Reading mode: Light Dark

What did Foveon do???

Go to last post
thank-you from me also Kendall. That was a perfect summary and answer to the OP. Now if only all the other detritus in this thread could be annihilated.

as for trolls: my golden rule is "don't feed the trolls". This is brilliant because it starves them of the confrontation they desire; it also protects those who seem to be trolls, but are simply misguided or confused. We are not the arbiters of this board, nor should we proselytize. We are not even a 'we', if you catch my meaning--and it's that drive to create a social space within a tech/product board that sends me 'round the bend. That's what i was addressing with my comment about netiquette.

But whatever. The interminable drama does entertain on occasion....and I suppose the good info does shine all the brighter for having lounged in mud. at least for me. i'm not sure i'd send an innocent to this board for info.
 
dasmoment said:
as for trolls: my golden rule is "don't feed the trolls". This is
brilliant because it starves them of the confrontation they desire;
it also protects those who seem to be trolls, but are simply
misguided or confused. We are not the arbiters of this board, nor
should we proselytize. We are not even a 'we', if you catch my
meaning--and it's that drive to create a social space within a
tech/product board that sends me 'round the bend. That's what i
was addressing with my comment about netiquette.
Click to expand...
The problem I see with trolls is, you can't just not post a response - on the internet repetition is truth, and so trollish responses must be responded to with correct information lest people get the wrong idea. Trollish posts need the sunlight of good information shone on them to truly banish them, as much as we would all like to just leave them hungry they would still under the bridge of information as it were.

Now another way that trolls need sunlight, is probably addressed by your netiquette point - ideally perhaps we should address all troll posts with correct information in a cheerful tone. But as we are all humans it's rather hard to resist responding in kind to an unkind poster, and sarcasm is a tool easy to wield and effective to boot.
dasmoment said:
But whatever. The interminable drama does entertain on
occasion....and I suppose the good info does shine all the brighter
for having lounged in mud. at least for me. i'm not sure i'd send
an innocent to this board for info.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but they come here anyway through their own devices... that's the real reason to counter troll posts at every opportunity, because you never know who is reading that thread as opposed to any others. I think the spats are infrequent enough that sending somewhere here is safe enough still...

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
In any internet forum, you have certain levels of knowledge and of participation. Regular forum readers can rapidly ascertain I believe who has credibility and who doesn't; credibility can be ascertained too by the photos shown as well as texts posted. But in addition, some of the Sigma forum participants have had opportunities to actually meet in person over the years. Some of the Sigma photo 'shoots' are documented on http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr -- have a look there, if you're not familiar with the photo galleries -- from the UK (Tenterden) to Santa Fe and points in-between, most recently in Death Valley and soon in New York.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
Hi!

This is from a person that just bought a D80, because SD14 has poor high ISO performance... and because Nikon has this wonderful 18-200 VR lens, yet unmatched by sigma. Sigma's 18-200 OS is no match for that, really.

Concerning image detail: go for the sigma. That is if you can afford the right sigma lenses.

Ok, so to the point: if you really need long exposures it might be better to stack a few ones at 10 seconds than, say, take a single 60 seconds exposure. A remote control or cable is recomended, of course. I got very nice results in the past using > 20 exposures

I wanted short high iso exposures, and Nikon glass... so that was a problem.

If you only want long exposures than the 30 second limit is no problem if you use stacking. In fact even with other brands that's probably a better option than using very long exposures.
 
SandyF said:
yvind, yet you do think Geir's comment that the only thing improved
is noise reduction -- is accurate? I think that statement by Geir
was misleading.
Click to expand...
Note that I said main improvement , and this is based upon what I've seen so far from using SPP3 with both SD10 & SD14. Also note that the OP questioned the amount of noise in images, and not what is improved in the SD14 as a camera in general. Could you point me to a source that compares the two cameras using SPP3, taking the image at the same time of the same subject/scene under non-changing light and identical exposure values?

--
Geir
 
I took identical pictures at 1 s and 5 s of the inside of my lens cap. It's not a perfect way to look at noise, but it suffices...

--
Jim
 
I see the difference in detail captured as a main improvement (in addition to higher/better ISO, JPEG, flash, etc). Mountain detail across miles, rocks, sand, blades of grass, foliage, cherry blossom blooms. My judgement and opinion is based upon in the field experience, with the cameras, for example, Chunsum's photos with SD14 at Zabriskie Point next to my taking SD10 photos standing next to him. I've written about this before. It's not a 'test' that you can study; our settings weren't identical, nor lenses. But we SD14 USERS see this daily, especially if we come to the SD14 from a SD10 (or SD9) background.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
SandyF said:
I see the difference in detail captured as a main improvement (in
addition to higher/better ISO, JPEG, flash, etc). Mountain detail
across miles, rocks, sand, blades of grass, foliage, cherry blossom
blooms. My judgement and opinion is based upon in the field
experience, with the cameras, for example, Chunsum's photos with
SD14 at Zabriskie Point next to my taking SD10 photos standing next
to him. I've written about this before. It's not a 'test' that you
can study; our settings weren't identical, nor lenses. But we SD14
USERS see this daily, especially if we come to the SD14 from a SD10
(or SD9) background.
Click to expand...
but let me see a properly done comparison, involving SD10, SD14 and SPP3. An objective analysis works a whole lot better than subjective impressions.

--
Geir
 
SandyF said:
yvind, yet you do think Geir's comment that the only thing improved
is noise reduction -- is accurate?
Click to expand...
Sandy, I did not undserstood your subtle irony, so my respons was not to you, but to Richard Stone.
I saw no mentioning about the issue you bring up here in Richards complain.
SandyF said:
I think that statement by Geir
was misleading.
Click to expand...
Why tell me? Have you told him?
SandyF said:
And please do see the comments on the other thread from other
technical posters...
Click to expand...
I have, and I stand by my view. Geir has contributed a lot.

And I really like these technical discussions where people act civil. I really don't mind if one of these technical posters make a mistake from time to time. Someone else will correct it. What I dislike is the sometimes very uncivil responses that pops up. Very often when someone says something unfavourable of the SD-14/foveon.
SandyF said:
I'm all for open, useful discussion. I bring up problems I face
and request suggestions and ways to solve. It's why I'm here too --
to learn more about my cameras and photography.
Click to expand...
Yes, and you are very open about your findings. Good. If you ask for comments on your pictures, I'll be glad to assist, privately or in public. And I can ask you about the SD-14 when I get it. (I just can't make up my mind about lenses. Grr.)
SandyF said:
But for Geir to
downplay improvements from SD9/10 vis-a-vis SD14 isn't helpful.
Just IMHO of course.
Click to expand...
Downplayed? IYHO of course.
SandyF said:
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
Click to expand...
--
Kind regards
Øyvind Strøm
http://www.norwegianviking.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking
 
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
There is improvement but I know the SD-14 would have done far
better at that shot under similar conditions... so the improvement
is not even mostly with noise reduction, though that helps.
Click to expand...
to make a well controlled comparison?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22978365
Click to expand...
Everything takes time, including careful comparisons. I do not see the need to spend my own time since after many shots the SD-14 just obviously has way better high-ISO capability under all circumstances than the SD-10, which I did also use with higher ISO from time to time. Personal observation satisfies that question enough for me to look on such a test as a curiosity more than a truly revealing test.

For me, it's measuring if the difference in noise improvement is 15% or 5% of the total overall improvement. I just don't see the answer as being very interesting compared to the totality of results.

Now if someone else wants to tun these tests I'll of course read the results to see what they say...

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
Hello Rodrigo

Nice to have you drop by. Glad that you see the advantages of Sigma, and for proposing a possible solution/workaround.

Not an owner of a SD-14 (yet), but following the forum closely for a long time, I have a feeling that stacking may not be appropriate to use.

It would involve underexposing, and from what I read, underexposure is not so good with the SD-14.

The blue channel has a problem in low light, and I suppose this would be even more evident with underexposure.
But, I haven't tried, so I might be wrong.
Rodrigo Cunha said:
Hi!

This is from a person that just bought a D80, because SD14 has poor
high ISO performance... and because Nikon has this wonderful 18-200
VR lens, yet unmatched by sigma. Sigma's 18-200 OS is no match for
that, really.

Concerning image detail: go for the sigma. That is if you can
afford the right sigma lenses.

Ok, so to the point: if you really need long exposures it might be
better to stack a few ones at 10 seconds than, say, take a single
60 seconds exposure. A remote control or cable is recomended, of
course. I got very nice results in the past using > 20 exposures

I wanted short high iso exposures, and Nikon glass... so that was a
problem.

If you only want long exposures than the 30 second limit is no
problem if you use stacking. In fact even with other brands that's
probably a better option than using very long exposures.
Click to expand...
--
Kind regards
Øyvind Strøm
http://www.norwegianviking.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking
 
yvind Strm said:
SandyF said:
yvind, yet you do think Geir's comment that the only thing improved
is noise reduction -- is accurate?
Click to expand...
Sandy, I did not undserstood your subtle irony, so my respons was
not to you, but to Richard Stone.
I saw no mentioning about the issue you bring up here in Richards
complain.
yvind Strm said:
I think that statement by Geir
was misleading.
Click to expand...
Why tell me? Have you told him?
Click to expand...
Yes. And I admit I do get tired of people who don't even own the cameras (SD9/10/14) generalizing to us (SD9/10/14 users) what the cameras cannot do, on technical reasons of their analysis. When we use the cameras, often daily. And yes, that's a generalization. Noise reduction the biggest improvement? Not in my experience using the cameras. See Kendall's posts.

I deleted the remainder of my response. Being civil ;-)

I'm learning about color temperature from these discussions. And editing photos over, changing white balance (in software) from flash to auto.

The differences viewing Maro's photos online is subtle (I linked them too). Viewing my photos, on my computer, now over 1000 photos, it's not so subtle a difference. First time you look at a SD14 1600% magnified RAW detail, I imagine you might say, "Wow" too.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
Even if you get loads of noise in each image, let's say, a SNR

The sum_a_bunch_of_useless_photos=nice_clean_photo I've tested myself in the past. It really works, if you don't get bored in the process. I recomend dcraw+imagemagick and some patience.
yvind Strm said:
I have a feeling that stacking may not be appropriate
to use.
It would involve underexposing, and from what I read, underexposure
is not so good with the SD-14.
The blue channel has a problem in low light, and I suppose this
would be even more evident with underexposure.
But, I haven't tried, so I might be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lokatz
Noise reduction: Is it worth it? How much improvement?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
30K
Breakfastographer
B
MJ_Photo38
  • User review User review
An awesome and special camera that just wasn't for me
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
23K
Tom in Suquamish
Tom in Suquamish
T
Canon R5 hot pixels
Replies
8
Views
6K
smilerliu
S
Madstacks
What to go for???
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
25K
MJ_Photo38
MJ_Photo38
G
Shadow Lifting Performance: S1RII vs. Z8/Sony
Replies
8
Views
19K
georgehudetz
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top