Reading mode: Light Dark

Hasselblad with Foveon?

Go to last post
 
**** Lyons (Foveon chief scientist) now admits that it did not work that well. It is burried about 3/4 through the video below:

http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/020227-ee380-100.asx

A major problem was that there are beam splitting glass prisms. The Lenses were all designed for a specific distance of AIR to the film/sensor. This optically severely limited the resolution.

From my work in projectors, I would assume that alignment of the 3 sensors to the Prisms was also a significant issue, particularly at the high resolutions this camera was suppose to produce. The Sensors have to be aligned 3-Dimensionally.

Like any "different" way of doing things. It had it pros and cons. For most of the market, this had a lot more cons than pros.

With their new X3 sensor concept, they also have some pros and cons. For most users, the cons will likely far outweigh the pros today (even ignoring the Sigma versus Nikon and Canon questions). We will have to see how they can improve the concept in the future.

Karl
Igor R. said:
Did anybody heard anything about it?
http://www.hasselblad.com/news/newsItem.asp?secId=312&itemId=249



Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Hi Karl,

How do you figure? What are the list of cons which will far outweigh the pros?
Karl Guttag said:
With their new X3 sensor concept, they also have some pros and
cons. For most users, the cons will likely far outweigh the pros
today (even ignoring the Sigma versus Nikon and Canon questions).
We will have to see how they can improve the concept in the future.

Karl
Click to expand...
 
Hay Phil, I'm honored you took the time to write.

I'm still waiting for a really good side by side with the relavent competitors like you always do.

Until then, it seems that Chasseur Images has the best pictures that I have seen that let us get some idea with the SD9/X3 over a range of ISOs.

I have posted some of the things I have noticed in the post below:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3560963

Big things I see as "Cons" in the SD9/X3 off the top of my head:

1. ISO limit and color "blind" in lower light/higher ISO. This is very obvious (as you well know) right on the data sheet. Every other DSLR goes to at least IS01000. Furthermore there is a lot of evidence that the X3 goes "color blind" in lower light and/or higher ISO. It also seems to "postarize" or "color patch (See the Fuji Green in my post above)

Most people buying this camera would want it for "general use" and the sensor gets pretty bad by ISO400. Not to good for shooting even kids playing sports in all but brightly lit conditions.

It also seems that the RAW translation software reduces resolution in lower light/higher ISO. My guess is that they don't get as good a sample per sensor color as say a D60 and thus in low light, they average together several pictures.

2. "Color Clamping." It seems that the X3 goes for a certain colors when in doubt. It really seems to like Yellow and will go to Yellow instead of Red at times.

3. Some form of problem with "sensor blooming." This shows up in a number of shots (see my post above). They seem to get a purple halo.

4. Some kind of Radial color distortion. These are being passed off by some as Chroma aberation but I don't believe almost any lens that is not broken would be as bad as what I have seen. Also the colors seem very "pure and sharp" for a chroma aberation where normally chroma aberations are muddy and blurry (since they are caused by the colors being out of focus). My guess is that it has something to do with the way light hits the sensors at steeper angles (there are several potential optical and sensing problems). Take a look at the Chasseur Text Pattern image. It has more color rainbowing problems than any Bayer camera in this class (the class being the 6MP Bayser such as the D60/D100/S2).

Overall, it MIGHT fill a niche for still lifes where it is kept at ISO100. Even then I wonder about how it will do with a mix of light and shadows. I think most people will be looking for a more flexible use camera in the $1,800 for a body with out a lens DSLR. The people that are serious about high resolution still will probably opt for the full frame sensors with more Bayer megapixels. The people that want a general use camera will want one that works well at ISO400 and acceptably at ISO800.

Foveon is the new comer making big claims, many of these claims seem to be out in the future however. From what I have seen it has some advantages, but it also has a number of problems. Even if it was offered in the same body (removing the camera mount issue) as say a Bayer sensor, I don't think it would win today except with people that like the concept more than the results.

The X3 shows "promise" but it is not yet seriously competitive in terms of overall quality in a range of uses from what I have seen.

Karl
Phil Askey said:
How do you figure? What are the list of cons which will far
outweigh the pros?
Karl Guttag said:
With their new X3 sensor concept, they also have some pros and
cons. For most users, the cons will likely far outweigh the pros
today (even ignoring the Sigma versus Nikon and Canon questions).
We will have to see how they can improve the concept in the future.

Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Karl Guttag said:
Hay Phil, I'm honored you took the time to write.

I'm still waiting for a really good side by side with the relavent
competitors like you always do.

Until then, it seems that Chasseur Images has the best pictures
that I have seen that let us get some idea with the SD9/X3 over a
range of ISOs.

I have posted some of the things I have noticed in the post below:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3560963

Big things I see as "Cons" in the SD9/X3 off the top of my head:

1. ISO limit and color "blind" in lower light/higher ISO. This is
very obvious (as you well know) right on the data sheet. Every
other DSLR goes to at least IS01000. Furthermore there is a lot
of evidence that the X3 goes "color blind" in lower light and/or
higher ISO. It also seems to "postarize" or "color patch (See the
Fuji Green in my post above)

Most people buying this camera would want it for "general use" and
the sensor gets pretty bad by ISO400. Not to good for shooting
even kids playing sports in all but brightly lit conditions.

It also seems that the RAW translation software reduces resolution
in lower light/higher ISO. My guess is that they don't get as
good a sample per sensor color as say a D60 and thus in low light,
they average together several pictures.

2. "Color Clamping." It seems that the X3 goes for a certain
colors when in doubt. It really seems to like Yellow and will go
to Yellow instead of Red at times.

3. Some form of problem with "sensor blooming." This shows up in
a number of shots (see my post above). They seem to get a purple
halo.

4. Some kind of Radial color distortion. These are being passed
off by some as Chroma aberation but I don't believe almost any lens
that is not broken would be as bad as what I have seen. Also the
colors seem very "pure and sharp" for a chroma aberation where
normally chroma aberations are muddy and blurry (since they are
caused by the colors being out of focus). My guess is that it has
something to do with the way light hits the sensors at steeper
angles (there are several potential optical and sensing problems).
Take a look at the Chasseur Text Pattern image. It has more color
rainbowing problems than any Bayer camera in this class (the class
being the 6MP Bayser such as the D60/D100/S2).

Overall, it MIGHT fill a niche for still lifes where it is kept at
ISO100. Even then I wonder about how it will do with a mix of
light and shadows. I think most people will be looking for a more
flexible use camera in the $1,800 for a body with out a lens DSLR.
The people that are serious about high resolution still will
probably opt for the full frame sensors with more Bayer megapixels.
The people that want a general use camera will want one that works
well at ISO400 and acceptably at ISO800.

Foveon is the new comer making big claims, many of these claims
seem to be out in the future however. From what I have seen it
has some advantages, but it also has a number of problems. Even
if it was offered in the same body (removing the camera mount
issue) as say a Bayer sensor, I don't think it would win today
except with people that like the concept more than the results.

The X3 shows "promise" but it is not yet seriously competitive in
terms of overall quality in a range of uses from what I have seen.

Karl
Click to expand...
Well Karl, I am not sure if Phil has all the answers to your observations at this time but I am sure he will address all of your issues when he does his release on the camera.

I'm sure you will disagree with his opinions when he does a final review also.

I'm not sure anything that anyone says would be OK with you.

I would like to see Phil answer all your observations at this time and I for one don't add much weight to your opinions with the little that is known
at this time about the camera. Like I said before: WAIT FOR THE REVIEW!
Karl Guttag said:
Phil Askey said:
How do you figure? What are the list of cons which will far
outweigh the pros?
Karl Guttag said:
With their new X3 sensor concept, they also have some pros and
cons. For most users, the cons will likely far outweigh the pros
today (even ignoring the Sigma versus Nikon and Canon questions).
We will have to see how they can improve the concept in the future.

Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Gavin
Canon Pro90IS, B-300 Canon Pro 70
 
I'll try to answer your points but obviously can't speak with any authority until my review is published.

1. I agree that the ISO 400 limit could be seen as a con, however I don't think that noise is all that bad (for a first gen sensor). Not until we see the final production unit can we say either way how noise will be.

2. Not sure I've seen this but I'll note it as a query.

3. I think this is chromatic aberration from the lens, the sensor's pure colour resolution means that chromatics will be recorded more faithfully.

4. Again, no idea that I've seen this for sure. A lot of this could be lens issues.

I'd say we have to be very careful at this stage. At Photokina there were several versions of camera tested in difficult conditions. All cameras and sensors were pre-production.

I've noted your concerns and will try to address as many as I can in the review.
Karl Guttag said:
1. ISO limit and color "blind" in lower light/higher ISO. This is
very obvious (as you well know) right on the data sheet. Every
other DSLR goes to at least IS01000. Furthermore there is a lot
of evidence that the X3 goes "color blind" in lower light and/or
higher ISO. It also seems to "postarize" or "color patch (See the
Fuji Green in my post above)

Most people buying this camera would want it for "general use" and
the sensor gets pretty bad by ISO400. Not to good for shooting
even kids playing sports in all but brightly lit conditions.

It also seems that the RAW translation software reduces resolution
in lower light/higher ISO. My guess is that they don't get as
good a sample per sensor color as say a D60 and thus in low light,
they average together several pictures.

2. "Color Clamping." It seems that the X3 goes for a certain
colors when in doubt. It really seems to like Yellow and will go
to Yellow instead of Red at times.

3. Some form of problem with "sensor blooming." This shows up in
a number of shots (see my post above). They seem to get a purple
halo.

4. Some kind of Radial color distortion. These are being passed
off by some as Chroma aberation but I don't believe almost any lens
that is not broken would be as bad as what I have seen. Also the
colors seem very "pure and sharp" for a chroma aberation where
normally chroma aberations are muddy and blurry (since they are
caused by the colors being out of focus). My guess is that it has
something to do with the way light hits the sensors at steeper
angles (there are several potential optical and sensing problems).
Take a look at the Chasseur Text Pattern image. It has more color
rainbowing problems than any Bayer camera in this class (the class
being the 6MP Bayser such as the D60/D100/S2).

Overall, it MIGHT fill a niche for still lifes where it is kept at
ISO100. Even then I wonder about how it will do with a mix of
light and shadows. I think most people will be looking for a more
flexible use camera in the $1,800 for a body with out a lens DSLR.
The people that are serious about high resolution still will
probably opt for the full frame sensors with more Bayer megapixels.
The people that want a general use camera will want one that works
well at ISO400 and acceptably at ISO800.

Foveon is the new comer making big claims, many of these claims
seem to be out in the future however. From what I have seen it
has some advantages, but it also has a number of problems. Even
if it was offered in the same body (removing the camera mount
issue) as say a Bayer sensor, I don't think it would win today
except with people that like the concept more than the results.

The X3 shows "promise" but it is not yet seriously competitive in
terms of overall quality in a range of uses from what I have seen.

Karl
Phil Askey said:
How do you figure? What are the list of cons which will far
outweigh the pros?
Karl Guttag said:
With their new X3 sensor concept, they also have some pros and
cons. For most users, the cons will likely far outweigh the pros
today (even ignoring the Sigma versus Nikon and Canon questions).
We will have to see how they can improve the concept in the future.

Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
 
Phil Askey said:
I'll try to answer your points but obviously can't speak with any
authority until my review is published.

1. I agree that the ISO 400 limit could be seen as a con, however I
don't think that noise is all that bad (for a first gen sensor).
Not until we see the final production unit can we say either way
how noise will be.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that the RAW converter is doing some kind of "smoothing." The net result is that some colors get muted (like the Kodak in the example I posted), the resolution goes down/image gets softer, and there is a "posterization" of colors (like the green in the Fuji box). With software noise, versus resolution and color saturation is tradeable.
Member said:
2. Not sure I've seen this but I'll note it as a query.
Click to expand...
The sensor seems biased toware pure yellow. This seems to happen at both the bright and dark end. It is like it has a hard time seeing blue.
Member said:
3. I think this is chromatic aberration from the lens, the sensor's
pure colour resolution means that chromatics will be recorded more
faithfully.
Click to expand...
It is much more a "blooming" issue and it not radially related. Also note that it GOES AWAY at ISO400 when it is there at ISO100. I don't know how the lens would know that they changed ISO.
Member said:
4. Again, no idea that I've seen this for sure. A lot of this
could be lens issues.
Click to expand...
PLEASE try and prove this one way or the other. Get the sharpest prime that Sigma has and shoot at F8 (You might want to compare to a cheap lens that has some known aberations). You might also try shooting at a wide aperture and see if it changes (there may be issues related to the angle of the light). It is possible that it some form of Vignetting due to the structure of the sensor and the angle of the light and they may be correcting for it and/or over correcting for it.

My point is that I would not simply write it off as the lens problem unless you know that it what it is. Otherwise, you could end up turning a problem into a "feature." The Chasseur Images resolution chart has as much or more rainbowing in it as any Bayer would do (but in different places).

Karl
 
Gavin McKinlay said:
Well Karl, I am not sure if Phil has all the answers to your
observations at this time but I am sure he will address all of your
issues when he does his release on the camera.
Click to expand...
I don't think Phil has the answers yet (or he is not telling us that he has the SD9 now).
Gavin McKinlay38537 said:
I'm sure you will disagree with his opinions when he does a final
review also.
Click to expand...
I generally find Phil to be objective in his reviews. Much of it will come down to side by side comparisons, something I would welcome seeing.

I may or may not disagree with his "opinions" but I don't think Phil would rig the tests to favor one camera over the other.
Gavin McKinlay38537 said:
I'm not sure anything that anyone says would be OK with you.
Click to expand...
No, that is because you do not seem to want to know anything that would confict with the X3 being the second coming of digital photography. There is a lot of what Foveon has said that does not add up. If you want to belive the hype of a company that is over stating what they can do, that is up to you.

Right now there are a lot of indications that the X3 will have some problems. I believe that these will be confirmed in a fair side by side comparision over a range of conditions.
Gavin McKinlay38537 said:
I would like to see Phil answer all your observations at this time
and I for one don't add much weight to your opinions with the
little that is known
at this time about the camera. Like I said before: WAIT FOR THE
REVIEW!
Click to expand...
You seem all to willing to believe what Foveon has claimed.

There are enough pictures out there, particularly the Chasseur image ones that give some idea of what is going on with the X3.

The one thing I would agree with is that a side by side comparison is probably the best way to settle this.
 
Karl, if you've been reading my reviews you should know that I wouldn't "just write it off" until I've fully tested all the iterations.
Karl Guttag said:
My point is that I would not simply write it off as the lens
problem unless you know that it what it is. Otherwise, you could
end up turning a problem into a "feature." The Chasseur Images
resolution chart has as much or more rainbowing in it as any Bayer
would do (but in different places).

Karl
Click to expand...
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
 
Karl Guttag said:
Most people buying this camera would want it for "general use" and
the sensor gets pretty bad by ISO400. Not to good for shooting
even kids playing sports in all but brightly lit conditions.
Click to expand...
and:
Karl Guttag said:
Overall, it MIGHT fill a niche for still lifes where it is kept at
ISO100.
Click to expand...
Oh please! Those are gross exaggerations about ISO requirements. I use an Olympus E-10 which only has 3 ISO settings, 80, 160 and 320. Most E-xx users rarely use anything other than 80 (myself included) because the noise is so bad at 160 and 320. I find ISO 80 to be perfectly fine for "general use" in many different conditions (follow the link in my sig for examples). When I used to shoot 35mm I rarely used 400 film and certainly never anything higher. The ISO range of the SD9 would be just fine for me (certainly not a con).

We're not all photojournos or sport photographers you know!

Michael.
--
http://www.luacheia.com/photos/
 
Michael Brown said:
Karl Guttag said:
Most people buying this camera would want it for "general use" and
the sensor gets pretty bad by ISO400. Not to good for shooting
even kids playing sports in all but brightly lit conditions.
Click to expand...
and:
Michael Brown said:
Overall, it MIGHT fill a niche for still lifes where it is kept at
ISO100.
Click to expand...
Oh please! Those are gross exaggerations about ISO requirements.
I use an Olympus E-10 which only has 3 ISO settings, 80, 160 and
320. Most E-xx users rarely use anything other than 80 (myself
included) because the noise is so bad at 160 and 320.
Click to expand...
This seems to agree with my point that having good performance at higher ISO's is important. You don't go there on an E-10 because it is bad, not because there is not a need.
Michael Brown said:
I find ISO
80 to be perfectly fine for "general use" in many different
conditions (follow the link in my sig for examples). When I used
to shoot 35mm I rarely used 400 film and certainly never anything
higher. The ISO range of the SD9 would be just fine for me
(certainly not a con).
Click to expand...
That fine for you, but based on what the stores have on the shelves, most amatuers seem to use ISO400 to ISO800 Film (I think the Kodak MAX is basically and ISO800). I think most people would be looking for this as a general purpose camera.
Michael Brown said:
We're not all photojournos or sport photographers you know!
Click to expand...
Nore I'm I. I do shoot a lot of my kids sports. Shooting baseball and soccer I use a long zoom (my favorite lens for these is a 100-400L-IS). A long zoom in an SLR lens is going to put you at F5.6. On an overcast day, that puts you at about 1/500th at ISO400, and on a very cloudy afternoon I have to go to ISO800. That would be 1/250th at ISO200 and 1/125th at ISO100. Kids running around a field would be a blur at 1/125th. At 1/500th you still will get some blur of hands and other fast moving objects.

Then we have indoor use with flash. If you want to reduce the harshness of flash, you want to go to a higher ISO (and wider aperature and lower shutter speed) to get more of the available light.

I have been using a D30 for 2 years now (give or take a few days). And I make trade-offs between the situation and the ISO I choose.

As I said, in the old days of film (OK, I guess some people still use that stuff) you could change the film speed, but with a Digital SLR you are locked-in (at least so far nobody is offering ways to upgrade).

If anything it is the AMATUERs that need the higher ISO's. They are the ones shooting with zooms rather than very expensive primes (try buying a 400F2.8). They are the ones that don't have great lighting systems (they are lucky to have ONE external flash rather than a bank of studio lights). They are the ones that can't hold the camera as steady, don't tend to use a tripod, and can't afford image stabalized lenses.

I think you will find that the people buying the low speed films (ISO100 and below) are more pro's and very advanced amatuers.

--
Karl
 
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