Reading mode: Light Dark

Will you buy a NON-FOVEAN camera?

Go to last post
David Barkin said:
Hi Misha

You are actually discussing three separate topics.

1. Is the Foveon 3.5 MP chip as good or better then existing 6MP
bayer chips?

The answer, at least from my tests, is a resounding yes. Much
better, not even in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Please point me to your testing. Can you quantify how much better than 6MP cameras it is?

I have yet to see evidence that is so much better than 6MP cameras that it is not even in the same ballpark.

This res chart for instance, doesn't look so hot.
http://www.numeritest.com/Foveon/IMG04507.jpg
 
Back in Febuary, there was a similar hub-bub. Bayer was dead. They would be doorstops tomorrow, blah, blah, blah...

The fact is that when someone next needs a new camera, they will look at what is out there. With only 1 Foveon camera currently available, the vast majority of people will be purchasing Bayer cameras for some time to come yet.

If I buy another digicam this year 2002, it will certainly be Bayer as it will for 99+ % of people.

If I get one next year 2003, it will probably be Bayer.

If I get one the year 2004, there is a good chance it may be X3, but it is hard to say. it will depend on a variety of factors that go into making a good camera. The sensor is just one of them.

Peter
Matthew Cromer said:
I came into PhotoKina convinced that Foveon was a lot of hot air
and that what I wanted was the new 14MP Kodak or an 11MP Canon.

The stunning realism and fine color detail of the SD9 with good
lenses has just floored me. I don't know if I will pick up the SD9
or wait for a higher resolution Foveon camera, but I do know what
my Sony F707 is the last Bayer interpolation camera I will be
purchasing.
--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
 
Hahahaha... Hey there, Peter. :-)

No, that's not so hot, is it? But Phil and others have presented a number of reasons why they blew their test shots. Pretty entertaining stuff they had, though. :-)

While the SD9 may not "blow away" a 6MP camera, it does seem capable of holding its own in terms of producing quality images in at least Phil's samples. And that's the bottom line that really matters for many.

Heheheh... Poor chasseur guys. They look really look more tired than their samples. :-)
Peter Guidry said:
This res chart for instance, doesn't look so hot.
http://www.numeritest.com/Foveon/IMG04507.jpg
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
 
You'd probably better just stick to the the 2002 projections. I wouldn't want to bet one way or the other beyond the next three months. :-)

If anything, at least the Sigma/Foveon union shows that there are a lot of productive surprises ahead of us.

While the Sigma camera may be unproven for many of us, we don't want to swing the other way either and bet the farm AGAINST it. Not yet. ;-)
Peter Guidry said:
Back in Febuary, there was a similar hub-bub. Bayer was dead. They
would be doorstops tomorrow, blah, blah, blah...

The fact is that when someone next needs a new camera, they will
look at what is out there. With only 1 Foveon camera currently
available, the vast majority of people will be purchasing Bayer
cameras for some time to come yet.

If I buy another digicam this year 2002, it will certainly be Bayer
as it will for 99+ % of people.

If I get one next year 2003, it will probably be Bayer.

If I get one the year 2004, there is a good chance it may be X3,
but it is hard to say. it will depend on a variety of factors that
go into making a good camera. The sensor is just one of them.

Peter
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
 
Hey Ulysses,

No contention on that I think 3MP x3 and 6MP Bayer are in the same ballpark. But I see this heading futher and further into fairy land all the time.

We have people claiming SD9 is producing better than the 16MP Hasselblad. I am expecting the SD9 to perform Psychic Healing soon :-)

The technology great, but it will time to filter out into more refined cameras. I still predict that if I were to by a camera in 2003 it will still be Bayer.

Simple reason, being DSLRs are out of my price range. The only announced sensor for consumer cameras is 1.3MP. A little light in comparison to something like a 717. Particularly considering how well the 717 held up to the SD9.

Also consumer sized sensors are likely to have more fill factor issues with all those transistors and paths.

This is a coup for Sigma, otherwise, no one would have looked twice at their DSLR. For myself in SLRs, I like Canons lens system, and I bet they will be one of the last to go Foveon. :-)

Peter
Ulysses said:
No, that's not so hot, is it? But Phil and others have presented a
number of reasons why they blew their test shots. Pretty
entertaining stuff they had, though. :-)

While the SD9 may not "blow away" a 6MP camera, it does seem
capable of holding its own in terms of producing quality images in
at least Phil's samples. And that's the bottom line that really
matters for many.

Heheheh... Poor chasseur guys. They look really look more tired
than their samples. :-)
Peter Guidry said:
This res chart for instance, doesn't look so hot.
http://www.numeritest.com/Foveon/IMG04507.jpg
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Click to expand...
 
Peter Guidry said:
We have people claiming SD9 is producing better than the 16MP
Hasselblad. I am expecting the SD9 to perform Psychic Healing soon :-)
Click to expand...
Heheheheh... Yeah, well, you know how it is. :)
Peter G said:
Particularly considering how well the 717 held up to the SD9.
Click to expand...
Yes, it did do fairly well, didn't it? Amazing how that series of camera continues to surprise. I've always said it could do it, but they you get swamped with comments about being biased or not having a discriminating eye... blah-blah-blah. Whatever. :-)

But I would also agree with Phil's assessment that the Foveon sensor is producing images that look "different" than what we're accustomed to seeing from Bayer sensors. The Bayer sensors do just fine, particularly at their current level of development. Some, however, are looking for that "new look" to their images. Maybe that's part of the appeal of the Sigma/Foveon camera.
Peter G said:
Also consumer sized sensors are likely to have more fill factor
issues with all those transistors and paths.
Click to expand...
Remains to be seen. I have to wonder if they have a solution up their sleeves, or is it quite the same sensor.

--

Ulysses
 
Harry-NL said:
I dig the quality of the SD9, as i said earlier, but how about
other -important- things, like buffersize, shutter-lag, AF speed,
battery-drain, hi-iso pics(noise?).
Click to expand...
The best we can do at this point is assume some of this is going to be the same as the SA-9. I just read somewhere that it is a bit better then the Nikon N/F80. But I guess the real info will come out when Phil has the review completed.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Peter G said:
The fact is that when someone next needs a new camera, they will
look at what is out there. With only 1 Foveon camera currently
available, the vast majority of people will be purchasing Bayer
cameras for some time to come yet.
Click to expand...
True, but when you also consider price range and MP, there are only three DSLRs out there that offers 6mp at the $2000 price mark. So it isnt like this one Foveon chip has a tons of cameras to stand up against.

If I want a non-fixed lens DSLR that produces 6mp bayer image quality and for around $2,000, there are only 4 selections including the SD-9.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
David Barkin said:
1. Is the Foveon 3.5 MP chip as good or better then existing 6MP
bayer chips?

The answer, at least from my tests, is a resounding yes. Much
better, not even in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave,

Actually, I was saying the same as you on the issue of resolution,
and people told me I was wrong. So I went looking around, and
I found a good thread in rec.photo.digital, where I saw some
people I trust (for their opinions) saying that "no", the 6mp
Bayer camera probably will provide slightly better resolution,
depending on what the image is.

If you are curious about this, look on groups.google.com at
the "Foveon 3MP vs CMOS 6 & 12 MP " thread.

There, among other things, a guy named Roland Karlsson,
writes,

"The problem with Bayer is not the resolution but the
color fidelity, the interpolation errors and the noise,
e.g. blue skies are noisy".

=============

So it's not like I am disagreeing with you, except on the issue
of resolution. And really, the current Foveon chip really isn't even
that far behind a 6 mp Bayer sensor even there, on the issue
of resolution. Depending on the image.

So... resolution, no. Better pictures, yes. Unless resolution is
all one cares about, et cetera.
 
Jan: Are you saying that the print quality of the Sigma was better, as a general rule, than the 1Ds AND the 14n?

How many large prints were on display at each booth?

Thanks

Rick
Jan Heymeriks said:
I just arrived home from visiting the photokina, and I am very
impressed of the SD9 camera. The images that were shown, were
printed in A3 format and some even larger format. It looked as if
they were shot with an analogue camera. I also saw the kodak DCS
Pro 14n and the Canon 1Ds, but the pictures presented from those
camera's were quite disappointing compared to the sigma.
Until yesterday I wanted to buy the fuji S2, but now I decided to
wait.
Unfortunately this camera is expected in europe in december -
january 2003. Also there is only 1 flashlight that will be
developed for this camera, and that one will also be available at
the end of this year.

greetings from Cologne.
Click to expand...
 
Ulysses said:
I agree with you in principle. But at least on today's cameras as
they currently implement them, I'd enjoy the advantages of greater
control of DOF and other features even with a camera that has a
1.7x FOV crop from the 35mm lens.
Click to expand...
I agree. Limited DOF control is probably the single limitation that most bugs me about my D7i. I'm hoping that eventually the 4/3 standard will fix that: the sensor is big enough for better DOF control, and maybe someone will make a super-bright lens for it permitting even more. An f/1.2 would provide quite nice DOF even on a fairly small sensor...
Member said:
I'm not really a big fan of carrying the extra glass either. I'm
not sure that it's going to be pleasant having a bigger case to lug
around.

Maybe in time the industry will find ways of providing hardware
that more readily suits the digital capabilities, with lenses to
match the small sensor size. But for now.... :-)
Click to expand...
Yep, it's early days yet.

I'm guessing that full-frame 35mm will take over the medium- and large-format niches as well as much of the pro market, but smaller-chip cameras will be the choice of serious amateurs and photojournalists, possibly also nature photographers who need long lenses but aren't crazy about backpacking with a lot of weight. Unless, of course, snobbery about image quality kills off 4/3 before it gets off the ground.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
Hi Peter

I'll stand by my comments (which do not include comparing Foveon to medium format).

In the Open Talk forum I posted a topic called "A test for Foveon doubters."

It's a test that anyone can do as long as they own their own printer. Take the test and post back.

Dave
Peter Guidry said:
David Barkin said:
Hi Misha

You are actually discussing three separate topics.

1. Is the Foveon 3.5 MP chip as good or better then existing 6MP
bayer chips?

The answer, at least from my tests, is a resounding yes. Much
better, not even in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Please point me to your testing. Can you quantify how much better
than 6MP cameras it is?

I have yet to see evidence that is so much better than 6MP cameras
that it is not even in the same ballpark.

This res chart for instance, doesn't look so hot.
http://www.numeritest.com/Foveon/IMG04507.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Hi Tim

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the experts.

Question for you. Did you duplicate my test? The promenade image that Phil recently posted contains people that are not visible when looking at the full image. (extreme right center at the bottom of the river wall). My personal bayer shots have a similar situation.

Interpolating up both images was an eye opener. Take my test, all you need is a printer and a good sample from a bayer sensor.

Dave
tim martin said:
David Barkin said:
1. Is the Foveon 3.5 MP chip as good or better then existing 6MP
bayer chips?

The answer, at least from my tests, is a resounding yes. Much
better, not even in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave,

Actually, I was saying the same as you on the issue of resolution,
and people told me I was wrong. So I went looking around, and
I found a good thread in rec.photo.digital, where I saw some
people I trust (for their opinions) saying that "no", the 6mp
Bayer camera probably will provide slightly better resolution,
depending on what the image is.

If you are curious about this, look on groups.google.com at
the "Foveon 3MP vs CMOS 6 & 12 MP " thread.

There, among other things, a guy named Roland Karlsson,
writes,

"The problem with Bayer is not the resolution but the
color fidelity, the interpolation errors and the noise,
e.g. blue skies are noisy".

=============

So it's not like I am disagreeing with you, except on the issue
of resolution. And really, the current Foveon chip really isn't even
that far behind a 6 mp Bayer sensor even there, on the issue
of resolution. Depending on the image.

So... resolution, no. Better pictures, yes. Unless resolution is
all one cares about, et cetera.
Click to expand...
 
All your very subjective test reveals is that the per-pixel detail is higher with an X3 sensor. I thought this was well known.

By this logic you could find a 640x480 pixel Foveon sensor superior to a 11MP Canon 1Ds.

A reasonable test would be identical photos (like Phils martini shot) with the D60 and SD9. Resize both of them to some larger res (12MP). Then compare them/print them etc..

This I will try out of curiousity when Phil does his test. But not that important to me. Since I like the image quality of both cameras.

Peter
David Barkin said:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the experts.

Question for you. Did you duplicate my test? The promenade image
that Phil recently posted contains people that are not visible when
looking at the full image. (extreme right center at the bottom of
the river wall). My personal bayer shots have a similar situation.

Interpolating up both images was an eye opener. Take my test, all
you need is a printer and a good sample from a bayer sensor.

Dave
tim martin said:
David Barkin said:
1. Is the Foveon 3.5 MP chip as good or better then existing 6MP
bayer chips?

The answer, at least from my tests, is a resounding yes. Much
better, not even in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave,

Actually, I was saying the same as you on the issue of resolution,
and people told me I was wrong. So I went looking around, and
I found a good thread in rec.photo.digital, where I saw some
people I trust (for their opinions) saying that "no", the 6mp
Bayer camera probably will provide slightly better resolution,
depending on what the image is.

If you are curious about this, look on groups.google.com at
the "Foveon 3MP vs CMOS 6 & 12 MP " thread.

There, among other things, a guy named Roland Karlsson,
writes,

"The problem with Bayer is not the resolution but the
color fidelity, the interpolation errors and the noise,
e.g. blue skies are noisy".

=============

So it's not like I am disagreeing with you, except on the issue
of resolution. And really, the current Foveon chip really isn't even
that far behind a 6 mp Bayer sensor even there, on the issue
of resolution. Depending on the image.

So... resolution, no. Better pictures, yes. Unless resolution is
all one cares about, et cetera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Peter
Peter Guidry said:
All your very subjective test reveals is that the per-pixel detail
is higher with an X3 sensor. I thought this was well known.
Click to expand...
Your are of course absolutely right. It is a subjective text but only in a certain sense. The test is being conducted objectively. More over I am so confident about this test that I invite everyone else to take it. At that point it is no longer subjective. There is NOTHING that is loaded in this test. There are no unfair criteria. Like any REAL scientif experiment, the results must be able to be duplicated by others. So, I offer you the opportunity to duplicate the test and prove me wrong. Or, duplicate the test and prove me write.
Peter G said:
By this logic you could find a 640x480 pixel Foveon sensor superior
to a 11MP Canon 1Ds.
Click to expand...
Well you're scoring a debating point and equally so you're not being fair. I'm creating a fairly simple test.
Peter G said:
A reasonable test would be identical photos (like Phils martini
shot) with the D60 and SD9. Resize both of them to some larger res
(12MP). Then compare them/print them etc..
Click to expand...
So? I admit that the one you propose would be better. Even so... I am suggesting that the results from my test produce results that are so far apart as to cause me to use words like "astounding."

To prove me wrong merely take the test and post back something to the effect of "you have got to be kidding."
Peter G said:
This I will try out of curiousity when Phil does his test. But not
that important to me. Since I like the image quality of both
cameras.

Peter
Click to expand...
Dave
 
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