Reading mode: Light Dark

New SD9 Images at Chasseur d'Images ?

Go to last post
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed?
Click to expand...
I can see another endless debate coming up: given this ISO res chart, what resolution(s) do you assign to the SD-9?

The first aliasing problems (where you cannot be sure if there are 9 lines or 8) show up at about 1200 LPPH. This continues for a while to about 1400 LPPH when it starts getting better again. It starts getting worse again at 1600, but then does not degrade to total grey like with a Bayer sensor (you can still see some grey/black at 2000.)

This is a totally different resolution profile than we've seen before. How are you going to try and describe it with just two numbers (absolute resolution and extinction resolution?) I guess you could say 1600* where the * means "some aliasing is visible" (just like "some moire is visible"). If extinction = total grey, then it would have to be > 2000.

A second endless debate will be if the SD-9's resolution profile is more suited to real-world subjects than mosic sensor profiles.

--
Erik
 
Personally it looks clear cut to me.

Absolute resolution is where it is still reslolving all of the lines, which is/will be around 1500 (Nyquist), which is pretty close to what this shows.

Extinction resolution (dubious) is still seeing something? I consider this value of little use, at this point it is alaising information and not detail. But I suspect Phil will call this 2000 if he uses his current critera.

I expect Phil will take a few shots and be better aligned on the chart markers as well as pixel alignment. When getting to the point of individual pixels measuring lines, pixel aligment will aslo be a factor. So I expect a somewhat better chart in Phils eventual review. But not by much.

Then again others may claim absolute goes to 2000. I would certainly disagree and I guess that would be a debate. :-)
Erik Magnuson said:
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed?
Click to expand...
I can see another endless debate coming up: given this ISO res
chart, what resolution(s) do you assign to the SD-9?

The first aliasing problems (where you cannot be sure if there are
9 lines or 8) show up at about 1200 LPPH. This continues for a
while to about 1400 LPPH when it starts getting better again. It
starts getting worse again at 1600, but then does not degrade to
total grey like with a Bayer sensor (you can still see some
grey/black at 2000.)

This is a totally different resolution profile than we've seen
before. How are you going to try and describe it with just two
numbers (absolute resolution and extinction resolution?) I guess
you could say 1600* where the * means "some aliasing is visible"
(just like "some moire is visible"). If extinction = total grey,
then it would have to be > 2000.

A second endless debate will be if the SD-9's resolution profile is
more suited to real-world subjects than mosic sensor profiles.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:
First some crops from the Fruit and Film Box picture.

Taken at ISO100 50F5.6 (don’t know the lens)
Now taken at ISO400 50F5.6
Click to expand...
Did you also notice the ISO 100 shot seems to be much more shape
then the ISO 400 shot? I wonder if the RAW sw setting were
different then they converted to JPEG.

My assumption here is when those photos are taken, everything other
then ISO should be exactly the same, then why the 100 came out more
sharp then the 400?

--
jc
Click to expand...
There is a hazy look to the 400ISO shots and the colors seem less saturated. This could be due to the RAW converter treatment as well. Phil's several versions of his shots indicate some different treatment for higher ISOs was benefitial. Using the auto default settings with the RAW converter could result in what we are seeing. Sort of reminds me of Ektachrome 400 when it first came out and was compared to Ektachrome 64. Color bleed was a problem then, too.
--
Bob Ross
 
Ross said:
There is a hazy look to the 400ISO shots and the colors seem less
saturated. This could be due to the RAW converter treatment as
well. Phil's several versions of his shots indicate some different
treatment for higher ISOs was benefitial.
Click to expand...
And that was part of my suspicion. But since we dont have the necessary info, all we can say at this point is whatever they did, the result of the ISO 400 shot is of a lower quality then the ISO 100 shot. Chip or sw? There is not enough data to come to a conclusion.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Hello,

I am getting tired of your nonsense! Pull yourself together.

He predicted the resolution, and you, as a scientist should have noticed and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Geir Ove
Karl Guttag said:
Karl
Geir Ove said:
See:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3508605

Geir Ove
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed? Two sets at 100, 200, 400 ISO .

http://www.numeritest.com/Sigma-SD9.htm

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
 
Erik Magnuson said:
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed?
Click to expand...
I can see another endless debate coming up: given this ISO res
chart, what resolution(s) do you assign to the SD-9?

The first aliasing problems (where you cannot be sure if there are
9 lines or 8) show up at about 1200 LPPH. This continues for a
while to about 1400 LPPH when it starts getting better again. It
starts getting worse again at 1600, but then does not degrade to
total grey like with a Bayer sensor (you can still see some
grey/black at 2000.)

This is a totally different resolution profile than we've seen
before. How are you going to try and describe it with just two
numbers (absolute resolution and extinction resolution?) I guess
you could say 1600* where the * means "some aliasing is visible"
(just like "some moire is visible"). If extinction = total grey,
then it would have to be > 2000.

A second endless debate will be if the SD-9's resolution profile is
more suited to real-world subjects than mosic sensor profiles.

--
Click to expand...
There will be much debate about resolution charts and how meaningless they can be. Overall, I find the difference between colours between 100 and 400 ASA strange. But having downloaded the images and compared them to examples from other much more expensive DSLRs, and the amount of detail resolved at 100 ASA is astonishing compared to most of those Nikon/Canon samples so far posted.

Laurie Caddell
 
Thanks for posting the link. I haven't seen these photos before, and I'm glad to get any that I can. There's a certain undefinable quality to the Sigma that I can't quite put into words that isn't present in any of the other brands of cameras using the common CCD. As far as my personal opinion of the photos, I think a) the photos are very good, b) some of the color aberration is coming from my computers inability to separate line pairs (diffraction patterns), c) test photos should never be taken over bodies of water (bodies of water generally produce refraction problems due to air temperature fluctuations). Overall, I say it's a winner, but I'm still waiting for Phils tests. My major problem is getting totally tied into Sigma equipment.
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed? Two sets at 100, 200, 400 ISO .

http://www.numeritest.com/Sigma-SD9.htm

Richard
Click to expand...
 
Geir Ove said:
Hello,

I am getting tired of your nonsense! Pull yourself together.

He predicted the resolution, and you, as a scientist should have
noticed and stop acting like a spoiled child.
Click to expand...
Amen, Ove!
Geir Ove said:
Geir Ove
Karl Guttag said:
Karl
Geir Ove said:
See:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3508605

Geir Ove
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed? Two sets at 100, 200, 400 ISO .

http://www.numeritest.com/Sigma-SD9.htm

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Gavin
Canon Pro90IS, B-300 Canon Pro 70
 
Peter G said:
Actually it's because other cameras are X1 not X3. They are still 3MP.
Click to expand...
Peter, you are right! The colors we always got, X1 constructed, X3 measured makes some difference. The X3 may have up to 2 times higher captured detail than X1. But I'll wait for another body with X3 sensor...

Jack.
Peter G said:
Igor R. said:
Peter G said:
It looks a lot better than the last one, and much better than any
other 3MP camera.
Click to expand...
Thats cuz other 3MP camera is not really 3MP!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Geir Ove said:
Hello,

I am getting tired of your nonsense! Pull yourself together.

He predicted the resolution, and you, as a scientist should have
noticed and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Geir Ove
Click to expand...
You made the claim that these pictures "proved" something without anything to back it up.

You seem to think that only PRO Foveon information is valid and you want to silence anything that does not agree with your opinion.

Michael's simulation proved what everyone already knew, that IF the samples were equally good, then an X3 would be better than a Bayer. That seems to be proving the obvious.

There are serious questions is that have yet to be answered. One is whether the each X3 sample is as good/noise free as the Bayer samples. The evidence so far from ISO400 test is that the X3 samples are not as good at least with less light. Some colors like the Yellow stay well, but other colors like the red in the Kodak on the boxes faded badly.

Then we have the question of how well the SD9 will stack up against its main competition, the D60/D100/S2 which have 6MP Bayers and ISO's that go to 1000.

Pesonally, I shoot a lot of kids sports activities and would not even consider the current X3 sensor as an "upgrade" to a D30, no less a D60 due to its higher ISO performance. I routinely shoot at ISO400 and even ISO800 on cloudy days to keep the shutter speed at about 1/500th of a second. I almost never use less than ISO200 when shooting anything involving much movement. I will then turn around and use my camera at ISO100 on a tripod to make a large panorama. In otherwords, my camera use is "general purpose" like most amatuers.

With a digital camera, you can't change the "film." The SD9 seems to do well at ISO100 (with some quirks), but falls off pretty fast even at ISO200 and really seems to have color saturation problems at ISO400. Ignoring any other issues, this makes the X3 limiting as it stands today.

Karl
Geir Ove said:
Karl Guttag said:
Karl
Geir Ove said:
See:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3508605

Geir Ove
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed? Two sets at 100, 200, 400 ISO .

http://www.numeritest.com/Sigma-SD9.htm

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Every time I hear you describe the Foveon images, and I go there and look for myself, it boggles my mind. To me all of these latest Foveon images at every speed look great, and so much sharper and more detailed than Bayer images that I want to lick my lips. How you come up with your incessant criticisms of the images is simply beyond me -- they just look THAT MUCH better to my eyes than the blurry, faux-color detail of Bayer sensors.

BTW why are you even hanging around in this forum? You obviously have no interest in buying or using a Sigma SLR.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
 
I'm a fence straddler and thus am watching the Sigma SD9 with interest. Not committed to any DSLR yet and at times even question if now is the rihgt time or not...

but point of this is simply to say I can now see why Nikon and Fuji did NOT release samples prior to the production models being released. Everything seen thus far to date is from pre production SD9's and under mostly uncontrolled conditions. The SD9 also captures only RAW images and another variable in this is how the software is being used ( perhaps there are differences in settings for ISO 100 versus 400, who knows ).

Just my observation and opinion that it seems a lot of debate going on comparing a pre production camera and beta software to other cameras which are in production. I appreciate the insights and observations but truly the debate should wait until a production unit is tested and controlled reviews written.

And we should be thankful that Sigma allowed the pre production images to be posted. Neihter Nikon nor Fuji were as willing to do so :)
 
You dont sound like you have ever really seen an iso400 d60 shot. At least you have never looked at it with honest criticism.

My advise to you is to check Steve's iso series samples with the m&m's toy: you will find the web site under links here...

My brief observations after checking those photos: The D60's iso400 noise appears to be much higher - but it could be just the extra interpolation.

But what's WAY more noticable: D60 looses saturation in all color channels badly (green, red, blue) and the photo looks washed out simply.

To my eyes the SD9 iso400 photos are AT LEAST as good as D60, and higher iso color saturation is even much better (no wonder - it has more photosites).
Karl Guttag said:
richard peters said:
Have these images been discussed? Two sets at 100, 200, 400 ISO .

http://www.numeritest.com/Sigma-SD9.htm

Richard
Click to expand...
Nice Find.

A few observations:

First some crops from the Fruit and Film Box picture.

Taken at ISO100 50F5.6 (don’t know the lens)

http://www.fototime.com/ {2373E0C8-BE1F-457D-8F51-3EA0FB22CB55} picture.JPG

Now taken at ISO400 50F5.6

http://www.fototime.com/ {10069C16-1D10-4998-B927-24067611C569} picture.JPG

Look at the “Kodak” in “Kodak Professional,” on the lower right the
Red is fading away. If you can on your monitor scroll so you can
see the ISO100 and ISO400 "Kodaks" at the same time. Then look at
the Green in the Fuji box, it has “posterized” or gone blotchy (as
has been seen in other SD9 pictures). Also look at the white
lettering in the Kodak box such as the words “ultra color” you will
see the Red bleeding into the white where it did not in the ISO100
shot.

Now for the Messe building shot:

At ISO 100 and 70F5.6:

Look at the purple blow out in the left side of the window and the
right side of the white window frame (it might help to use
DPREVIEW's 200% option).

http://www.fototime.com/ {B98699DF-21AE-4C27-B8AA-639282F23CC0} picture.JPG

Now for the same shot at ISO400:

http://www.fototime.com/ {FF5ACE74-B56C-41D2-8193-80547533DE2A} picture.JPG

The purple “blowout” from the ISO100 is gone! But now the bricks
to the left of the window have a green pattern and purple pattern
in them.

I will agree that it is still too early to call for sure, but at
least these pictures seem to be much better than the IR ones for
making some observations -- It would be nice if they had taken the
exact same shots with a D60 for comparison.

Oh yeah, how about them colors in the SD9's B&W test patterns? Ok
cheap shot, but there is something strange going on. Folks, it is
not chroma aberrations but something going on with the sensor or
the software (see also the Messe ISO100 picture above).

Karl

--
Karl
Click to expand...
--
Best wishes,
Zoli
 
Apparently Karl is a Sigma or Foveon basher. He has some hidden agenda, some axe to grind.
You are right his only goal is to sow FUD at every opportunity.
His trollish behavior has really become rather boring.
So what is your problem Karl?
Someone at Foveon or Sigma you just don't like?
Some private grudge?
Why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
Matthew Cromer said:
Every time I hear you describe the Foveon images, and I go there
and look for myself, it boggles my mind. To me all of these latest
Foveon images at every speed look great, and so much sharper and
more detailed than Bayer images that I want to lick my lips. How
you come up with your incessant criticisms of the images is simply
beyond me -- they just look THAT MUCH better to my eyes than the
blurry, faux-color detail of Bayer sensors.

BTW why are you even hanging around in this forum? You obviously
have no interest in buying or using a Sigma SLR.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
 
Karl Guttag said:
Look at the “Kodak” in “Kodak Professional,” on the lower right the
Red is fading away. If you can on your monitor scroll so you can
see the ISO100 and ISO400 "Kodaks" at the same time. Then look at
the Green in the Fuji box, it has “posterized” or gone blotchy (as
has been seen in other SD9 pictures). Also look at the white
lettering in the Kodak box such as the words “ultra color” you will
see the Red bleeding into the white where it did not in the ISO100
shot.
Click to expand...
You need to remember that you're at the limit of the camera's sensitivity here. Most cameras are having much, much worse problems than this at their max sensitivity levels.

Of course, the real issue is that the max is only ISO 400, but this is not news.
Karl Guttag said:
Now for the Messe building shot:

At ISO 100 and 70F5.6:

Look at the purple blow out in the left side of the window and the
right side of the white window frame (it might help to use
DPREVIEW's 200% option).
Click to expand...
They seem to be having some problems with blooming here. This is a milder version of what happened with that racecar shot earlier.

The white window frame is severely overexposed and it appears that some electrons have spilled out into surrounding photocells. It's not an issue at higher ISO b/c the sensor was getting only a fraction of the light and the signal was amplified off chip.

I've seen a few cases of blooming with my D30, but it is usually under much more severe conditions than this - typically sunlight directly hitting a specular surface like water, not a lambertian one like a white window frame.

It's plausible that the X3 will be less resistant to blooming than a Bayer pattern sensor since in a Bayer pattern sensor, each photodiode has extra unused substrate for the wavelengths that are blocked by the filter. This can probably absorb extra charge.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the final camera. It's possible that they should have set the min. ISO to 125 isntead of 100.
Karl Guttag said:
Oh yeah, how about them colors in the SD9's B&W test patterns? Ok
cheap shot, but there is something strange going on. Folks, it is
not chroma aberrations but something going on with the sensor or
the software (see also the Messe ISO100 picture above).
Click to expand...
This is precisely the sort of CA I'd expect from a zoom. I'd only get concerned if they tell us that they took that shot with a prime lens.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
And this camera has been under more scrutiny than any other with the possible exception of the D7. But I guess tht is to be expected. In actuality, I think it has held up extremely well for the first generation of a new technology. Just wait til 2nd and 3rd generation are out. Medium format is dead!
JDavis37 said:
I'm a fence straddler and thus am watching the Sigma SD9 with
interest. Not committed to any DSLR yet and at times even question
if now is the rihgt time or not...

but point of this is simply to say I can now see why Nikon and Fuji
did NOT release samples prior to the production models being
released. Everything seen thus far to date is from pre production
SD9's and under mostly uncontrolled conditions. The SD9 also
captures only RAW images and another variable in this is how the
software is being used ( perhaps there are differences in settings
for ISO 100 versus 400, who knows ).

Just my observation and opinion that it seems a lot of debate going
on comparing a pre production camera and beta software to other
cameras which are in production. I appreciate the insights and
observations but truly the debate should wait until a production
unit is tested and controlled reviews written.

And we should be thankful that Sigma allowed the pre production
images to be posted. Neihter Nikon nor Fuji were as willing to do
so :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ringwraith69
I bought a NOS SD9 (and SA7)
2
Replies
24
Views
321
Ringwraith69
Ringwraith69
Ceistinne
  • Question Question
Sigma SD9 Sensor ?
Replies
2
Views
3
xpatUSA
xpatUSA
mfinley
For Safari experiences the 100-400mm?
Replies
10
Views
228
TRAVELER_750
T
wastedimages
Anyone else going or been to the OM open days in the UK?
Replies
11
Views
301
wastedimages
wastedimages
I
Opinions Requested on 2 Lenses Focus Blind Test
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
IDontSpeakMonkey
I

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