Foveon and Bayer: My Editorial

Tom Rowland · Mar 12, 2005

Hi Sandy,

I suspect the comment is the result of you and SigmaSD9 having a different definition of what the DSLR market is. Is the SD9 the DSLR with the lowest number of total units sold in the DSLR market? Is the only camera the SD10 beats in number of total units sold the SD9?

If you do a forum search you will find many of my posts claiming SD9/10s produce some of the best images posted anywhere. There are huge prints form Sigmas that stand toe to toe with any DSLR. You can also find posts where I praise the layout of the SD10 body. It seems well thought out (IMHO) and easy to figure out. And the Sigma raw conversion software is better than anything else, plain and simple.

Even a amature photogopher with limited skills (like I have) can produce Sigma images that compare with the best other DSLRs. And all this is done with a camera limited to SA mount lens, while Canons and Nikons have a much larger choice.

There are posts claiming the 350 is the most hyped DSLR ever produced. Canon is producing a dRebel specifically designed for astrophotography. A very small market indeed. Yet that astrophotography only DSLR may well sell more units that all the SD10s sold after its release.

And if you do a forum search you can find plenty of posts by Joe W explaining how Canon and Nikon have improved their top end DSLRs over the past two years, while Sigma has yet to bring out anything new.

If the comment was reworded to "Sigma appears to be out of the competative DSLR market" would you be more likely to agree?

SandyF said:
SandyF said:

that Sigma appears to be out of the DSLR market, despite wishful
thinking.

Click to expand...

Good morning SSD9,
I don't understand why you post such a comment after the extensive
discussion threads arising from PMA, links to Sigma exec
interviews, etc. Just for the record, there's an embedded link to
translation of one Sigma interview here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=12450111 which is clear as to Sigma's commitment to continuing development of digital cameras. If you want to re-read all our PMA comments, try a search on keyword PMA.
Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman

SandyF · Mar 12, 2005

Tom Rowland said:
Hi Sandy,

If the comment was reworded to "Sigma appears to be out of the
competative DSLR market" would you be more likely to agree?

Hi Tom, No. Because that also contradicts what Mr. Yamaki said in this interview, and Sigma's whole stance at PMA. I'll post an excerpt from the link I posted above. I think this is clearly stated:
---------begin excerpt--------
Development of the SD Series Cameras Has Not Stopped
Q: What is the state of the successor of the SD10?

Yamaki I figured that you'd ask that question. The pictures you see displayed around our booth are pictures taken by our customers of the SD9 and SD10. I feel these cameras still have quite a bit of potential of pleasing old and new customers. While you could say that our models have a longer life-cycle than most, I want to wait to release new products when we can create a product that fully satisfies everyone involved. You can be sure that we are not standing still or that we've retired the lineup.

Even with the SD10 we feel that there's a lot of potential in developing the software-side of the system. The Bayer sensor array has been developed and studied for a long time and I feel that they've reached a plateau in respect to resolution. The Foveon sensor, on the other hand, is still unfolding and it's only the first generation. Even so, as you can see what's it's capable of in these examples in our gallery. The growth potential of the Foveon sensor is quite huge.

Q: So, are you saying that the when (if?) the next generation SD camera comes out, it will use the next generation sensor?

Yamaki Even today, we have a close partnership with Foveon. I plan on visiting Foveon in Santa Clara before I return to Japan. I can't really speak of what we will be talking about, but our next camera will include features only Foveon can provide.

Q: Finally, can you give us a sense of some of the future products you're working on?

Yamaki First, as a camera maker, we are taking on expanding the SD series system. Then, we are building a lens lineup for digital cameras that will not disappoint our valued customers. Up to now there have been requests for lenses that covered the wide-angle segment. From here on out we see that we not only need to cover the wide-angle, but a variety of other needs. We are also planning on expanding our EX series of high-end lenses. We are looking forward to providing a wide aperture digital zoom lens at an appropriate price point.
---------end excerpt
Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman

Truman Prevatt · Mar 12, 2005

Clint Thayer said:
Howdy Gang,

Clint Thayer said:
For a set-up and shoot scenario, the Sigma works fine. But it has
it drawbacks too-- like today when my buddy and I shot all day in
the city of Seattle. I loaned him my Nikon D70, and I shot with the
Sigma. Candids-- boats, bicycles-- trolleys and the works. Which
camera do you think had more keepers? You are right if you thought
the Nikon D70. The Nikon's split second focus kept my friend going
to the next shot while I was still massaging the Sigma.

Then it must be truly amazing two of the masters at caidid photgraphs, W. Eugene Smith and Henri Carrier-Bression shot their masterpieces using manual focus sometimes prefocusing and firing. Neither seldom used a light meter - they knew the light. It's not the tool(s) - it is the photographer.

Outdoors a good photojournalist of the early 1970's (before auto focus) could produce as many good shots as one today with 25 K worth of equpiment. It's not the tool - the the photographer.

I've never use auto focus - find it a pain. With my 35 mm or digital SLR I always shoot fully manual - much of the time just knowing the proper exposure - 35 years of photography with countless classes and workshops will do that for you. Of course with my 4x5 I always spend time doing a critical analysis of the exposure - but different tools for different jobs.

All that being said - to each his own. Whatever way the photographer works best. On the other hand it seems to me today people get more focused on the toosl than the image.

BTW I really like your image of the man. It's top notch.

Truman

--
Truman

Peter Spader · Mar 12, 2005

Lin Evans said:
Clint Thayer said:

Point taken. And Lin-- what draws you to the Sigma with all your
other choices?

Clint

Click to expand...

Hi Clint,

A couple of things stand out for me. First, I really like the pixel
level true sharpness with superior edge roll-off and the ability to
resolve to a single pixel. Second is more of an intangible I would
sum up as aesthetic quality. It's difficult to put my finger right
on it but there is a certain quality to the image which likely is
the combination of true native sharpness coupled with a certain
tonality which I don't seem to get with my Canon captures. Though
by applying proper USM to most bayer captures the eye is drawn to
detail boundaries, there is something missing which I've yet to be
able to quantify which differentiates the Foveon capture. I suppose
it's been described as a "three dimensional" appearance and for
lack of a better term I will agree. I believe it's the result of
true sharper delineation which gives certain images a "snap" which
is missing from bayer captures. I consciously notice it most in
shots where there is deep snow clumped on bushes, etc., where one
can easily imagine the depth. With identical frames from my Canon's
and Kodak dSLR's it's just "flat" appearing.

Other small things are an apparently greater dynamic range in that
shadow detail and highlights appear clean with highlights rarely
blown. A couple weeks ago I was roped into shooting a wedding for
friends - something I rarely do - and at their reception in a dimly
lit bar, my wide angle flash shots with the SD10 were strikingly
different than those with my Canon 10D or my Olympus E10. I used
all three cameras for different purposes. With the Sigma frames it
was easy to distinguish individuals even at the very edge of flash
coverage at distances of 50 feet or more. With the 10D and Canon's
top-end flash, these same individuals were simply a dark blob. I
used the Sigma 15-30 on both cameras and each had quite similar
flash coverage. The bayer simply didn't resolve the detail in the
deep shadows nearly as well. I've also shot similar frames in
similar locations with my other Canon's and has very similar
results. They do excellent frames and make beautiful larger prints,
but there is just something different and unique about the SD10's
performance which speaks to me.

Best regards

Lin

Lin and Clint

Clint,

Fair assessment, and you do get to what has attracted many of us to the Foveon sensor, the quality of the images.

Lin,

I agree with you about the problem of quantifying the quality we get from the Foveon sensor. Edge roll-off is a key element, but beyond that I suspect the fact that the Foveon sensor is recording both color and luminence at each "photosite" plays a part. From my first landscapes I noticed that the SD9 (and now my SD10) was capturing the most subtle shifts in brightness and color (weak sunlight across grass was an example where this stood out for me first. Another example some have noted is how it picks up subtle changes in skin color in a face). Since I suspect these very subtle cues play a role in our sense of whether what we are seeing is "real" or "just a photo" this might be a factor in why so many people talk of "pop" or "3D". I am leery of these terms since these effects can be created in other ways, and what I sense in the Foveon case is more of an overal effect.One thing I find interesting is that it does not seem to be tied to sensor "size." Even the higher "mega-somethings" CFA (aka Bayer) cameras still seem flat to me. So I suspect resolution is not the only factor. It is an over all quality.

One key point. Quantifying it will be hard, but this does not mean it requires somer sort of faith or "pixy dust" as some have suggested. It can be "seen," though given perceptual biases not everyone wil see it.

Perhaps someone will be able to identify all the quantifiable factors some day (and they may well be traceable back to the geometry of the sensor and the way the data from each location is processed), but in the mean time I will just continue to enjoy what the Foveon sensor givesme, and the magnificent images people like you two and so many others share with me and others. Thanks.

Pete

SigmaSD9 · Mar 12, 2005

Lin Evans said:
A couple of things stand out for me. First, I really like the pixel
level true sharpness with superior edge roll-off and the ability to
resolve to a single pixel. Second is more of an intangible I would
sum up as aesthetic quality. It's difficult to put my finger right
on it but there is a certain quality to the image which likely is
the combination of true native sharpness coupled with a certain
tonality which I don't seem to get with my Canon captures. Though
by applying proper USM to most bayer captures the eye is drawn to
detail boundaries, there is something missing which I've yet to be
able to quantify which differentiates the Foveon capture. I suppose
it's been described as a "three dimensional" appearance and for
lack of a better term I will agree. I believe it's the result of
true sharper delineation which gives certain images a "snap" which
is missing from bayer captures. I consciously notice it most in
shots where there is deep snow clumped on bushes, etc., where one
can easily imagine the depth. With identical frames from my Canon's
and Kodak dSLR's it's just "flat" appearing.

There are two optical reasons Bayers images will always look flat, no matter how much you spend.

1) Blur varies with color rather than, or in addition to, 3 dimensionality. By snapping a low resolution red and blue channel along with a higher resolution green channel, sensor induced variance in color blur meanders through the image without regard to optical lens blur. You cannot get a proper optical capture as a result and all Bayers are the same in this respect regardless of price.

2) By inserting mostly digital placeholders at every recorded pixel location, Bayer output is upscaled by 300-400% from a pure optical resolution. This mandates heavy digital sharpening as part of the workflow. Problem with that is the entire picture is sharpened pixel by pixel without regard to the 3D nature of the capture. Worse than just flattening the image, this often inverts the 3D nature of scenes, and you get the classic Bayer blurred face/body with a sharp outline. Worse still, the cameras do it automatically with in-camera JPEGs, so you don't have a choice to downsize by 75% to return the image to it's optical resolution instead. The damage is already done.

Chunsum J Choi · Mar 12, 2005

Peter Spader said:
Lin Evans said:

Clint Thayer said:

Point taken. And Lin-- what draws you to the Sigma with all your
other choices?

Clint

Click to expand...

Hi Clint,

A couple of things stand out for me. First, I really like the pixel
level true sharpness with superior edge roll-off and the ability to
resolve to a single pixel. Second is more of an intangible I would
sum up as aesthetic quality. It's difficult to put my finger right
on it but there is a certain quality to the image which likely is
the combination of true native sharpness coupled with a certain
tonality which I don't seem to get with my Canon captures. Though
by applying proper USM to most bayer captures the eye is drawn to
detail boundaries, there is something missing which I've yet to be
able to quantify which differentiates the Foveon capture. I suppose
it's been described as a "three dimensional" appearance and for
lack of a better term I will agree. I believe it's the result of
true sharper delineation which gives certain images a "snap" which
is missing from bayer captures. I consciously notice it most in
shots where there is deep snow clumped on bushes, etc., where one
can easily imagine the depth. With identical frames from my Canon's
and Kodak dSLR's it's just "flat" appearing.

Other small things are an apparently greater dynamic range in that
shadow detail and highlights appear clean with highlights rarely
blown. A couple weeks ago I was roped into shooting a wedding for
friends - something I rarely do - and at their reception in a dimly
lit bar, my wide angle flash shots with the SD10 were strikingly
different than those with my Canon 10D or my Olympus E10. I used
all three cameras for different purposes. With the Sigma frames it
was easy to distinguish individuals even at the very edge of flash
coverage at distances of 50 feet or more. With the 10D and Canon's
top-end flash, these same individuals were simply a dark blob. I
used the Sigma 15-30 on both cameras and each had quite similar
flash coverage. The bayer simply didn't resolve the detail in the
deep shadows nearly as well. I've also shot similar frames in
similar locations with my other Canon's and has very similar
results. They do excellent frames and make beautiful larger prints,
but there is just something different and unique about the SD10's
performance which speaks to me.

Best regards

Lin

Click to expand...

Lin and Clint

Clint,
Fair assessment, and you do get to what has attracted many of us to
the Foveon sensor, the quality of the images.

Lin,
I agree with you about the problem of quantifying the quality we
get from the Foveon sensor. Edge roll-off is a key element, but
beyond that I suspect the fact that the Foveon sensor is recording
both color and luminence at each "photosite" plays a part. From my
first landscapes I noticed that the SD9 (and now my SD10) was
capturing the most subtle shifts in brightness and color (weak
sunlight across grass was an example where this stood out for me
first. Another example some have noted is how it picks up subtle
changes in skin color in a face). Since I suspect these very
subtle cues play a role in our sense of whether what we are seeing
is "real" or "just a photo" this might be a factor in why so many
people talk of "pop" or "3D". I am leery of these terms since
these effects can be created in other ways, and what I sense in the
Foveon case is more of an overal effect.One thing I find
interesting is that it does not seem to be tied to sensor "size."
Even the higher "mega-somethings" CFA (aka Bayer) cameras still
seem flat to me. So I suspect resolution is not the only factor. It
is an over all quality.
One key point. Quantifying it will be hard, but this does not mean
it requires somer sort of faith or "pixy dust" as some have
suggested. It can be "seen," though given perceptual biases not
everyone wil see it.
Perhaps someone will be able to identify all the quantifiable
factors some day (and they may well be traceable back to the
geometry of the sensor and the way the data from each location is
processed), but in the mean time I will just continue to enjoy what
the Foveon sensor givesme, and the magnificent images people like
you two and so many others share with me and others. Thanks.

Pete

--
Chunsum.

It's easy, all you have to do is BELIEVE.

http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Tom Rowland · Mar 12, 2005

SandyF said:
Tom Rowland said:

Hi Sandy,

If the comment was reworded to "Sigma appears to be out of the
competative DSLR market" would you be more likely to agree?

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, No. Because that also contradicts what Mr. Yamaki said in
this interview, and Sigma's whole stance at PMA. I'll post an
excerpt from the link I posted above. I think this is clearly
stated:

Does any of these comments contradict what I posted? To be competative in the DSLR market you have to sell cameras. Some where near the number of cameras your competitors are selling. The only DSLR the SD10 is able to beat in numbers of cameras sold is the SD9.

I am not making any claims about Sigmas stance, their plans in the future, or the quality of images Sigma cameras produce.

I am saying they dont sell many cameras when compared to Canon, Nikon, Oly, and other DSLR makers.

Please identify one DSLR that Sigma DSLRs out sell, or explain how they are competative if they are in last place in terms of units sold? The fact that Sigmas produce great images is not in question.

You seem to be confusing being competative with image quality. These are two very different things, and dont have to be related.

Tom Rowland · Mar 12, 2005

Lin Evans said:
Clint Thayer said:

Point taken. And Lin-- what draws you to the Sigma with all your
other choices?

Clint

Click to expand...

Hi Clint,

A couple of things stand out for me.

Hi Lin,

I still think the way a Sigma produces false detail at the Nyquist limit is a highly under rated feature of the camera. The 9 lines to 5 lines is false in terms of reality, but sure (IMHO) produces a better image than 9 lines to mush.

CJMax · Mar 12, 2005

Clint,

I've just about given up on much of the "hand held" Auto captures. I still do them, but I've not been satisfied with them over time. I've found that the SD-10 is superb on a tripod with the right lighting and manual focus, but my efforts off the tripod are second rate, and that's from someone with over 45 years of film experience.

I use basically 3 Sigma lenses: 50mm EX, 70-200mm EX & the 15-30mm EX. All have given me fits when handheld - may be it's my age, but my 35mm captures show no such issues.

Why do I stay with the SD-10? When I show my SD-10 8"x10" images to customers they all react with "Oooh!" and "Aaah!" and "Look at the colors!" and "It's almost like 3-D." I don't hear those comments when they look at images from my competitors' Canons and Nikons. I too "see the difference", and I love it. So here I am trying to work this sucker and hoping for some better sofware (and hardware) from Sigma down the road - soon. It's a "love-hate" relationship. I love the end results, but I hate being handicapped by, well, you-know-what. You've already said it.

CJ

Clint Thayer said:
Howdy Gang,

As you know, I have used the Sigma SD10 allot lately- with only two
lenses. The 50mm and the 150mm EX Macros. But my experience doesn't
stop there:

In the last several years I've owned and shot with a Nikon D1X,
Canon D60, Canon 10D, Canon 1DMKII, Nikon D70, Olympus E1.... and
even more. And everyone of those cameras had a distinctive feature
about it that I really enjoyed. I am very fond of the Oly E1 system
for producting some of the most exciting colors ever to come out of
a digital camera. Be it the lens-- be it myself or post production,
each one of these has some outstanding attributes.

In many ways, the Sigma SD10 is a large step backwards. It's output
resolution is low, its' extended shutter time quality is awful,
it's shot to shot time is sluggish. All of these qualities you
would expect from a camera made four years ago. At best, the Sigma
SD10 would be comparable to the fine Nikon D1H. Similar resolution
at least.

For a set-up and shoot scenario, the Sigma works fine. But it has
it drawbacks too-- like today when my buddy and I shot all day in
the city of Seattle. I loaned him my Nikon D70, and I shot with the
Sigma. Candids-- boats, bicycles-- trolleys and the works. Which
camera do you think had more keepers? You are right if you thought
the Nikon D70. The Nikon's split second focus kept my friend going
to the next shot while I was still massaging the Sigma.

Be that as it may, the Foveon image sensor cannot be ignored. And,
you cannot directly compare it to other sensors regardless of
resolution. Because there is no direct relationship they share. You
get the right shot-- like the one here

and even an $8000
camera would struggle to get the complexion, light, tone and patina
on target. Pixel perfect? That may be so. But we all know it's the
photographer, right?

So, I've opted to call the Sigma SD10 a "fine art" style camera.
More studio than portable-- more precise than candid. Yet, in the
back of my mind, "fine art" does take on more subjects than still
landscapes and portraits. Sigma does eventually need to merge the
quick handling of its' competitors and the fine photo quality from
the Foveon imager. There is no reason why this cannot be done.
Nikon with the D2X-- and the Canon 1DSMKII both combine very high
output resolution with very responsive handling and performance.
Albeit it at a high cost. But no one is complaining if they here
about a step up more costly Sigma are they?

The computing power inside a Foveon camera must be enormous. We're
handling three levels of sensor information and managing it. Low
level light capability with extended shutter speeds is a must in
this day and age. Keep the 3.4 MP x 3 concept-- but before we bump
the resolution- lets bump the performance we can get from the
current sensor size.

At it's best, a printed photo from an enlarged X3F file looks
fantastic. And better than anything I've shot with any camera
regardless of price. Up to 16 x 20 even under close scrutiny. This
is not a casual happening though. It's a long workflow to get it
just right- but its' worth every minute you spend with it.

Interesting, today I was reviewing 11 x 17 prints from the Canon
1DMKII I used on a commercial interior shot this last Spring. The
Canon does produce marvelous prints. Then I brought out the "Eye To
The Sky" portrait and "Cougar Rock" at the same size image and the
Foveon put the Canon to rest. It's that good. Size interpolated as
it was.

I've decided to keep the Sigma (I like it that much), and look
forward to creating more images with it. But in the background, I'm
hoping that Sigma or another DSLR affiliate with Foveon will bring
the handling and performance up to date with current offerings from
other brands.

Clint Thayer
http://www.stereografx.com

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Robert Burns

Clint Thayer · Mar 12, 2005

Camera manufacturers are certainly not in business as a "gift" to photographers. They must make a profit- they don't plan to lose money.

I'm sure that Foveon/Sigma collaboration was such that Sigma was small enough in camera manufacturing to introduce the Foveon sensor to the marketplace. I will say that Sigma was sold out of the SD10 in this country when I purchased mine last month. They told me at the headquarters that they were expecting a new supply to be imported to them- and that I would get my delivery at that time.

So, I don't think Sigma is swimming in dead inventory. I also don't think that Sigma/Foveon manufactured huge quantities to begin with. Sigma is quite technology savvy and very current with their lens offerings.

But, alas some major dealers locally had the Sigma at one point and dropped the line because of major SD9 QC issues and returns from their customers. That is costly to a retailer. For better or for worse, the Sigma camera line pretty much exists as an on-line purchase scenario. That will definitely limit sales to "niche" photographers and not the general public.

The sad part is, e-tailers such as Ritz Camera CONTINUE to offer the SD-9 body only on sale through their web site. The bad part? They don't support ANY lenses for it. Ritz camera does not carry SA mount lenses at all. They obviously were burned with SD-9 inventory and still have it in stock and are probably selling it at close to wholesale cost.

So, I agree with you. The Sigma SD10 may be upgraded at some point-- but it is very doubtful there will ever be a camera dealership in town that will gamble on any camera from Sigma. Business is about turn over-- if you can't move the goods, you don't buy the stock.

Consider this: Sigmas' website mall features the 150mm EX Macro, Macro Flash, carry bag and SD10 body for $1799. That puts the body at $799 retail of you bought the same lenses somewhere else. I don't think Sigma is delighted with selling the SD10 body cheaper than a Canon Digital Rebel. But they are...

Clint Thayer

Clint Thayer · Mar 12, 2005

CJ,

Don't give up. I'm getting old myself!!! And I'm blind as a bat and am getting prescription glasses next week for the first time.

Scott's photo (the "eye to the sky" shot) was indeed handheld. I bumped the ISO to 400 to get a shutter speed of 1/250 with the 50mm EX. In that way, my geriatric hand shaking would not interfere with the shot.

But I just knew I had something special when the gold sunset was gleaming on his eyes. It had to work! I really doubt if my trusty Nikon D70 would have captured the subtle shadings of Scott's complexion like the Sigma SD10 did. It would have appeared flat, indistinct and so very digitally correct.

Today, I am going to use a tripod. I'm doing a photo shoot of colorful birds that I hope to post on my site later this evening....

Clint

ThunderLance · Mar 12, 2005

What about using a monopod instead of a tripod?

CJMax said:
I've just about given up on much of the "hand held" Auto captures.
I still do them, but I've not been satisfied with them over time.
I've found that the SD-10 is superb on a tripod with the right
lighting and manual focus, but my efforts off the tripod are second
rate, and that's from someone with over 45 years of film experience.

I use basically 3 Sigma lenses: 50mm EX, 70-200mm EX & the
15-30mm EX. All have given me fits when handheld - may be it's my
age, but my 35mm captures show no such issues.

Why do I stay with the SD-10? When I show my SD-10 8"x10" images
to customers they all react with "Oooh!" and "Aaah!" and "Look at
the colors!" and "It's almost like 3-D." I don't hear those
comments when they look at images from my competitors' Canons and
Nikons. I too "see the difference", and I love it. So here I am
trying to work this sucker and hoping for some better sofware (and
hardware) from Sigma down the road - soon. It's a "love-hate"
relationship. I love the end results, but I hate being handicapped
by, well, you-know-what. You've already said it.

CJ

Clint Thayer said:

Howdy Gang,

As you know, I have used the Sigma SD10 allot lately- with only two
lenses. The 50mm and the 150mm EX Macros. But my experience doesn't
stop there:

In the last several years I've owned and shot with a Nikon D1X,
Canon D60, Canon 10D, Canon 1DMKII, Nikon D70, Olympus E1.... and
even more. And everyone of those cameras had a distinctive feature
about it that I really enjoyed. I am very fond of the Oly E1 system
for producting some of the most exciting colors ever to come out of
a digital camera. Be it the lens-- be it myself or post production,
each one of these has some outstanding attributes.

In many ways, the Sigma SD10 is a large step backwards. It's output
resolution is low, its' extended shutter time quality is awful,
it's shot to shot time is sluggish. All of these qualities you
would expect from a camera made four years ago. At best, the Sigma
SD10 would be comparable to the fine Nikon D1H. Similar resolution
at least.

For a set-up and shoot scenario, the Sigma works fine. But it has
it drawbacks too-- like today when my buddy and I shot all day in
the city of Seattle. I loaned him my Nikon D70, and I shot with the
Sigma. Candids-- boats, bicycles-- trolleys and the works. Which
camera do you think had more keepers? You are right if you thought
the Nikon D70. The Nikon's split second focus kept my friend going
to the next shot while I was still massaging the Sigma.

Be that as it may, the Foveon image sensor cannot be ignored. And,
you cannot directly compare it to other sensors regardless of
resolution. Because there is no direct relationship they share. You
get the right shot-- like the one here

and even an $8000
camera would struggle to get the complexion, light, tone and patina
on target. Pixel perfect? That may be so. But we all know it's the
photographer, right?

So, I've opted to call the Sigma SD10 a "fine art" style camera.
More studio than portable-- more precise than candid. Yet, in the
back of my mind, "fine art" does take on more subjects than still
landscapes and portraits. Sigma does eventually need to merge the
quick handling of its' competitors and the fine photo quality from
the Foveon imager. There is no reason why this cannot be done.
Nikon with the D2X-- and the Canon 1DSMKII both combine very high
output resolution with very responsive handling and performance.
Albeit it at a high cost. But no one is complaining if they here
about a step up more costly Sigma are they?

The computing power inside a Foveon camera must be enormous. We're
handling three levels of sensor information and managing it. Low
level light capability with extended shutter speeds is a must in
this day and age. Keep the 3.4 MP x 3 concept-- but before we bump
the resolution- lets bump the performance we can get from the
current sensor size.

At it's best, a printed photo from an enlarged X3F file looks
fantastic. And better than anything I've shot with any camera
regardless of price. Up to 16 x 20 even under close scrutiny. This
is not a casual happening though. It's a long workflow to get it
just right- but its' worth every minute you spend with it.

Interesting, today I was reviewing 11 x 17 prints from the Canon
1DMKII I used on a commercial interior shot this last Spring. The
Canon does produce marvelous prints. Then I brought out the "Eye To
The Sky" portrait and "Cougar Rock" at the same size image and the
Foveon put the Canon to rest. It's that good. Size interpolated as
it was.

I've decided to keep the Sigma (I like it that much), and look
forward to creating more images with it. But in the background, I'm
hoping that Sigma or another DSLR affiliate with Foveon will bring
the handling and performance up to date with current offerings from
other brands.

Clint Thayer
http://www.stereografx.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Robert Burns

--
'It could be worse but I dont know how'

'It doesnt matter that you are sitting on the right track, you're still going to get hit by train!'

SandyF · Mar 12, 2005

Tom Rowland said:
SandyF said:

Tom Rowland said:

Hi Sandy,

If the comment was reworded to "Sigma appears to be out of the
competative DSLR market" would you be more likely to agree?

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, No. Because that also contradicts what Mr. Yamaki said in
this interview, and Sigma's whole stance at PMA. I'll post an
excerpt from the link I posted above. I think this is clearly
stated:

Click to expand...

Tom Rowland said:
Tom Rowland wrote:
You seem to be confusing being competative with image quality.
These are two very different things, and dont have to be related.

Hi Tom, then 'competitive' is too general an adjective in the usage you, SSD9, and others give it. I've re-read the posts. Even with the footnotes that you mean selling cameras in volume, the distinction is clearer but not precise. I fully understand the distinction between 'competitive' and 'image quality,' but a large number of folks without hands-on experience with Sigma SD9/10 do not. SSD9 --and others posting here-- before PMA have been implying that Sigma is going out of the camera business. Frankly, such posts had ME slightly rattled, until I personally saw Sigma's booth and met with Sigma execs, read Mr. Yamaki's interview, etc. PMA being an in-depth, on-site opportunity many readers do not have, thus our posts I hope about PMA contribute to the understanding that Sigma intends to remain in the camera business. From all the interviewing going on at the Sigma PMA booth, I hope there will be additional articles in other magazines too; positive publicity contributes to sales, right?
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman

Tom Rowland · Mar 12, 2005

I have read the threads you speak of about PMA and the concept of long term Japan style planning. I have read Lins posts about the technical merits of Foveon chips in producing great cameras. I have seen images from Dom, and all the other great Simga users.

I have also read Joe W explaining the weakness of Sigma in competing with other DSLR makers. I have seen the threads comparing Foveon to Betamax and Bayer to VHS, and other cases of superior technology falling to weaker technical competiton.

Joe has often made the point that DSLR technology is moving on unabated. Canon and others are frequently bringing out new cameras that are closing the quality gap Sigma images can have.

While I do not completely agree with the Betamax analogy, in one sense it is quite good. While VHS clearly won over Betamax both are on the tech junkpile. We all use DVDs now. This is the problem Sigma (and Bayer) faces. If Sigma takes too long to bring out a new camera who knows what it will have to face.

CJMax · Mar 12, 2005

Clint,

I'm definately not giving up on the SD-10. I was "experimenting" with it this morning and got a very nice capture, even if underexposed. You can check it out on the new thread that I posted today. The print in TIFF 16-bit is outstanding, IMO.

CJ

Clint Thayer said:
CJ,

Don't give up. I'm getting old myself!!! And I'm blind as a bat and
am getting prescription glasses next week for the first time.

Scott's photo (the "eye to the sky" shot) was indeed handheld. I
bumped the ISO to 400 to get a shutter speed of 1/250 with the 50mm
EX. In that way, my geriatric hand shaking would not interfere with
the shot.

But I just knew I had something special when the gold sunset was
gleaming on his eyes. It had to work! I really doubt if my trusty
Nikon D70 would have captured the subtle shadings of Scott's
complexion like the Sigma SD10 did. It would have appeared flat,
indistinct and so very digitally correct.

Today, I am going to use a tripod. I'm doing a photo shoot of
colorful birds that I hope to post on my site later this evening....

Clint

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Robert Burns

CJMax · Mar 12, 2005

TL,

That's the next hardware step for me, a monopod.

Right now though I'm planning on using some of my "mad money" to go on a Siberian tiger photo-op at an animal rescue shelter next Saturday. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for good weather conditions...

CJ

ThunderLance said:
What about using a monopod instead of a tripod?

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Robert Burns

Peter Spader · Mar 12, 2005

CJ,

As you know I am an old tripod person (and at 66 may soon need one for myself as well!). And I will still use a tripod whenever the exposure gets long enough to be questionable. But I do make many SD10 (and SD9) pictures hand-held, but never fully auto. I do often use auto-focus, but have learned the AF on these cameras. As an old Nikon 35mm person I had to learn that these cameras only uses the one central point to focus, and you need the proper kind of contrast in that area for it to work. Now and then I must shift a little to get such contrast, lock, and recompose, but the focus-locked light and beep are reliable for most lens and work well. Occasiuonal I will kick back to manual focus and although I miss split-screens, even my old eyes usually do a decent job.

But I never let the camera set f-stop/speed. I always use manual mode, setting the F stop for DOF and then setting speed for exposure. (I like the great + - display the manual mode uses, a nice digital version of the old match needle, and I can select any compensation I want shot by shot). And I often bracket as well.

So I agree with Clint. Do not give up on hand-held shots (Nancy does nothing but hand-held). A tripod is great, but hand-held is often more practical.

One last point. If you must use hand-held at longer exposures, cheat. Find something to brace the camera against.
Pete

CJMax said:
I'm definately not giving up on the SD-10. I was "experimenting"
with it this morning and got a very nice capture, even if
underexposed. You can check it out on the new thread that I posted
today. The print in TIFF 16-bit is outstanding, IMO.

CJ

Clint Thayer said:

CJ,

Don't give up. I'm getting old myself!!! And I'm blind as a bat and
am getting prescription glasses next week for the first time.

Scott's photo (the "eye to the sky" shot) was indeed handheld. I
bumped the ISO to 400 to get a shutter speed of 1/250 with the 50mm
EX. In that way, my geriatric hand shaking would not interfere with
the shot.

But I just knew I had something special when the gold sunset was
gleaming on his eyes. It had to work! I really doubt if my trusty
Nikon D70 would have captured the subtle shadings of Scott's
complexion like the Sigma SD10 did. It would have appeared flat,
indistinct and so very digitally correct.

Today, I am going to use a tripod. I'm doing a photo shoot of
colorful birds that I hope to post on my site later this evening....

Clint

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Robert Burns

Tom Rowland · Mar 12, 2005

CJMax said:
TL,

That's the next hardware step for me, a monopod.

This is a must read for monopods

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/tutorials/monopods/index.html

This is my recomendation for a monopod

Do a dpreview search for other opinions

http://www.feisol.com/

Truman Prevatt · Mar 12, 2005

One of the problems with hand held capture is the weight of the lens compared to the weight of the camera. A heavy lens is put the center of mass of the camera/lens out far from you. They make the camera front end heavy and harder to hold the lens still.

This goes back to using big zooms (big her meaning physical size) and autofocus. This all adds weight. My basic 35mm setup is a Nikon F2 (a heavy strudy carma) with Nikkor lens. There lens are non autofocus and non zoom - except one 35-105 zoom. They are all f2.8 or faster and they all take a 55 mm filter (except maybe the zoom and I'm too lazy to go check). Although these lens use very little plastic - they are a lot lighter than the current crop of DSLR lens.

I have a 24-70 EX for my SD9. It takes an 82 mm filter and weights a ton. It is heaver by a goodly amount that my 127 mm lens (that takes a 67 mm filter ) for my 6x7 medium format Mayima RB. And the Mayima is something I never use off the tripod.

The If I could get a non-AF (no motor) high quality light weight lens for my SD9 - I'd buy it in a NY minute.

There was a reason Henri Cartier-Bresson used an M6 range finder for his photography. It's one very fast camera to use. With the current crop of DLSR's and the big physical lenses - we have taken a giant step backwards.

CJMax said:
Clint,

CJMax said:
I use basically 3 Sigma lenses: 50mm EX, 70-200mm EX & the
15-30mm EX. All have given me fits when handheld - may be it's my
age, but my 35mm captures show no such issues.

--
Truman

SigmaSD9 · Mar 12, 2005

Tom Rowland said:
Hi Lin,

I still think the way a Sigma produces false detail at the Nyquist
limit is a highly under rated feature of the camera. The 9 lines
to 5 lines is false in terms of reality, but sure (IMHO) produces a
better image than 9 lines to mush.

No mechanism to create it. Nyquist accuracy limits rooted in sampling theorem can never apply to a purely optical relay.

Foveon and Bayer: My Editorial

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts