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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,767
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

But higher color resolution equals more resolution, resolution in terms of detail.

Completely wrong.

Humans can't see colour detail anywhere near as well as they can luminance detail.

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

It's fair to say that when the average consumer hears that a camera has more resolution they are also thinking about more detail.

For luminance detail, not chroma.

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

I refer you to any textbook on human vision.

Humans can't see chroma detail as well as luma detail. This is a fact.

You can pretend that's not the case, but you would be incorrect in doing so.

As I said, you can blur the colour (and by quite a bit too) before it's even noticeable.

After all, the implication is that a higher MP sum will yield a higher resolution photo than something less.

And for most cameras of a similar type in similar conditions this is approximately but not exactly true. But if you compare a cell phone to a DSLR in dim light it will not be true.

To make it easier for you to follow and not deviate, lets at least keep the sensors similar in size.

Then why do you keep comparing a DP camera to a Nikon D800?

Where am I doing that? As far as I recall someone else brought up the D800.

Here's one of many:

Basalite wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:
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.

It's also not 'almost as good' by any rational comparison (i.e., objective measurements).

Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

I have no personal bias against you or anyone else.

I do, however, have a problem with gushing fanboism, contradicting statements and factually incorrect information.

Since it is well known, even by the detractors and haters, that Sigma cameras are ISO 100-400 cameras it makes no sense for you to be talking about high ISO.

Yes it does, because that's what people want to use. High ISO opens up so many new opportunities, and they can still use lower ISOs if they want.

No, that's not what all "people want."

Did I say all people? No, I didn't.

Nevertheless, cameras with high ISO outsell Sigma, so obviously many people do want it.

Can a mosaic camera resolve 15MP of detail with the right target and algorithm? It seems that 15MP is a max theoretical resolution not a guarantee.

I have no idea what you are talking about and how that relates to anything I have said.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Contributing MemberPosts: 876Gear list
Like?
Re: Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Greg A A, 10 months ago

Greg A A wrote:

The continued rant from Sigma fans shows their desperation to defend their choice of a mediocre camera. It has it's novel sensor that has only one use. DPreview rates the SD1 as 71%, not a respectable showing. Flaws of the DP1 are listed clearly in the DPreview of the camera. All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that Sigma hasn't yet learned how to build a camera competitive with the other manufacturers.

Someday Sigma may build a decent camera, but today it's not a good choice for many photographers.

I don't really want one of these Sigma cameras either, but I still am able to see it as a really specialty niche camera and as such it isn't really going to garner great ratings with criteria that's design to evaluate a more "all around camera." Is it that difficult to understand that there's a market for specialty type cameras? I see that as being a good thing... that the market is large enough so that all kinds of different photographers can get the exact sort of tool that makes the most sense for how they like to take pictures. if you bought one of these things and found it to be lacking for the kind of thing that you do, then I might be able to understand the hate, otherwise you're just hammering on and on with a sort of apples and oranges comparison between unalike cameras...

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,690
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to Aaron801, 10 months ago

Aaron801 wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Photoredi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

I'm just curious about your choice of gear/emthodology. While it's true that there are certain advantages to going this multiple camera w/ fixed lens route, you have to admit that it's kind of an unusual choice

No more "unusual" than someone carry a DSLR, with a few prime lenses. It is even better since it is a smaller package.

and I'm wondering why (besides protecting the sensors from dust) you arrived at this unusual solution. I wonder what kind of photographs you take and why you feel that these sort of cameras offer an advantage for doing that sort of thing....?

Simple, I value the best image quality.

But that comes with a price.

I know now exactly what comes with using any particular camera and lens; I've been doing photography since the 70s.

Welcome to photography, newbie.

If by that you mean you have been doing photography longer, then your post makes even less sense.

Well yes, I've been "doing photography" much longer, but if my post therefore makes even less sense to you, then that's your problem, not mine.

.

.

I've known some advanced amateurs and pros that use longer lenses for their landscape photography, 200mm and even longer.

Good for them.

Long lenses are also much more useful for sports, and musical events where you can't get close to the athletes and performers.

Neither of which I do.

Good for you. I assume that other Sigma owners also own other cameras because they have wider photographic interests.

Why do you "assume" that? That's photographic snobbery.

Because it would be ridiculous if not stupid to think that all Sigma owners share your preferences and all of them only own and use Sigma cameras.

.

Photographers were shooting with prime lenses and low ISO film long before digital photography came along, and for far longer. I think they did just fine.

Yes, but then they couldn't use what wasn't available. When I was shooting with my first high quality camera (a Nikon F), ASA 16 Kodachrome was still being sold, but at that time I mostly shot B&W and did my own developing and printing. Before that, photographers could buy and use ASA 8 and ASA 10 Kodachrome. Some of them still managed to do pretty well with those slow films, but they could have done much better with more modern camera gear.

Ansel Adams also used Polaroid cameras so we know that he embraced new technology. He may not have used digital cameras, but had he lived far longer he almost certainly would have switched to MF digital or FF DSLRs from either Canon or Nikon, since they also make tilt/shift lenses that are extremely useful for landscape photography. No swings, but that could be done with a bellows. It's a shame that there's nothing like that available for your Sigma cameras, don't you think?

.

If Sigma didn't make cameras it's possible that you would have sought some other manufacturer's small, high quality, fixed focal length cameras, but from what I saw you post in the now filled thread, it's also possible that you're just a garden variety Sigma fanboy.

The only logical conclusion based on my posts in the other thread is that I value the image quality that such cameras and sensor provide. It wouldn't matter who makes the camera.

If you suggest that I'm a "fanboy" once again, you will not get a further reply. I'm not going to engage in a childish and insulting discussion.

I didn't say that you are one, just that it's possible, given the way you've replied in the other thread. Anyone is free to read it to see what I mean. Would you like some quotes?

.

.

You may say that you have no interest in that type of photography, but part of that may be due to knowing in advance that a DP# stands no chance and could only duplicate the perspective and composition of the images by cropping, and then the image quality would be far lower than what you'd get from a much less expensive P&S camera that could zoom 300mm, 500mm, even 1,000mm while producing pretty decent image quality. No, it wouldn't be "pro" quality, but the value of many photos doesn't depend on resolution alone.

If I were interested in doing other types of photography then I would buy the type of camera and lens that would allow me to do it. This is not rocket science. I am not a child that doesn't know what he wants.

We can certainly agree on one thing. You know what you want.

You couldn't see that before?

Oh yes, indeed I did. But there's something that you didn't see as it flew over your head. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain it to you, or would you prefer that I spell it out?

I will acknowledge though that in the other thread, there was one fanboy supreme, and it wasn't you.

Hmmm... you seem really intent on showing how silly Basalite is for using the gear that he chooses to use. I asked my initial question not to try to get the man to admit that he's an idiot for going the way that he has with his gear, but because I was genuinely curious about his unconventional choices.

No, Basalite already showed how silly he can be but I wasn't in any way trying to show that his choice of cameras was silly. If you look back in what you quoted, you'll see that Basalit wrote

>> Simple, I value the best image quality.

and I replied with

> But that comes with a price.

That doesn't make anyone look silly and it's a perfectly reasonable reply. There are many prices to be paid for Sigma's image quality, and some of them (such as higher ISO performance) result in greatly reduced image quality.

.

Obviously they are pretty limiting and surely not the kind of setup that I'd every see myself going with

So here you're agreeing with my point. Thank you.

.

, but I can understand that for a certain kind of photography, these instruments work very well.

Yes they do, and I didn't say that they don't, but I also added that for some of the same types of photography (landscape photography, not fixed lens photography), some landscape photographers can only get some particular shots if they use a long focal length lens because to get the same perspective with a Sigma, the image would have to be cropped well beyond the point of poor image quality. That's not saying that a Sigma camera can't take great landscape photos, just that it reduces the number of great landscape photos that can be taken because of the camera's design.

.

Limitations aren't really an issue if you can work within them and if you can, in the case of these Sigma cameras, it seems that you can get some great really IQ.

Of course, but I haven't disputed that, have I?

.

There's no reason to get into some kind of battle about who's been doing photography longer than the other. Suffice to say that both of you have been doing it for long enough to know what you like and that should really be the end of the story.

You're right again, but you're leaving out an important point. Who introduced the seeming importance of photographic experience? That's easy. It was the guy that wrote

> I know now exactly what comes with using any particular camera and lens; I've been doing photography since the 70s.

Was it unreasonable to reply "Welcome to photography, newbie." ? I could have said that I was using my Nikon F back in 1962 and that I had shot with lesser cameras for several years before 1962 (my old Kodak Hawkeye and my father's Argus) and developed and printed my Nikon F photos. But I chose to take a more lighthearted approach than to engage in a "camera experience" pi$$ing match so I didn't get into details of my experience.

.

Getting the lowdown about a person's choice of gear and working method is interesting and perhaps even educational, witnessing an argument about who might be more knowledgeable about what really isn't...

Then why did you address your reply to me and not to Basalite? The way he then continued his personal vendetta against others from the previous thread said much about his agenda too, don't you think?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,690
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

...

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Nikon's Coolpix A. Oops, sorry. Its 16mp Bayer sensor with no optical low pass filter surely gives it an unfair advantage. Better than a D7000, not quite as good as a D7100, and like the Sigmas, it's a small, fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR is another.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to gaussian blur, 10 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:

But higher color resolution equals more resolution, resolution in terms of detail.

Completely wrong.

Humans can't see colour detail anywhere near as well as they can luminance detail.

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

It's fair to say that when the average consumer hears that a camera has more resolution they are also thinking about more detail.

For luminance detail, not chroma.

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

I refer you to any textbook on human vision.

Humans can't see chroma detail as well as luma detail. This is a fact.

You can pretend that's not the case, but you would be incorrect in doing so.

As I said, you can blur the colour (and by quite a bit too) before it's even noticeable.

For like the third time now, find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

After all, the implication is that a higher MP sum will yield a higher resolution photo than something less.

And for most cameras of a similar type in similar conditions this is approximately but not exactly true. But if you compare a cell phone to a DSLR in dim light it will not be true.

To make it easier for you to follow and not deviate, lets at least keep the sensors similar in size.

Then why do you keep comparing a DP camera to a Nikon D800?

Where am I doing that? As far as I recall someone else brought up the D800.

Here's one of many:

Basalite wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:
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.

He brought up the D800. Can't you read what you are quoting?

It's also not 'almost as good' by any rational comparison (i.e., objective measurements).

People that are knowledgeable, and more importantly, objective, know better.

Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

I have no personal bias against you or anyone else.

Please. I can quote you many times showing otherwise.

I do, however, have a problem with gushing fanboism, contradicting statements and factually incorrect information.

And yet every review I have read on the Sigmas contradicts you and every other anti-Sigma person in this, and the previous thread. Why is that? Are they seeing false detail too?

Since it is well known, even by the detractors and haters, that Sigma cameras are ISO 100-400 cameras it makes no sense for you to be talking about high ISO.

Yes it does, because that's what people want to use. High ISO opens up so many new opportunities, and they can still use lower ISOs if they want.

No, that's not what all "people want."

Did I say all people? No, I didn't.

You said "yes it does, because that's what people want to use." You didn't say some, or even most.

Nevertheless, cameras with high ISO outsell Sigma, so obviously many people do want it.

What does that have to do with many other people being happy with their Sigmas?

Can a mosaic camera resolve 15MP of detail with the right target and algorithm? It seems that 15MP is a max theoretical resolution not a guarantee.

I have no idea what you are talking about and how that relates to anything I have said.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is.

What was wrong with using you are instead of you're if they are the same thing? What does that have to do with the topic? What is wrong with you?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pew pew
Contributing MemberPosts: 647Gear list
Like?
Re: "But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

I see a lot of haters in this post, what a surprise.

I give props to sigma for coming with something out of the box,  the photos I have seen look pretty good.  gj

 pew pew's gear list:pew pew's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-3N Canon EOS 100D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Reilly Compares JPG to Jpg and the outcome is exactly the same.
In reply to gaussian blur, 10 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Raw versus jpeg won't make much of a difference. What he showed is that the Sigma image is full of aliasing artifacts (aka false detail). It's not resolving better than the Nikon (nor can it) and that isn't going to change if it was raw.

True. I redid the comparo with the jpg. No matter what I did there, there was no way some fool wasn't going to try to shoot holes in the result with some lame objection. The result converted to jpg was indeed the same (yet another advantage inherent in high MP count) and was posted. Unmangled by DPR compression, the outcome is clearer yet on the home screen.

Spiky foveon artifacts, misplaced pixels and overboosted contrast do not more detail make, any more than you can blow helium into a 4700X3136 jpg and make it 6000X4000.

To compare the maximum resolution of cameras you compare RAWs, not jpgs.

That won't change much of anything. It's not going to magically make the aliasing go away. The aliasing already happened before there even was a raw image and can't be removed without also removing real details. The damage is done.

You might like the look of aliasing (and apparently, you do) but don't confuse that with accurately resolving detail. Alias artifacts are false details that weren't in the original subject.

Yet, every professional review sees significantly more detail in a Sigma image than an equivalent, and even greater, MP Bayer sensor camera. I guess you know better than them, huh?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to photoreddi, 10 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

...

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Nikon's Coolpix A. Oops, sorry. Its 16mp Bayer sensor with no optical low pass filter surely gives it an unfair advantage. Better than a D7000, not quite as good as a D7100, and like the Sigmas, it's a small, fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR is another.

Feel free to post a sample of any of those that have as much detail as the sample below. Good luck.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,153
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

and what other $100 ancient used digital camera will give you a BW image like this one of mine ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlos roncatti
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662Gear list
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to TRIODEROB, 10 months ago

TRIODEROB wrote:

and what other $100 ancient used digital camera will give you a BW image like this one of mine ?

lots of dust spots there..is it from a DP series?

-- hide signature --

To understand photography, you must understand that the experience must be much more important than the result ....
Carlos Roncatti Bomfim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeCYthMbd0
http://www.weweh.com/carlos

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Aaron801, 10 months ago

Aaron801 wrote:

Greg A A wrote:

The continued rant from Sigma fans shows their desperation to defend their choice of a mediocre camera. It has it's novel sensor that has only one use. DPreview rates the SD1 as 71%, not a respectable showing. Flaws of the DP1 are listed clearly in the DPreview of the camera. All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that Sigma hasn't yet learned how to build a camera competitive with the other manufacturers.

Someday Sigma may build a decent camera, but today it's not a good choice for many photographers.

I don't really want one of these Sigma cameras either, but I still am able to see it as a really specialty niche camera and as such it isn't really going to garner great ratings with criteria that's design to evaluate a more "all around camera." Is it that difficult to understand that there's a market for specialty type cameras? I see that as being a good thing... that the market is large enough so that all kinds of different photographers can get the exact sort of tool that makes the most sense for how they like to take pictures. if you bought one of these things and found it to be lacking for the kind of thing that you do, then I might be able to understand the hate, otherwise you're just hammering on and on with a sort of apples and oranges comparison between unalike cameras...

The subject line garnered some attention as intended. The message simply pointed out the desperate attempt to defend the indefensible, not hateful. A personal attack shown below is what I would call hateful. Here is the quote from one of the Sigma fans: (not directed at me, but offensive never the less):

"you have got to t be kidding me talking this way.

I looked at your galley and one image after another shows poor photographic judgement.

you do have few good images but most are way off. bad composition, bad color harmony, distracting backgrounds, basic cinematography rules, poor cropping, leaving out foregrounds.

lots of novice mistakes

get off the high horse - you are not that good."

That response is an example of hateful. It's a desperate approach to prove a point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EthanP99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,234Gear list
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

...

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Nikon's Coolpix A. Oops, sorry. Its 16mp Bayer sensor with no optical low pass filter surely gives it an unfair advantage. Better than a D7000, not quite as good as a D7100, and like the Sigmas, it's a small, fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR is another.

Feel free to post a sample of any of those that have as much detail as the sample below. Good luck.

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony SLT-A99 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,153
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to carlos roncatti, 10 months ago

carlos roncatti wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

and what other $100 ancient used digital camera will give you a BW image like this one of mine ?

lots of dust spots there..is it from a DP series?

-- hide signature --

To understand photography, you must understand that the experience must be much more important than the result ....
Carlos Roncatti Bomfim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeCYthMbd0
http://www.weweh.com/carlos

no - dp would be clean - fixed lens

this an image from when i first got camera off ebay for $90 - sensor cleaning is tricky on this model. waited a few weeks before cleaning.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 10 months ago

TRIODEROB wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

In general, I would say foveon colors are correct and everyone else is wrong or vice versa :^)

Now, if person prefers incorrect colors, that is certainly allowed.

At ISO 400 and up, things completely fall apart for the foveon, and who in the world would want such a camera?

I already corrected your statement that Bayer can't do purple by showing you an actual side by side comparo with the identical scene which showed better, more intense purple and every other color by far with the A7r. The rest of the late model Sony sensors perform similarly. It won't take but a few minutes of your time to examine the Imaging Resource raws yourself, rather than letting me do all the work.

Once again, guys, we don't really want to see any of your snapshots. If they please you, fine, but don't ever mistake them for evidence of anything other than your position on the photographic learning curve,

you have got to t be kidding me talking this way.

I looked at your galley and one image after another shows poor photographic judgement.

you do have few good images but most are way off. bad composition, bad color harmony, distracting backgrounds, basic cinematography rules, poor cropping, leaving out foregrounds.

lots of novice mistakes

get off the high horse - you are not that good.

TRIODEROB he admitted to trolling earlier. His own words: "I'll cop to having fun spooling you up"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fishywisht
Senior MemberPosts: 1,319
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 10 months ago

I have to ask a question of anyone who knows...

if the Bayer filter is supposed to be a hack of emulating the eye's colour response and uses 2x green to 1x red and 1x blue, why does the Sigma all of a sudden use 4x blue to 1x green and 1x red? Have I misunderstood, or is this a zany fudge to make the sensor offer something "different". Thanks to anyone who can help

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to fishywisht, 10 months ago

fishywisht wrote:

I have to ask a question of anyone who knows...

if the Bayer filter is supposed to be a hack of emulating the eye's colour response and uses 2x green to 1x red and 1x blue, why does the Sigma all of a sudden use 4x blue to 1x green and 1x red? Have I misunderstood, or is this a zany fudge to make the sensor offer something "different". Thanks to anyone who can help

A valid, and correct, question. This new sensor is going against everything the previous sensors were designed to do, and that's to capture all three colors at each pixel. My comments have to do with the current Foveon sensor, that does just that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to EthanP99, 10 months ago

EthanP99 wrote:

Basalite wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

...

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Nikon's Coolpix A. Oops, sorry. Its 16mp Bayer sensor with no optical low pass filter surely gives it an unfair advantage. Better than a D7000, not quite as good as a D7100, and like the Sigmas, it's a small, fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR is another.

Feel free to post a sample of any of those that have as much detail as the sample below. Good luck.

If you think they have the same detail then I suggest you check your vision and/or get a decent monitor.

At 100% each side by side. Click original size.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 10 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Nonsense. Any subject with any detail is affected.

Not B&W resolution charts.

Odd, but my B/W versions of my Sigma photos have the same detail as the color ones. How do you explain that?

LOL. What the heck do you think people are planning to do with their cameras?

Use them indoors and out, mostly for casual and candid photos of family and friends.

Well, there you go. Can you reconcile that with what you previous said, which for some reason you chose to edit out of the conversation?

I never said it did. On the contrary.

Then we don't need to keep it simple - there is no single number that will rank image quality. For similar systems, MP has a decent correlation with detail but that's it.

MP has no "decent correlation with detail." A 15MP Foveon image has far more detail than a 15MP Bayer image.

Sigh. Do you even know anything about the cameras being discussed?

Where I joined the discussion was the statement "Is it fair to call a 15MP Bayer sensor camera 15MP when much of the color is interpolated?" Can I help it that you forgot what your were saying?

Sigh. The camera being discussed is only effective at ISO 100-400. Those ISOs are logically the only ones that can be compared.

I never said "MP is a measure of resolution." Read more carefully what I write.

It's quoted above - tell me what else that question means.

Above where? You are editing up the conversation so your previous comments can't be viewed. I'm not going to play games with you. If you keep chopping up the conversation like that I will not respond any further.

Once again, I never said "MP is a measure of resolution." Read more carefully what I write.

And for those that care more about the best image quality at low ISO then the Sigma cameras are for them. See how easy that is?

Yes, it so easy to change the subject

I know the subject since I'm the one that created this thread from the previous. You are the one that is lost.

even though you are the one that brought up what the "average consumer" might think. "Those who care more" will arrange to shoot with the various cameras and make up their own minds and not depend on marketing claims from either side.

Now it's clear why you are editing out the previous conversation, so you can dishonestly misrepresent what I have said.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,767
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

I refer you to any textbook on human vision.

Humans can't see chroma detail as well as luma detail. This is a fact.

You can pretend that's not the case, but you would be incorrect in doing so.

As I said, you can blur the colour (and by quite a bit too) before it's even noticeable.

For like the third time now, find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Aside from being pure rubbish, let's assume for the moment it's true.

You're claiming (or "you are" for those who failed English) that a new camera can outperform one that's several years old. Aside from being an invalid comparison, it's not a particularly impressive feat.

Entry level SLRs are now 24MP and for less money than Sigma's offerings.

But the bigger problem is you are moving the goalposts, as usual. The issue is not whether another camera can match the Sigma, but whether humans can see chroma detail as well as luma. They cannot.

It's also not 'almost as good' by any rational comparison (i.e., objective measurements).

People that are knowledgeable, and more importantly, objective, know better.

People who are knowledgeable and objective and especially those who have even just a basic understanding of signal theory know when something is not physically possible and can't help but laugh at those who insist it's true. They also know that the results are largely aliasing and sharpening.

Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

I have no personal bias against you or anyone else.

Please. I can quote you many times showing otherwise.

Then you have delusions.

I do, however, have a problem with gushing fanboism, contradicting statements and factually incorrect information.

And yet every review I have read on the Sigmas contradicts you and every other anti-Sigma person in this, and the previous thread. Why is that? Are they seeing false detail too?

Aliasing is a given with an input signal at or near Nyquist and certainly above Nyquist, particularly when there's no anti-alias filter to band-limit it. It's unavoidable.

That means what they're seeing is false detail that wasn't in the original scene. They might like that effect (some do) and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but the camera is not accurately resolving real detail.

Adding to that, Sigma's software sharpens by quite a bit, even when set to 0. That means that the comparisons are invariably between images with different amounts of sharpening. Guess what happens when you compare an image with a lot of sharpening with one that has little to no sharpening.

Nevertheless, cameras with high ISO outsell Sigma, so obviously many people do want it.

What does that have to do with many other people being happy with their Sigmas?

This isn't about whether someone is happy with their Sigmas. If someone is happy, that's great.

It's when people claim the impossible that's a problem.

And the fact that Sigma has under 1% market share is evidence that a lot more people are happier with something other than Sigma.

Can a mosaic camera resolve 15MP of detail with the right target and algorithm? It seems that 15MP is a max theoretical resolution not a guarantee.

I have no idea what you are talking about and how that relates to anything I have said.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is.

What was wrong with using you are instead of you're if they are the same thing? What does that have to do with the topic? What is wrong with you?

If they're (they are) the same thing, then it doesn't (does not) matter which one I use.

But what's (what is) really bizarre is that you're (you are) actually complaining that I wrote you're instead of you are.

If using a contraction has confused you, then how in the world can you understand technical topics such as Bayer or Foveon?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to gaussian blur, 10 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

I refer you to any textbook on human vision.

Humans can't see chroma detail as well as luma detail. This is a fact.

You can pretend that's not the case, but you would be incorrect in doing so.

As I said, you can blur the colour (and by quite a bit too) before it's even noticeable.

For like the third time now, find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Aside from being pure rubbish, let's assume for the moment it's true.

And yet *every* review will tell you otherwise.

You're claiming (or "you are" for those who failed English)

Nothing wrong with you are in place of you're since they mean the same thing. That's the second time now. People that resort to grammar and spelling corrections are showing themselves to be on shaky ground.

that a new camera can outperform one that's several years old. Aside from being an invalid comparison, it's not a particularly impressive feat.

What camera did I compare the Sigmas to that is "several years old?" Choose any current Bayer 15MP, or so, camera.

Entry level SLRs are now 24MP and for less money than Sigma's offerings.

That don't come with an exceptional prime lens or an exceptional sensor that out-resolves any 24MP camera. The reviews say the same thing.

But the bigger problem is you are moving the goalposts, as usual.

"As usual?" Grammar corrections and now characterizations.

What "goalposts" have I moved?"

The issue is not whether another camera can match the Sigma, but whether humans can see chroma detail as well as luma. They cannot.

So what is every reviewer seeing when they describe Sigma's exceptional detail? Are they imagining it? Is it a conspiracy?

It's also not 'almost as good' by any rational comparison (i.e., objective measurements).

People that are knowledgeable, and more importantly, objective, know better.

People who are knowledgeable and objective and especially those who have even just a basic understanding of signal theory know when something is not physically possible and can't help but laugh at those who insist it's true. They also know that the results are largely aliasing and sharpening.

So you know better than all those professional reviewers out there?

Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

I have no personal bias against you or anyone else.

Please. I can quote you many times showing otherwise.

Then you have delusions.

You mean like the same "delusions" all those reviewers have when they see something that you supposedly can't?

I do, however, have a problem with gushing fanboism, contradicting statements and factually incorrect information.

And yet every review I have read on the Sigmas contradicts you and every other anti-Sigma person in this, and the previous thread. Why is that? Are they seeing false detail too?

Aliasing is a given with an input signal at or near Nyquist and certainly above Nyquist, particularly when there's no anti-alias filter to band-limit it. It's unavoidable.

That means what they're seeing is false detail that wasn't in the original scene. They might like that effect (some do) and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but the camera is not accurately resolving real detail.

Adding to that, Sigma's software sharpens by quite a bit, even when set to 0. That means that the comparisons are invariably between images with different amounts of sharpening. Guess what happens when you compare an image with a lot of sharpening with one that has little to no sharpening.

So you are in effect saying you know better than all those professional reviewers out there that say the Sigmas are resolving much better than Bayer sensor detail. That's quite a claim. And you say I have "delusions?"

Nevertheless, cameras with high ISO outsell Sigma, so obviously many people do want it.

What does that have to do with many other people being happy with their Sigmas?

This isn't about whether someone is happy with their Sigmas. If someone is happy, that's great.

No, for many of the detractors and haters it is about that, or haven't you been reading the thread?

It's when people claim the impossible that's a problem.

Yes, you've made it clear that you know better than all the reviewers out there.

And the fact that Sigma has under 1% market share is evidence that a lot more people are happier with something other than Sigma.

It would also be fair to say that most people have no idea what the Sigmas can do. You've certainly proved that.

Can a mosaic camera resolve 15MP of detail with the right target and algorithm? It seems that 15MP is a max theoretical resolution not a guarantee.

I have no idea what you are talking about and how that relates to anything I have said.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is.

What was wrong with using you are instead of you're if they are the same thing? What does that have to do with the topic? What is wrong with you?

If they're (they are) the same thing, then it doesn't (does not) matter which one I use.

But what's (what is) really bizarre is that you're (you are) actually complaining that I wrote you're instead of you are.

You are on shaky ground. Try sticking to the topic.

If using a contraction has confused you, then how in the world can you understand technical topics such as Bayer or Foveon?

What kind of logic did you use to arrive at that bizarre conclusion?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads