Maybe I'm Blind

[tony gilmour]

i have read Dave Etchells review of the sd9 and
along with all his apologizies for not doing this and not doing that.
But the two things that stand out in my mind is this.

1. This camera needs some attention to detail , such as faster shot to shot times and needs a bigger buffer to handle the size of the pics in burst mode.

2. Besides daves review I have seen shots taken by this camera on other sites and I must admit , I must be totally stupid, because all I have seen are shots which make other cameras such as the Fuji, Canon, and Nikon look no better than my humble Sony 707.
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.

don't loose your head,or your sense of humour, and never take anybody too seriously, especially yourself and those that try to walk over you.

 

[Kok Chen]

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[DavidMillier]

Well I'm one of the people who is reasonably impressed by the foveon sensor but who can't see anything obviously different in the images. Maybe it's viewing on screen that makes the difference? SD9 pictures do look very sharp on screen. It's when you print them out that they just look the same as any other DSLR picture (to me anyway)...

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[Peter G]

Its very easy explain. The good Sigma images have more detail per pixel and it was obvious this occur the moment the technology was announced, and it was obvious this would look sharper.

The people who say there is no advantage resize the images to compare them on equal terms

The only time the Sigma images look special is at original 100% viewing on screen. This is no surprise and expected.

But full size images are never used for anything at 100% size. They are sized up for printing or down for screen or web view. Resize D60 images and Sd9 images to the same size and the magic dissapears.

Saying the Sigma images are superior, is like setting a D60 on 3MP setting and claiming it is superior and has special qualities. (it will look better at 100% too).

Peter

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[Geir Ove]

Hello,

All of us that has stayed here for a while, have had plenty of opportunity to read your statement: The same every time.

However, I have also upsized Both D60 and SD9 images to the same size

(e.g. 4000 * 2667) pixels. (Bicubic sampling)

I think many of the SD9 picture then look much better than the D60, and so do quite a few other people here. The Bayerising effect blurs the pictures in a way the Foveon does no. The Foveon has other disadvantages, but that occasionally show up.

Why can't you respect this? You think differently, ok, but let grown up people here judge by themselves, instead of telling them what to think over and over again.

Geir Ove

The people who say there is no advantage resize the images to
compare them on equal terms

The only time the Sigma images look special is at original 100%
viewing on screen. This is no surprise and expected.

But full size images are never used for anything at 100% size. They
are sized up for printing or down for screen or web view. Resize
D60 images and Sd9 images to the same size and the magic dissapears.

Saying the Sigma images are superior, is like setting a D60 on 3MP
setting and claiming it is superior and has special qualities. (it
will look better at 100% too).

Peter

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[Peter G]

The one sample I saw you post was of a bridge from two different points of view on two different days, with different weather and sun angle, the D60 with a ultra wide lens the SD9 with a prime. Somehow I failed to see how that was a comparison.

IR has just posted a shootout of DSRLs, with a variety of images that are much more fair comparison.

Please demonstrate now that source images are much more fair.

So far Karl has posted some crops and they certainly don't show any SD9 advantage.

Peter

All of us that has stayed here for a while, have had plenty of
opportunity to read your statement: The same every time.

However, I have also upsized Both D60 and SD9 images to the same size

(e.g. 4000 * 2667) pixels. (Bicubic sampling)

I think many of the SD9 picture then look much better than the D60,
and so do quite a few other people here. The Bayerising effect
blurs the pictures in a way the Foveon does no. The Foveon has
other disadvantages, but that occasionally show up.

Why can't you respect this? You think differently, ok, but let
grown up people here judge by themselves, instead of telling them
what to think over and over again.

Geir Ove

The people who say there is no advantage resize the images to
compare them on equal terms

The only time the Sigma images look special is at original 100%
viewing on screen. This is no surprise and expected.

But full size images are never used for anything at 100% size. They
are sized up for printing or down for screen or web view. Resize
D60 images and Sd9 images to the same size and the magic dissapears.

Saying the Sigma images are superior, is like setting a D60 on 3MP
setting and claiming it is superior and has special qualities. (it
will look better at 100% too).

Peter

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[Ladehaug]

The one sample I saw you post was of a bridge from two different
points of view on two different days, with different weather and
sun angle, the D60 with a ultra wide lens the SD9 with a prime.
Somehow I failed to see how that was a comparison.

IR has just posted a shootout of DSRLs, with a variety of images
that are much more fair comparison.

Please demonstrate now that source images are much more fair.

So far Karl has posted some crops and they certainly don't show any
SD9 advantage.

Peter

Later on I'll post some interesting comparions... ;-)

Geir Rune

 

[Geir Ove]

Hello,

Neither you nor Karl are here to find the advantages of the SD9 / Foveon, on the contrary.

In this message you said
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3749092

You are seem to be identifying yourself with a Technology. I am not.

It does not help what others post: You are already convinced.

I don't need to justify my personal opinions: They are mine.

You are convinced otherwise - Fine. Move on.

I might buy a Foveon Camera, I might buy a Bayer camera (Hey, I already have a Bayer camera). I want better pictures, what technology that brings it to me is irrellevant: I have wide open eyes: I see goo Foveon pictures, very good, and I see some bad. I see good D60 pictures, and I see some bad.

Do you?

Geir Ove

IR has just posted a shootout of DSRLs, with a variety of images
that are much more fair comparison.

Please demonstrate now that source images are much more fair.

So far Karl has posted some crops and they certainly don't show any
SD9 advantage.

Peter

All of us that has stayed here for a while, have had plenty of
opportunity to read your statement: The same every time.

However, I have also upsized Both D60 and SD9 images to the same size

(e.g. 4000 * 2667) pixels. (Bicubic sampling)

I think many of the SD9 picture then look much better than the D60,
and so do quite a few other people here. The Bayerising effect
blurs the pictures in a way the Foveon does no. The Foveon has
other disadvantages, but that occasionally show up.

Why can't you respect this? You think differently, ok, but let
grown up people here judge by themselves, instead of telling them
what to think over and over again.

Geir Ove

The people who say there is no advantage resize the images to
compare them on equal terms

The only time the Sigma images look special is at original 100%
viewing on screen. This is no surprise and expected.

But full size images are never used for anything at 100% size. They
are sized up for printing or down for screen or web view. Resize
D60 images and Sd9 images to the same size and the magic dissapears.

Saying the Sigma images are superior, is like setting a D60 on 3MP
setting and claiming it is superior and has special qualities. (it
will look better at 100% too).

Peter

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

• kc

 

[Brendan H]

The biggest difference I see is that the Foveon pics CAN have more depth and realism in the lightiing and shadows. This is quite apprent on a professional level monitor setup or in prints.

bh

 

[DavidMillier]

Brendan

Can you give a fuller description of what you mean by "depth" and "realism" in this context. I assume your are using these adjectives in a personal way.

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...

The biggest difference I see is that the Foveon pics CAN have more
depth and realism in the lightiing and shadows. This is quite
apprent on a professional level monitor setup or in prints.

bh

 

[Peter G]

I might buy a Foveon Camera, I might buy a Bayer camera (Hey, I
already have a Bayer camera). I want better pictures, what
technology that brings it to me is irrellevant: I have wide open
eyes: I see goo Foveon pictures, very good, and I see some bad. I
see good D60 pictures, and I see some bad.

Do you?

I have seen very good D60 images and very good SD9 images, and I have seen some bad D60 pictures, but I have seen HORRENDOUS SD9 images and that is the difference for me.

1. 95,96 come to mind:

http://www.photohighway.co.jp/ImageView0.asp?key=694.777323&un=150572&m=0&cnt=5138

I might buy a Foveon, but not the SD9. For the tiny advantage of more data per pixel, people seem to be willing to overlook the most glaring defects. It is truly amazing.

Peter

 

[Jimmy Chen]

Some people see the clarity in the images, and some people don't
see it. Assuming both groups are honest, I am truly at a loss with
how one can explain such a difference in perception.

Easy, not everyone knows just exactly how to look for these little details that may cause a viewer to dislike the camera.

One example of myself ... When I first got the F707, people said to me it produces a lot of noise, I was like, what noise? The photos looked fine to me. Today I can detect plenty of problems with F707's best images and they dont even stand close to avg DSLR images. Did the F707 change and became a worst camera? No. My skill in detecting these problems did.

Thats why while some people cannot see the problems, some detects them right away.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery

 

[Jimmy Chen]

But full size images are never used for anything at 100% size. They
are sized up for printing or down for screen or web view. Resize
D60 images and Sd9 images to the same size and the magic dissapears.

Please Peter. Just go pick any quality image from Phil's gallery of these 6mp DSLR cameras and one of Phil's SD9 images, upsample them all to 6000x4000. See for yourself which is better. The statement above really shows you really either didnt do this simple experiement, or didnt bother to look closely with an subjective POV.

As for demanding for crops, one wont even bother when one is welling to do the experiement and see for themselves.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery

 

[Rich]

Brendan

Can you give a fuller description of what you mean by "depth" and
"realism" in this context. I assume your are using these adjectives
in a personal way.

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need
them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...

Umm, it's one of those things that you know it when you see it but you can't describe it, sorta like pornography

Rich

 

[Peter G]

Please Peter. Just go pick any quality image from Phil's gallery of
these 6mp DSLR cameras and one of Phil's SD9 images, upsample them
all to 6000x4000. See for yourself which is better. The statement
above really shows you really either didnt do this simple
experiement, or didnt bother to look closely with an subjective POV.

1: It makes no sense to take two totally different images to do this, especially when the same images are available from IR to compare.

2: The point of crops is so when you see a difference you can post a small example that shows the difference. Rather than just making unsuported claims.

As for demanding for crops, one wont even bother when one is
welling to do the experiement and see for themselves.

3: I have compared many like images and will be looking in detail at the IR DSLR shootout tonight.

4: I certaiinly bothererd. I examined in detail the davebox and res chart from Imaging resources and posted the crops. From these I saw the SD9 has the same or lesser resolution, poor colour purity and noise in the magenta and red areas, and wierd blooming highlights. By direct comparison the D60 had equal or better resolution, clean pure saturated colours, and no wierd blooming errors on the potlid. Here is the Crop to see for yourself.

 

[Peter G]

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need
them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...

Umm, it's one of those things that you know it when you see it but
you can't describe it, sorta like pornography

Well I will agree that some of those Sigma images are Obcene.

 

[Michael OHara]

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need
them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...

Hi D. (is that for Dennis?)

If we're talking about the side by side comparison shots, are you honestly saying you couldn't see more 3-dimensionality, front to back, in several of those images? Images that didn't look quite so flat and 2-dimensional? I'm thinking of the 'clothes on a clothesline' shot and the rather short DOF 'grass' image. There are definitely some problems with this sensor but it does appear to me to produce a MUCH more dimensional looking image than any of the others. Don't know how to quantify that, it just pops out for me.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Karl Guttag]

Without more evidence and controlled tests, it is hard to isolate/prove whether the chroma aberations in the I-Review pictures are due to the Sensor or the Lens. I think it is at least in part (and more likely majorly) caused by the Sensor. But I don't think it is debatable that there is a lot more chroma aberations in the SD9 pictures.

I don't see how people can say the colors look so great and accurate with the SD9 when all these pictures have severe chroma aberrations. The ONLY debates is whether the aberrations are caused by the sensor or the lens. But EVERY shot has about 1 pixel of aberration about 1/2 of the way from the center and 2 to 3 pixels of aberrations to the outside.

How can the colors be "accurate" if they don't even go with the right pixels?

For example consider the window comparison in the shootout below. The same chroma aberrations are in the SD9 pictures as is in the Dome pictures. Remember also that these are taken at F8 which is generally about the peak in sharpness for any lens.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SHOOTOUT/SHOOTOUT.HTM?photo=49

Can you give a fuller description of what you mean by "depth" and
"realism" in this context. I assume your are using these adjectives
in a personal way.

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need
them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...

The biggest difference I see is that the Foveon pics CAN have more
depth and realism in the lightiing and shadows. This is quite
apprent on a professional level monitor setup or in prints.

bh

--
Karl

 

[Erik Magnuson]

honestly saying you couldn't see more 3-dimensionality, front to
back, in several of those images?

I can honestly say that when other factors are accounted for.

I'm thinking of the 'clothes on a clothesline' shot

The SD-9 image is more saturated than the D60/D100 version. But so is the S2 version. When scaled to full screen and with the saturations adjusted to match, the SD-9 image does not stand out (nor when scaled up.)

the rather short DOF 'grass' image.

Well, direct sun will do that. Hard to compare here.

Note that I do think that some SD-9 images are better than the D60/D100 - the portrait on Steve's samples does keep that undefinable something even when size, saturation, and sharpening are accounted for.

--
Erik

 

[David Barkin]

Hi All

I've seen good Foveon images and bad Foveon images, all from the Sigma. For the purpose of my post I will take only the good images.

If you interpolate up a good image from the Sigma and a good image from my D1x the Sigma blows my camera out of the water. Details resolve in an astounding manner. I really don't see how this can be argued with. I've posted a topic on this test and by any objective means the above is true.

The second question is just how good the Sigma as a camera actually is. I'm concerened with the ISO. Not so much that I find ISO 400 limiting but how good the iteration of 400 is.

On my D1x 400 is just fine with almost no noise. Even 800 is acceptable. Is the practical limitation of the Sigma 100? 200?

I've not seen enough samples to judge. However clearly the Foveon technology is far superior to Bayer. Whether the Sigma is far superior to let us say the D1x is something that I reserve judgement on. It may very well be that my camera is so much better then the Sigma that a theoretical superiority is meaningless.

But my bottom line is that I've bought my last bayer pattern camera even if this one is not up to par.

Dave