Reading mode: Light Dark

SD9 + Foveon = Problems

Go to last post
Michael has a point, unless the SD9 sells in volume or the X3 is used in different wider market applications then Foveon are not yet out of the woods.

There are some reasons why people would not spend $2000 on a Sigma camera. Their previous bodies have not had a big market and both Canon and Nikon have the big reputation that makes parting with this sort of money more bearable.

They need a 4/3 or fixed lens prosumer product that will not only provide a much greater contrast to existing technology at the same price point ($1000 - $1200) but sell in much larger volumes. Or, they need another DSLR manufacturer to license the chip, like Nikon or Minolta. Canon seem to be the least likely right now as they make their own.
--
Steve
 
AMD has an analogous problem as relates to Intel. Their CPU's do more poer clock cycle than Intel's do. So AMD now labels their chips conservativly as to it's effective clock rate as compared to Intel's P4 chips totally ignoring their internal clock rate. They don't even certify motherboards that don't recognize and display this "non-clock rate" clock rate.

Foveon has exactly the same problem. A Sony 5mp digicam many believe is not as clear as a 3mp D30. Yet many consumers only look or are going to look at megapixels. Perhaps Foveon can come up with some sort of objective test for effective resolution compared to the Bayer technology. Maybe their 3.54 mp will be a 8mp equivilant.

If it has worked for AMD it could work for them. They are in new territory here and their designation as a simple 3mp range camera is certainly misleading as to it's output quality.
 
Jimmy Chen said:
Why would CZ label their lens 9,7-48,5 and not 38-190 if it doesnt
matter?
Click to expand...
Because for that camera, and that sensor, the lens focal length actually is 9.7mm to 48.5mm.
Jimmy Chen said:
Just because the lens is designed for that sensor, it does not mean
there is no crop when we compare the sensor against a 35mm
standard.
Click to expand...
If you stuck that sensor in a 35mm body and under a 38-190 35mm lens, then you'd have a 3.whatever crop.

Since it's not, you don't.
 
Michael Long said:
Because for that camera, and that sensor, the lens focal length
actually is 9.7mm to 48.5mm.
Click to expand...
Michael Long said:
If you stuck that sensor in a 35mm body and under a 38-190 35mm
lens, then you'd have a 3.whatever crop.

Since it's not, you don't.
Click to expand...
So you are saying when you arent comparing against a 35mm standard, the crop isnt an issue. But when you do compare it against a 35mm standard, it applies. So the 3.91x still holds when compared against a 35mm standard.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Or it could backlash against them just like it did when Fuji started playing resolution games with their SuperChip.

Even Joe Consumer can open a file in photoshop and figure out that 2268 x 1512 = 3,429,216.

"Hey, they advertised this thing as a XXmp camera! Where'd all my pixels go!!!!"
 
Jimmy Chen said:
So you are saying when you arent comparing against a 35mm standard,
the crop isnt an issue. But when you do compare it against a 35mm
standard, it applies. So the 3.91x still holds when compared
against a 35mm standard.
Click to expand...
Last time, and then someone else is going to have to explain it to you.

The lens in the F707 is sized to fit the sensor in the F707. So when that sensor is in the F707 under that lens there IS NO MULTIPLICATION FACTOR.

If you could somehow grow the F707 lens so it would fit on a 35mm camera, it would be a 38-190 eqv.

If you replaced the sensor in a D60 with the one from the F707, then -- AND ONLY THEN -- would you have a 3.x multiplication factor. It's not there, so you don't.

A "multiplication factor" is an attempt to describe what happens when you put a small sensor under a lens that's designed for a larger format (like film).

The F707 lens and sensor are designed for each other.

There IS NO MULTIPLICATION FACTOR!!!!!
 
Yes - I think it's worked with AMD. At least when people ask it gives a chance for the saleperson to explain how clock rate is not everything.

In our business our benchmark runs 300% faster on an AMD than the Intel, so in some cases AMD's rating for comparison purposes is much slower than their actual equivilant speed. But for multimedia software the Intel is often better than the AMD. Foveon has somewhat the same issue. For certain things, like black and white resolution charts, the Foveon advantage will be less obvious since your gonna get a luminace reading from every pixel on a bayer chip in that case. But hair, clothing, etc are going to be much sharper on a Foveon.

So there are strong parallels here to AMD's situation vs Intel.

Mr. Joe Consumer who has his 1000 dollar 5mp Sony isn't going to understand why the much lower noise and sharper 3mp Sigma is worth 2 times the dollars (with zoom lens attached).

Perhaps when the next player gets their chip - like Minolta or Pentax - then well see some more creative marketing.

The big problem that Fuji had is that the resolution they were hyping was not as good as the same resolution on a bayer chip. So they could not back up their megapixel claims vs bayer. Foveon would have little trouble demonstrating their superiority.

The other approach would make the bayer sensors be required to lower their stated resolution, but the specs are determined by who got their first. So I don't see that ever happening.
 
Member said:
Yes - I think it's worked with AMD. At least when people ask it
gives a chance for the saleperson to explain how clock rate is not
everything.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, the system I just finished building is AMD. But I'm not sure there's as much of a parallel between the Intel/AMD battle and what is shaping up to be one involving the Bayer and Foveon sensors.

From what I've seen, many AMD and Intel rivals exhibit a loyalty to their respective brand which seems more or less dogmatic. The fact is, both processors do pretty much the same thing (albeit faster in some respects and slower in others).

With Bayer vs. Foveon, however, you have an actual and significant difference in objective quality per stated pixel. And no, I'm not going to get into the argument of how many Foveon pixels = how many Bayer pixels... as far as I'm concerned, the whole assertion that "1.5 million Red + 3 million Green + 1.5 million Blue pixels -> [and then a miracle occurs] = a full color image with 6mp resolution" is marketing hokum. If the Bayer camp wants to claim industry-wide recognition to the term "megapixel," then let Foveon bury them with it.

I don't believe there is any valid reason that the X3 should not be the wave of the future, unless Foveon royally screws up in their marketing and licensing, AND in educating the unwashed masses with regard to the real-world distinctions between their product and everyone else's.

Consider this: If the SD9 performs as well as it seems to right out of the gate, what will a generation or two of tweaking, optimization, and doubling (then quadrupling) the number of pixels do?

-gl
 
4/3 will not solve the problem of a "dead" lens mount. The 4/3 standard seems as likely to take off as does Esperanto.

I just don't see why sigma doesn't produce the camera in a nikon lens mount. They certainly know how to do it (they build nikon-mount lenses all the time). With a Nikon mount, I'd line up to buy this camera. With a sigma (or 4/3) mount, I'll wait.
 
Well, it looks that the 4/3 thing will eventually come out, but probably with Kodak sensor. I think that Foveon based 4/3 could take off, if it came out now, with some decent lenses and a large, bright viewfinder for manual focusing. I would be happy, if they left off the AF for the sake of cheapness.

But time is against it, and for a more distant future an SLR with a full size Foveon is the answer. At least an answer for the rich.

Dan
work_permit said:
4/3 will not solve the problem of a "dead" lens mount. The 4/3
standard seems as likely to take off as does Esperanto.

I just don't see why sigma doesn't produce the camera in a nikon
lens mount. They certainly know how to do it (they build
nikon-mount lenses all the time). With a Nikon mount, I'd line up
to buy this camera. With a sigma (or 4/3) mount, I'll wait.
Click to expand...
 
body - forget it.
Michael Long said:
7) They need the capabilities of a "professional" body (D1/1D).
Click to expand...
Why would anybody need a rugged professional body in a digital camera that will be obsolete in a year (1.5 years maximum)? I know a couple of pros that are rethinking the need for a "rugged professional" body. Personally, I'm not a pro and don't need a rugged body - I'm after professional performance (or something close to that of the EOS 1D's focus lock and tracking).

There is a real good chance that the SD9 will be overkill for 70 percent of the pros. I'm not sure if the SD9 will beat a Nikon D1 from the standpoint of noise. If it does, the SD9 will be overkill for 90 percent of the pros. Folks that shoot action will always need something like the EOS 1D and a very fast lens; however, they represent a small percentage of the population.

I not trying to argue with you - this is just one factor that I think you should take into consideration.

Joe Kurkjian
 
J A K said:
Why would anybody need a rugged professional body in a digital
camera that will be obsolete in a year (1.5 years maximum)? I know
a couple of pros that are rethinking the need for a "rugged
professional" body. Personally, I'm not a pro and don't need a
rugged body - I'm after professional performance (or something
close to that of the EOS 1D's focus lock and tracking).
Click to expand...
I'm not going to go into all of the reasons why someone may want the capabilities of a more professional camera/body. If you need them, you know why.

I will, however, take exception to the concept that one is automatically "obsolete" when a newer camera is introduced.

A PJ may want a camera that isn't going to fail apart the first time it's bumped, or zonk out the first time it starts raining. But as they are now bandwidth limited in transmitting images for publication in a magazine or newspaper, a 4MP 1D will work just fine for that task today, and it will work just fine tomorrow when the 1Ds hits the streets, and so on...

If it fullfills your needs, then it's not obsolete.
 
G. Lentz said:
Consider this: If the SD9 performs as well as it seems to right out
of the gate, what will a generation or two of tweaking,
optimization, and doubling (then quadrupling) the number of pixels
do?

-gl
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Michael Long said:
Michael Long said:
So you are saying when you arent comparing against a 35mm standard,
the crop isnt an issue. But when you do compare it against a 35mm
standard, it applies. So the 3.91x still holds when compared
against a 35mm standard.
Click to expand...
Last time, and then someone else is going to have to explain it to
you.

The lens in the F707 is sized to fit the sensor in the F707. So
when that sensor is in the F707 under that lens there IS NO
MULTIPLICATION FACTOR.

If you could somehow grow the F707 lens so it would fit on a 35mm
camera, it would be a 38-190 eqv.

If you replaced the sensor in a D60 with the one from the F707,
then -- AND ONLY THEN -- would you have a 3.x multiplication
factor. It's not there, so you don't.

A "multiplication factor" is an attempt to describe what happens
when you put a small sensor under a lens that's designed for a
larger format (like film).
Click to expand...
There is one place where the sensore size difference / multiplication factor / whatever you want to call it, does come into play with a small sensor consumer/prosumer vs. a large sensor DSLR camera. Depth of field. The 190 equivalent on the F707 will have a much wider DOF at a given aperture than a true 190mm lens would have on an SLR.
Michael Long said:
The F707 lens and sensor are designed for each other.

There IS NO MULTIPLICATION FACTOR!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
I don't know--I'm a "Mr. Joe Consumer" with a 5mp Sony and my interest has been piqued by the SD-9... And I might even be able to afford one!
John Mason said:
Yes - I think it's worked with AMD. At least when people ask it
gives a chance for the saleperson to explain how clock rate is not
everything.

In our business our benchmark runs 300% faster on an AMD than the
Intel, so in some cases AMD's rating for comparison purposes is
much slower than their actual equivilant speed. But for multimedia
software the Intel is often better than the AMD. Foveon has
somewhat the same issue. For certain things, like black and white
resolution charts, the Foveon advantage will be less obvious since
your gonna get a luminace reading from every pixel on a bayer chip
in that case. But hair, clothing, etc are going to be much sharper
on a Foveon.

So there are strong parallels here to AMD's situation vs Intel.

Mr. Joe Consumer who has his 1000 dollar 5mp Sony isn't going to
understand why the much lower noise and sharper 3mp Sigma is worth
2 times the dollars (with zoom lens attached).

Perhaps when the next player gets their chip - like Minolta or
Pentax - then well see some more creative marketing.

The big problem that Fuji had is that the resolution they were
hyping was not as good as the same resolution on a bayer chip. So
they could not back up their megapixel claims vs bayer. Foveon
would have little trouble demonstrating their superiority.

The other approach would make the bayer sensors be required to
lower their stated resolution, but the specs are determined by who
got their first. So I don't see that ever happening.
Click to expand...
 
The SD9 is probably going to be priced a few hundred dollars lower than the D60. And with cheaper Sigma lenses, you are talking about SD9 being the first "prosumer" DSLR that has an image quality that beats the D60. So the real buyers are out there just waiting to pounce on it once the SD9 goes on sale.

--
http://www.pbase.com/limlh
 
G. Lentz wrote:
...
G. Lentz said:
From what I've seen, many AMD and Intel rivals exhibit a loyalty to
their respective brand which seems more or less dogmatic. The fact
is, both processors do pretty much the same thing (albeit faster in
some respects and slower in others).
Click to expand...
.... AND in educating the unwashed masses with ...

Yup! I'm kinda glad these forums don't ever get dogmatic :-)
 
When compared to the size of 35 mm film there is obviously a "crop" when the Sony CCD is used (just as 35mm is a "crop" when compared to medium format). If Canon/Nikon were to make lenses to match the CCD size of their DSLRs the multiplier of that "crop" would be exactly the same as it is with the 35mm lenses they currently use. It is true that the so called "multiplier" does describe the ratio of that part of the 35 mm lens that is used for the CCD vs. its full 35mm coverage, but so what. The word "multiplier" can also be used to describe the ratio of the size of the 35mm format to the size of the CCD in question.

Frank B

Michael Long wrote:
....
Michael Long said:
The lens in the F707 is sized to fit the sensor in the F707. So
when that sensor is in the F707 under that lens there IS NO
MULTIPLICATION FACTOR.

If you could somehow grow the F707 lens so it would fit on a 35mm
camera, it would be a 38-190 eqv.

If you replaced the sensor in a D60 with the one from the F707,
then -- AND ONLY THEN -- would you have a 3.x multiplication
factor. It's not there, so you don't.

A "multiplication factor" is an attempt to describe what happens
when you put a small sensor under a lens that's designed for a
larger format (like film).

The F707 lens and sensor are designed for each other.

There IS NO MULTIPLICATION FACTOR!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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