in field vs in lab
In reply to DMillier, Apr 28, 2012

DMillier wrote:

I think the most photographically useful variation is the one that measure the range in stops from the point where the highlights start to clip down to the lowest exposure with photographically acceptable noise in the shadows.

This is indeed a solid way of thinking it. I prefer to chop the data into more numerous metrics and prefer to think in electrons (or photons) when ever possible, and using engineering DR definition, or some agreed dB SNR point for negating human subjectivity.

The main problem with measuring this is deciding the point of photographically acceptable noise. This has to be a subjective decision. The highlight clip point is objective and easy to measure but shadow noise varies in both quantity and character.

True. Though, in the clip point there is also the difference that with CFA sensors the channels clip at different times giving more information to the raw-converter to try to recreate the image. Foveon on the other hand has strong tendency of blowing all the channels at the same time (as the photodiodes are not separate, but joined).

Some people object to noisy shadows more than others, some subjects disguise it better and some cameras produce a grain pattern that is less unpleasant than others. Software makes a big difference.

True.

What I notice with my Foveon based cameras is the the range from middle grey to highlight clipping is above average.

All the sensors have largely same range from middle grey to the clipping point - after all, the middle grey is just a something which fills the "photon bucket" to 18% of the clipping.

(The 3T structure used for example in Foveon is somewhat non-linear though, and also some manufacturers go beyond the linear range of the data to increase FWC - for example Pentax may do it with K5.)

This could indicate an unusually wide resistance to clipping or it could indicate that the ISO ratings are not right.

ISO ratings are not relevant for RAW imagery - it's a JPEG standard (and a silly one).

What happens is differences in tone curves applied either by the camera or the converter. Without access to the raw-data itself one can not say much about the non-linearity of any particular sensor , thus you can forget your clipping resistance speculation for now.

Even when there is not massive amounts of noise further up the range, you still often get those odd giant sized purple and green blotches that defeat all known noise reduction.

That is amost certainly noise-reduction applied to the raw data

It's an open question whether that it is intrinsic to the 3 layer approach or is more the result of unrefined sensors and lack of R&D.

Not really. Before Sigma bought Foveon for pennies, significant amount of millions were poured into research. Additionally other parties have studied multilayer CMOS plenty. There are four key issues:

  1. Color separation is very weak and causes noise and color inaccuracy

  2. Extra transistors and wiring lower QE and add read noise

  3. Difficulty, if not impossibility of proper correlated double sampling

  4. Crosstalk especiallly for reds hard to control

I think it is certainly true that Sony in particular has made big strides with the last couple of generations of sensors and they now have low noise and very wide dynamic range. And they still have back-illumination to bring to the party.

Canon actually has slightly better pixels than Sony at the pixel sizes we're talking about. However what Sony has is the brilliant paralllel ADC with thousands of relatively slow (thus low noise) ADCs on chip, all with correlated doublesampling.

Backside illumination is not easy and is expensive to implement for large sensors. Also the gains are quite limited when the pixels are large. Instead of BSI we'll probably be seeing light pipes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aku Ankka
Contributing MemberPosts: 585
Like?
Re: DPReview on DR, my actual field experience with DR
In reply to SandyF, Apr 28, 2012

SandyF wrote:

there is nothing particularly limited in the Foveon sensor dynamic range...

Yes there is. There are two main problems - skyhigh read noise and the weak color separation which increases noise in color photography.

not more so than other cameras vs the human eye for example.

A bad example as eye doesn't work as camera. Eye doesn't take snapshots, but a constant flow of data the brain processess.

Those of us who have shot Sigma/Foveon cameras for years especially in landscapes (outdoors, big DR situations)

Good outdoor photographs tend to be taken in light which makes for low dynamic range scenes.

You advise somewhere in these threads that you haven't used the camera (SD1).

I've never gone to the moon, yet can talk quite a bit about it too. There is enough information of the camera and the technology.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,513Gear list
Like?
Re: Or me....
In reply to Aku Ankka, Apr 28, 2012

Aku Ankka wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

Aku,

When I hear someone discuss the faults of a camera or system in the way you have done, the first thing that enters my mind is "does this person have a real clue about the subject?" In order to see where the poster is coming from, I look first at their work to see if they really understand photography and have posted some evidence to substantiate their strong opinions.

Ah, so you ignore the arguments, and concentrate on the person.

No, I concentrate on the results of their photographic portfolio or lack thereof in your case.

When I look at your gallery - I see primarily images of charts and other people's photos.

I have 18 pics in the galllery, all have something to do with the technical side in some way. No art pictures or such - I am a lousy photographer.

I see one rather small apparent "crop" of a bald eagle which has considerable noise and obvious sharpening halos.

In one thread someone asked how to get details out of a reallly uselessly blurry image of an eagle. I was among several to show something - I demonstrated what one can do with deconvolution instead of unharp mask (and other such methods) the others were using.

This indicates to me that you may spend hours reading about sensors, read noise and such, but have little or no real photographic or post processing skills.

You draw all those conclusions from a single photograph, without even bothering to check out the context for the photo. Talk about ignorance and arrogance

Besides, I'm the first the admit I'm not much of a photographer, and my post processing skills are very ordinary. There is not much an artist inside me.

This then strongly suggests to me, a situation very much like an "arm chair quarterback" on Superbowl Sunday. You talk the talk, but there is no visible evidence that you "walk the walk."

Ah, the secoond guy, or account using the quarterback phrasing.

Maybe because it fits?

Why do you thnk that the most competent photographers or post processors have the most technological knowhow or understanding? The London taxi-drivers are the best taxi-drivers in the world, yet I would not bet that they have too much knowledge on the physics of combustion engines.

Photographic competency with a particular camera is quite evidence enough that the camera as a tool is sufficient for the task at hand....

You tell people who actually "use" the Sigma cameras on a daily basis that they have poor dynamic range

Because that is a fact and I have proven it by posing a simple question which no Sigma fanboy dares to answer (or doesn't understand the relevancy): why does the Foveon image quality collapse at high ISO? The camera simply can not have a good base-ISO dynamic range if (relative to the base ISO) the higher ISO DR is also not competent.

You have "proven" nothing. A question is not a "proof" in any scientific endeavor. You claim to be a "technically competent" so you should know this.

Also, using a brand of camera does not make one somehow an expert on the hardware.

And "not" using a brand or specific camera somehow "does" make you more an expert on the hardware?? Get real....

yet even the reviewers at dPReview find that at ISO 200 the SD1 is equal to "any aps C sensor" for highlight recovery

And this shows again how bad the DPR reviews can be. They do not measure dynamic range anywhere, even though they claim to. They measure the performance with some manually set tone curves, not the actual performance of the camera.

I see - now "you" are the expert and the review site with more collective experience than you will "ever" have, knows nothing, so why don't we all just read your comments and ignore dPReview?

When you measure DR or talk about it, there is no such thing as highlight recovery . You have a range of data from the noise floor to saturation. There is mystical point from beyond you can "recover" something.

, pulling detail from shadows, etc. My own considerable experience with Sigma dSLR's tells me that the results I get with dynamic range are equal to or better than the results from my considerably large collection of other dSLR's which include some of the best from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sigma and Sony. My experience mirrors that of many other users.

You sound like someone with absolutely no qualifications who's love to a certaiin brand prevents logical reasoning.

I have Canon, Sigma, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Epson, Fuji, Samsung, Leica, Pentax, and Kodak dSLR's and digicams - choose which brand prevents logical reasoning!

Why does Sigma DR at high ISO stink? For each stop of ISO DR can also only go down a stop.

The bottom line is that all your talk and "scientific knowledge" is leading you far down the wrong path with your conclusions. There is an old saying where I come from: "The Truth's In The Pudding," This means that when "theory" and "practical experience" collide, practical experience wins out every time, without exception.

That thinking is why earth was flat for a very long time.

The SD1 produces files which make superior prints - period.

Seperior to many cameras in many ways, yes. Superior to some other caeras - no.

And you would know this because? How many SD1 prints have you actually examined and compared to which other brands. So you make your judgment and pronouncement in abstencia of photographic evidence while I make mine from experience. Hmmm...

Simply saying "superior" withohout context implies that to you the camera is a holy item.

I see. Then you have, in your infinite wisdom about a camera you have never used or probably even seen, passed judgment which we should all bow to?

Excuse me while I laugh for an extended period.

Lin

-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Dean Mercer Clark
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,170Gear list
Like?
Re: You are no expert and are just trolling for kicks in this forum.
In reply to Aku Ankka, Apr 28, 2012

Your responses are getting more ridiculous. You said that you are a lousy photographer. Enough said. If you knew anything about Lin Evans--you would know that he has been involved in beta testing for photographic products and in product development.

Your claim that Dpreview.com doesn't do proper dynamic range testing? Wow--so once again---you know more than professional photographers and some of the top photo testing experts in the industry? Your insults don't carry weight here.

I'll tell you what you are. A troll and an armchair photographer--someone who does nothing but criticize other people and isn't even competent to shoot a decent photograph. That is pathetic.

My suggestion to you...Its never to late to learn how to shoot a good image and become competent with a camera. You know nothing about photography and only parrot what you read. You have absolutely no clue about dynamic range and furthermore, you don't understand the physics behind the foveon three layer chip and why it is noisier at higher ISO.

I have a sekonic L659 digimaster light meter and dynamic range target. I will be testing the SD1M and adjusting the light meter so it works exactly like the SD1M so I can use it in the studio. I will post the results and I'm sure you'll find something to dispute or bitch about it as well as it seems that this is the only thing you know how to do. I will ignore your ignorance from now on.

Unlike you---I spent the money on an SD1M. I could have purchased a Nikon D800 or D800 E as I need to buy all new lenses for the SD1M anyway but I chose to buy the SD1M---why? Not because I'm a fanboy as you so readily label everyone. The reason is that I like the images that the camera can produce compared to what I see with traditional bayer censored cameras and I own them as well.

I'm well aware of its limitations----I've yet to be hampered by this. Ever heard of flash photography and studio lighting? Thats what I do in the studio. No limitations there.

Night photography? No problem---Ever heard of a tripod? Shooting with the SD1M is a breeze compared to shooting with film in the old days prior to digital--even though I was very competent as a film photographer.

My advice to you. Get a life. I've been ill for a very long time and one thing I've learned is life is too short for me to bother with people like you--but I draw the line when you start attacking my friends like Lin and others. Stop trolling. If you have something positive to contribute--then do so. Your claims are not warranted and unsubstantiated--as you said it very clearly in your post----You are a lousy photographer and no expert.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonny1976
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,987Gear list
Like?
Re: dynamic range in field vs in lab
In reply to Aku Ankka, Apr 28, 2012

your words are just words, unsupported by samples. post a d800 wide angle crop of corner sharpness., post a portrait with good skin tone, post an high contrast scene. post samples. photos. you are talking about nothing.

Aku Ankka wrote:

DMillier wrote:

I think the most photographically useful variation is the one that measure the range in stops from the point where the highlights start to clip down to the lowest exposure with photographically acceptable noise in the shadows.

This is indeed a solid way of thinking it. I prefer to chop the data into more numerous metrics and prefer to think in electrons (or photons) when ever possible, and using engineering DR definition, or some agreed dB SNR point for negating human subjectivity.

The main problem with measuring this is deciding the point of photographically acceptable noise. This has to be a subjective decision. The highlight clip point is objective and easy to measure but shadow noise varies in both quantity and character.

True. Though, in the clip point there is also the difference that with CFA sensors the channels clip at different times giving more information to the raw-converter to try to recreate the image. Foveon on the other hand has strong tendency of blowing all the channels at the same time (as the photodiodes are not separate, but joined).

Some people object to noisy shadows more than others, some subjects disguise it better and some cameras produce a grain pattern that is less unpleasant than others. Software makes a big difference.

True.

What I notice with my Foveon based cameras is the the range from middle grey to highlight clipping is above average.

All the sensors have largely same range from middle grey to the clipping point - after all, the middle grey is just a something which fills the "photon bucket" to 18% of the clipping.

(The 3T structure used for example in Foveon is somewhat non-linear though, and also some manufacturers go beyond the linear range of the data to increase FWC - for example Pentax may do it with K5.)

This could indicate an unusually wide resistance to clipping or it could indicate that the ISO ratings are not right.

ISO ratings are not relevant for RAW imagery - it's a JPEG standard (and a silly one).

What happens is differences in tone curves applied either by the camera or the converter. Without access to the raw-data itself one can not say much about the non-linearity of any particular sensor , thus you can forget your clipping resistance speculation for now.

Even when there is not massive amounts of noise further up the range, you still often get those odd giant sized purple and green blotches that defeat all known noise reduction.

That is amost certainly noise-reduction applied to the raw data

It's an open question whether that it is intrinsic to the 3 layer approach or is more the result of unrefined sensors and lack of R&D.

Not really. Before Sigma bought Foveon for pennies, significant amount of millions were poured into research. Additionally other parties have studied multilayer CMOS plenty. There are four key issues:

  1. Color separation is very weak and causes noise and color inaccuracy

  2. Extra transistors and wiring lower QE and add read noise

  3. Difficulty, if not impossibility of proper correlated double sampling

  4. Crosstalk especiallly for reds hard to control

I think it is certainly true that Sony in particular has made big strides with the last couple of generations of sensors and they now have low noise and very wide dynamic range. And they still have back-illumination to bring to the party.

Canon actually has slightly better pixels than Sony at the pixel sizes we're talking about. However what Sony has is the brilliant paralllel ADC with thousands of relatively slow (thus low noise) ADCs on chip, all with correlated doublesampling.

Backside illumination is not easy and is expensive to implement for large sensors. Also the gains are quite limited when the pixels are large. Instead of BSI we'll probably be seeing light pipes.

 jonny1976's gear list:jonny1976's gear list
Nikon D2X
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,329
Like?
Re: dynamic range in field vs in lab
In reply to Aku Ankka, Apr 28, 2012

Interesting explanation of why the Canon's lag in base ISO dynamic range. So the ADC is the culprit. Are Canon still doing off chip ADC? If so, is there not a better ADC they could use to compete with the EXMORs?

Regarding Foveon base ISO noise, I've been doing some testing with my SD14. It seems fine for noise if you keep the shadows clipped early and nice and black. But if you lift the shadows, the noise is absolutely awful.

Here's an example. This is a ISO 100 shot taken in full sunlight. In the first version, things are crisp and contrasty, with shadows practically clipped to near black. It looks fine, not noisy at all.

In the second version, I have done some experimental processing, done purely to illustrate what's there. In this version, I have lowered the contrast, used fill light and the exposure slider to open up the shadows.

Yuk! What's hidden best remains hidden. Not only is there a very heavy grain pattern lurking in that shadow, but all huge, giant purple blotches.

Maybe you think this is a bit severe and you would not do this in a million years but as an experiment it does show the kind of shadow noise problems the Foveon sensor has. The EXMOR sensors are streets ahead of this kind of thing, You dig around in the shadows and find low noise, smooth detail. That's why even the APS-C sensors can easily blow older full frame sensors out of the water for dynamic range.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,329
Like?
Re: dynamic range in field vs in lab
In reply to jonny1976, Apr 28, 2012

From Fred Miranda's test of the D800 vs new 5D Mark III

Crops of shadow detail brightened 2 stops in post:

5Diii

D800

Compared to what you see when you lighten my Sd14:

That's why the EXMOR chips are so amazing.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,329
Like?
Re: Or me....
In reply to Lin Evans, Apr 28, 2012

Lin

I wish you wouldn't do this. I know perfectly well that you have a sharp mind and can construct a perfectly good argument. I've seen you do it many a time. But when it comes to things Foveon you get all emotional and lose your marbles.

A conversation about the dynamic range of a camera is not rocket science or religion and it certainly does not get resolved satisfactorily by trying to discredit the person rather than address the theory and the evidence.

Dynamic range is rather a simple idea even if there are rather a lot of complicated ways of measuring it. Some people use an engineering measure (like DXO), some people prefer a measure with a subjective element (which is less reliable but perhaps more pertinent to photography).

Whatever measure you use, it still ought to be reasonably simple to measure and determine dynamic range without resorting to personal anecdotes about print quality. Even if the SD1 produces superb prints, it could still do so while suffering with a dynamic range disadvantage, don't you thinK? Afterall, the dynamic range of slide film or polaroid film is terrible in absolute terms but with the right technique you'd never know it.

Foveon definitely suffers a noise disadvantage which strongly suggests it suffers a dynamic range disadvantage. What do the measured numbers tell us? It's a pity DXO didn't deliver on their promise to publish Foveon sensor measurements.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,329
Like?
Re: You are no expert and are just trolling for kicks in this forum.
In reply to Gary Dean Mercer Clark, Apr 28, 2012

Gary

You are being unfair too. You don't need to be top photographer to understand the technicalities of how a camera works. It's probably an advantage not to be as you have no emotional bias to a brand.

And I doubt there is a review of a Foveon camera anywhere that doesn't comment on the noise problems and weakness as the ISO is turned up. Noise is simply not Foveon's strength. It isn't film's either but I see few people saying that you can't take great pictures with film. I think that high noise (and with it negative impacts on dynamic range) will be a Foveon characteristic for a while (if it can ever be solved).

That doesn't mean you can't shoot great photographs with Foveon. It just means something the photographer has to manage (careful exposure, ND grad filters, whatever).

The characteristics of a sensor are what they are, there's no point trying to silence criticism with hostility.

The photographer still has a contribution to make, whatever the technology and managing "the inescapable characterisitics of the medium" (as Adams put it) is part of the job description...

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,513Gear list
Like?
Re: Or me....
In reply to DMillier, Apr 28, 2012

DMillier wrote:

Lin

I wish you wouldn't do this. I know perfectly well that you have a sharp mind and can construct a perfectly good argument. I've seen you do it many a time. But when it comes to things Foveon you get all emotional and lose your marbles.

Huh? Lose my marbles? There is no "emotion" involved - I have no problems with the Foveon's sensor's dynamic range. The prints are what they are - and that's very good. The highlights are not clipped, I recover excellent detail from the shadows. Send me the file you used in your sample and I'll show you how to do it.

A conversation about the dynamic range of a camera is not rocket science or religion and it certainly does not get resolved satisfactorily by trying to discredit the person rather than address the theory and the evidence.

There is no "discredit" to the person - what I'm saying is quite simple. The dynamic range of the Foveon sensor including the SD1 is quite satisfactory as is the dynamic range of the new Canon Mark III. It matters not what Fred (I've known him since he was a pup just off the boat from Brazil) posted about it. There will always be differences in noise levels as long as there are different sensor technologies. The issue is simply that at some point differences are no longer important. We can pixel peep until the cows come home, but if the printer can't reproduce this extreme "dynamic range differentiation" then the point is moot. It matters not to me whether the "camera" has six stops or fourteen stops if print devices can't reproduce them. As of right now - they can't.

Dynamic range is rather a simple idea even if there are rather a lot of complicated ways of measuring it. Some people use an engineering measure (like DXO), some people prefer a measure with a subjective element (which is less reliable but perhaps more pertinent to photography).

It must not be such a simple idea if there are conflicting and complicated ways of measuring it. The "only" thing which matters to me is what is pertinent to photography. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no "ear" to hear it, was there a sound? A more intelligent question is "does it matter whether there was a sound?"

Whatever measure you use, it still ought to be reasonably simple to measure and determine dynamic range without resorting to personal anecdotes about print quality. Even if the SD1 produces superb prints, it could still do so while suffering with a dynamic range disadvantage, don't you thinK? Afterall, the dynamic range of slide film or polaroid film is terrible in absolute terms but with the right technique you'd never know it.

Duhh - my point...When someone criticizes a device with which they have zero experience because of a perceived deficiency which has no bearing on the end result, it confuses users and potential users with technobabble which has no relevance.

Foveon definitely suffers a noise disadvantage which strongly suggests it suffers a dynamic range disadvantage. What do the measured numbers tell us? It's a pity DXO didn't deliver on their promise to publish Foveon sensor measurements.

In the immortal words of Bill Murray from Meatballs - "It just doesn't matter." If you can't see it in the finished product - where is the "disadvantage"?

Here! My last statement on it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3S_k1dRbXY

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steven_k
Regular MemberPosts: 457Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the SD1m the "poor mans" Nikon D800
In reply to steven_k, Apr 28, 2012

I want to apologize to everyone for starting this thread in the first place.
Sorry to everyone.
I had no idea it would stir up such a controversy.

Now that I have the SD1M in my possession for testing I can make up my own mind on what it can and can't do....
Steven

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SandyF
Forum ProPosts: 14,869Gear list
Like?
Re: You are no expert and are just trolling for kicks in this forum.
In reply to DMillier, Apr 28, 2012

Has "Aku" posted in the Canon forums about their (per him) terrible dynamic range?
Making the cameras unusable, poor buys, blah blah?

I doubt it.

Funny thing, there are a lot of published photos with this limited dynamic range camera (5DII) Sarcasm intended.

I have no respect for someone with extreme vocal (well, written, ad nauseum with techno mumbo jumbo) opinions about a camera he hasn't owned, hasn't tried in hand, hasn't even shot. Reminds me of that famous SD9 review... where the reviewer didn't even take any photos.

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

 SandyF's gear list:SandyF's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sigma SD9 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SandyF
Forum ProPosts: 14,869Gear list
Like?
Steven: welcome to the Sigma forum!
In reply to steven_k, Apr 28, 2012

steven_k wrote:

I want to apologize to everyone for starting this thread in the first place.
Sorry to everyone.
I had no idea it would stir up such a controversy.

Now that I have the SD1M in my possession for testing I can make up my own mind on what it can and can't do....
Steven

Hey Steven, welcome to the Sigma forum, no apologies necessary. This has been going on for years .... you didn't start anything new!

There are lots of people out there with firm negative opinions re Sigma/Foveon who have never even held the cameras much less shot them.

Best regards, Sandy

Sigma DSLR camera(s) owner since SD10 2004 (I'm a relative late comer to the first 2002 SD9)
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

 SandyF's gear list:SandyF's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sigma SD9 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truman Prevatt
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,587Gear list
Like?
Re: dynamic range in field vs in lab
In reply to DMillier, Apr 28, 2012

The issue for dynamic range is compared to what. Even in the RF world there are several different measurements methods - each giving different numbers for the same device.

However, if you standardize the measurement setup and method then comparisons between components makes sense. This is what DXO has done. For whatever reason they have not measured the Foveon sensor. The Nikon D800 is rated first on dynamic range and the Pentax K5 second. The Phase One IQ 180 ranks 6 all 13.6 EV or better. The previous king, Fujifilms S5 is 7 with 13.5 EV.

I seriously doubt from what I have seen that the Foveon sensor can come with in 2 EV's of the above cameras. However, it would be nice to see DXO test one.

-- hide signature --
 Truman Prevatt's gear list:Truman Prevatt's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrdigitalart
Senior MemberPosts: 2,954
Like?
Re: You are no expert and are just trolling for kicks in this forum.
In reply to DMillier, Apr 28, 2012

DMillier wrote:

Gary

You are being unfair too. You don't need to be top photographer to understand the technicalities of how a camera works. It's probably an advantage not to be as you have no emotional bias to a brand.

David, unfairness is not Gary's trend here, but Aku's, as this whole argument is about artistic delivery in prints, not about scientific fact.

And I doubt there is a review of a Foveon camera anywhere that doesn't comment on the noise problems and weakness as the ISO is turned up. Noise is simply not Foveon's strength. It isn't film's either but I see few people saying that you can't take great pictures with film. I think that high noise (and with it negative impacts on dynamic range) will be a Foveon characteristic for a while (if it can ever be solved).

Yes, but there is no impediment caused by that Foveon noise when you view a print processed by a competent digital photographer, as you agree below.

That doesn't mean you can't shoot great photographs with Foveon. It just means something the photographer has to manage (careful exposure, ND grad filters, whatever).

The characteristics of a sensor are what they are, there's no point trying to silence criticism with hostility.

Yes, Aku's hostility. Read his warbling. Fanboys indeed. Religious fanatics indeed.

The photographer still has a contribution to make, whatever the technology and managing "the inescapable characterisitics of the medium" (as Adams put it) is part of the job description...

As I keep saying, that's where one's art comes into the picture. And some fine examples you have shown here of recent times too.
--
Sincere regards, Jim Roelofs

Cherish your privacy? Avoid (sp)iPhones.

Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/jrdigitalart/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
1chaz
Regular MemberPosts: 161
Like?
Re: a different tract
In reply to Aku Ankka, Apr 28, 2012

Aku Ankka wrote:

1chaz wrote:

Aku

As far as know, there is no program available which would allow me to get the linear sensor data of the SD1 raw files. If you know one, please let me know of it.

no help there I take pictures of things I like then enjoy the output.

Sigma owns Foveon because no-one else wanted it. Also Sigma has quite limited resources when it c.omes to sensor development - theĆ½ operate with tens of thousands of sensors a year, while the biggest players do a million or more every day. The R&D investment differense is humangous.

Here I believe you are wrong sigma could have gone Bayer just as all the other brands have at much less expense and trouble. I believe sigma saw a new sensor design that has the potential to be a radical change in photography to set it's self apart from the others. Yes with the disparity in R&D sigma will always be behind in what you like from a camera.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if we read the same forum

Criticism of Foveon is almost without exeption met quickly with ad hominem attackes, defensive argumentation etc. It's not unique though - the Olympus SLR-users in this forum also seem quite a bit like that

Yes I often wonder too. The only time I have seen anyone get grief on here is when someone comes here and bashes sigma with no real world experience on what they are bashing or are here beating the proverbial horse, trolling and just looking for arguments for the sake of arguing. there are plenty of fourm members who are very verbal about sigmas negatives.

As far as the best thing ever, I have never heard that on here maybe the best sigma thing ever.

We must be readiing different forums as in this forum not only Foveon has "special 3d" (failed in double blind tests), "best colors" (though every other thread is about the color problems), best resolution (though measurements are not allowed) and so on.

Here again you are telling someone that Their eyes are not seeing correctly whether you can see it or not, maybe what makes a good photo to them isn't the same criteria you use. Tthere are pros on here who have said that regular people normally pick the foveron pic over the Bayer pic of the same scene . Best colors ? I have seen where some will say they prefer foveron colors.

As bayer mp increase the advantage foveron had diminishes for the mirco contrast and edge detail but again if you followed this fourm you would know that is already known here.

Most people are amazed at the jump in resolution almost 3 x for the foveron sensor

Now we are into fantasy world. Even Sigmas marketing has downgraded the "advantage" to 2x. The reality however is that when it comes to detail, Bayer CFA sensors resolve upto and over 90% of Nyquist with anti-alias filter . Foveon at best can resolve to 100% of Nyquist. This is not almost 3x resolution.

You misunderstood me almost 3 x from previous foveron sensors 4.7mp to 15mp is a big jump. foveron users know it is 2x resolution equivalent to Bayer. Bayer dosn't resolve as much as interpolate/make a calculated guess unless its black and white test charts.

You have to wade through the info and find the common ground. Look for what fits your wants/needs. Your needs will not be my needs on an on etc.

Oh, I have a better camera already than I have use for (when it comes to image quality). I am a loysy photographer. I'm more interested in the technology.

Then why come here ? people here like to take pictures of things other than test charts and what may I ask is the camera that made your cut?

5. the tec. strengths and weakness have been beaten to death over and over they are well known and documented.

?

Hardly well known by most people in this forum as otherwise the myths would not persist - like youre previous statement of "almost 3x resolution".

once again your misunderstanding of what I was referring too

Spend a little more time reading and a little less time posting

Please, I beg you to take this advice yourself.

I have lurked here almost for almost 4 years just reading and listening.

just started posting recently and I do not go to any fourm just to bash or down another make or model or to tell people their product in not worth the price paid or is a one trick pony, I just listen and make my own informed decisions or ask questions.

On the fourms I am on I do own and use that camera so I can make real world contributions to the conversations.

Would you point out where I've said that "a camera is an overprices piece of crap"? Your emotions cloud your reason very badly and now you rely on false testimony on my words.

Actually you are correct you did not say that and I apologize that was someone else.

No matter the tec or camera it will not make you a better photographer.

Irrelevant for the thread.

I'm sorry I keep forgetting you are not about making pictures.

A great photographer will make incredible pictures with any camera

Why say something that bares no relevancy to the thread

None of our conversation bares any relevancy to this thread especially yours as the op is interested in taking pictures and printing large not a tec discussion. He had already done his homework on the tec. and was well aware of its limitations.

The op intent was in the photo quality at large sizes on the sd1 comparable to the d800. If you note he was asking people who owned or have used the sd1 for their input. Now he has one we shall see what he thinks .

Did you see the thread I linked to about diffraction limitation on the d800 I thought It would be right up your ally, becomes very scientific.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=41332163

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,513Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the SD1m the "poor mans" Nikon D800
In reply to steven_k, Apr 28, 2012

Hi Steven,

As Sandy correctly stated, and I would go even further... there are people who rail against Signma/Foveon whom have not even "seen" a Sigma camera.

You started absolutely nothing in the way of controversy - this has been taking place since the first Sigma SD9 was introduced. For those of us who have been here since those first days, it's sort of a circus atmosphere. We anxiously await the next troll who will advise us of our wrong choice, poor judgment and ignorance of technology. Almost invariably, these are anonymous posters with pseudonyms who have little or no photographic experience, no available email address and a penchant for teaching "science" to we poor, unfortunate and ignorant photographers, whom often make our living with these wretched tools - LOL.

Alas, we all suffer here from the same malady - we like the results we get with our inferior equipment.

Best regards,

Lin

steven_k wrote:

I want to apologize to everyone for starting this thread in the first place.
Sorry to everyone.
I had no idea it would stir up such a controversy.

Now that I have the SD1M in my possession for testing I can make up my own mind on what it can and can't do....
Steven

-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
1chaz
Regular MemberPosts: 161
Like?
Re: Is the SD1m the "poor mans" Nikon D800
In reply to steven_k, Apr 28, 2012

Steve don't feel bad the trolls will come anyway sigma users are used to it although it does get aggravating sometimes. Honestly I don't know why any of us bite the hook

Guess its been too long since Ive done any rock fishing, we troll around till we get a hookup there to.:) I'm still trying to shake this darn hook.
Good luck with your sd1 keep us informed on you progress.
There are a lot of great and helpful people on here.

steven_k wrote:

I want to apologize to everyone for starting this thread in the first place.
Sorry to everyone.
I had no idea it would stir up such a controversy.

Now that I have the SD1M in my possession for testing I can make up my own mind on what it can and can't do....
Steven

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Dean Mercer Clark
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,170Gear list
Like?
Re: You are no expert and are just trolling for kicks in this forum.
In reply to DMillier, Apr 29, 2012

DMillier wrote:

Gary

You are being unfair too. You don't need to be top photographer to understand the technicalities of how a camera works. It's probably an advantage not to be as you have no emotional bias to a brand.

NO---I own Sony, Canon, Mamiya and Sigma cameras. I don't have an emotional attachment to a brand.

And I doubt there is a review of a Foveon camera anywhere that doesn't comment on the noise problems and weakness as the ISO is turned up. Noise is simply not Foveon's strength. It isn't film's either but I see few people saying that you can't take great pictures with film. I think that high noise (and with it negative impacts on dynamic range) will be a Foveon characteristic for a while (if it can ever be solved).

I don't think the chip is designed to deal with the increased gain when you ramp up the sensititively as we are dealign with three layers here. I don't think it will ever perform well at high ISOs. However who shoots at high ISOs? I don't. I've only shot at Iso 3600 once in 7 years and that was covering an event for a museum and flash was not allowed in the main exhibition hall. Otherwise--I use flash---even with my Canon 5D MK II which shoots beautifully at high ISO. Like to see a survey done on professional photographers to find out how often they actually shoot at above ISO 800. Most use flash and supplementary lighting in some form or another.

That doesn't mean you can't shoot great photographs with Foveon. It just means something the photographer has to manage (careful exposure, ND grad filters, whatever).

Yes. But this AKU fellow says that it is a one trick pony. Visit my test gallery and see my night photography with it and others work in all sorts of situations---I don't think it is a one trick pony by any stretch of the imagination.

The characteristics of a sensor are what they are, there's no point trying to silence criticism with hostility.

I guess it is ok for AKU to call us fanboys and say that Lin Evans doesn't have any knowledge about dynamic range. He is the one being hostile. Read all of his demeaning posts in the thread.

The photographer still has a contribution to make, whatever the technology and managing "the inescapable characterisitics of the medium" (as Adams put it) is part of the job description...

I guess when I do the dynamic range test with the Sekonic--it will prove what the dynamic range of the SD1M and AKU can continue to parrot what other people say, not prove anything and continue to troll anonymously. Great.

-- hide signature --

At least you back up your arguments with examples and have a real name David. That is something that I can respect whether I agree or disagree with you about everything.
--
Gary Mercer

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,329
Like?
Re: Or me....
In reply to Lin Evans, Apr 29, 2012

Dynamic range of the capture is not related to dynamic range of the print directly. No one expects a I stop increase in dr at the sensor to result in an increase in dynamic range of the print.

Better dynamic range on the sensor simply improves the ability to record details in extreme lighting conditions that would otherwise be lost.

What you do with that detail when processing and printing is up to you. You could clip it away or you could use it ,it's entirely an artistic decision. Whatever you choose or whatever camera you use, the print will still have a 1 to 100 reflectance range, that can't change. No , the camera dr will simply help you have detailed shadows, noisy shadows or black shadows.

As for the emotions clouding judgement,it's here to see. A discussion about dynamic range capability in sensors that covers a range of cameras keeps being forced back to a defence of the sd1, followed by a claim that dr doesn't matter followed by the coup de grace, the fantastic quality of sd1 prints. Of course it's all about an emotional defence of the sd1. I'm sure the prints are marvellous but that won't change the limitations of the sensor tech, velvia images can be stunning but there is still no more than 5 stops of dr....

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads