Reading mode: Light Dark

Three new SD9 pics - all for now

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phil Askey
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
I think that what counts as a nation in sport varies a lot

e.g. in rugby union each of the home countries has its own IRB recognised team but in rugby league (a very different sport) the team is called Great Britain.

But just to confuse things, rugby union also has the British & Irish lions made up of UK countries (incl N Ireland) + the Republic of Ireland. And the Ireland rugby team is an all ireland team not Republic only. And there appears to be no Norther Ireland team (although there is a provincial team called Ulster...).

In athletics there is a Great Britain team, in football all the (geographic) british isles countries have separate international teams (including Northern Ireland).

In cricket there is only England (but anyone can play including Australians and South Africans, Zimbabweans and West Indians) after meeting residency rules. It's all very ad hoc and confusing.

As for the dust...who knows!
Jeff Pitman said:
exactly what England is. I know it is part of the country
represented in the United Nations as the United Kingdom (or Great
Britain) which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. So why does England have its own World Cup team and
Olympic athletes. Is England like New York and Scotland like New
Jersey (God forbid) - they don't have their own World Cup teams.
Why if you call someone from Scotland "British" there is a good
chance you'll end up on your kiester? Why is it that "Braveheart"
was so long if nothing was really accomplished? Is it true that
the new world was actually started because everybody flunked
geography and had to leave? But most importantly, why does there
appear to be so much dust on the SD9 sensor when it is the only
digital camera to use a dust protector?
Click to expand...
 
Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:
It's the second question that is more troublesome (this is a review
site after all.) Viewed on their own the photos are good. But so
far side-by-side, it's not quite measuring up.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
How so? There is more to a pleasing photograph than absolute
resolution at the single pixel level, that is if image making is
why you're involved with photography. I find this new technology to
be quite compelling and at this price point especially sweet.
Click to expand...
Composition and lighting are the two most important aspects, but we are considering technology here, so looking at the pixels is valid.

I have done side by side compares of the images and I agree with Erik, the SD9 conveys no objective advantage and several significant disadvantages; blooming, poor colour rendition, terrible low light performance.

One thing that it does do, that everyone is ga-ga over, is render more detail per pixel. That advantage is only significant if the competing products are limited from making up for the difference with more pixels. Which is not the case.

The camera gets a tremendous psychological edge because when looking at 100% size image, it looks better than everything that has preceded it. I don't know how this takes anyone by surprise, it is pretty much expected.

But once the resolutions are equalized the "magic" dissapears. In an apples to apples comparison, there is only one advantage: Better moire resistance, balanced against the deficits, that is a pretty tiny advantage.

Peter
 
My turn to return the caution favor Michael lol You mean taking a nice looking picture without magnifying it 200% and getting a microsope out seeking pixel level flaws is NOT what it's al about? Be facetious but agree with Michael here. I'm not yet convinced the SD9 is the camera I want, but I fail to see why people get so defensive about it, and why some continually seek to find fault. Let's do the same to the D60, D100 and S2.. wait I forgot, that has been done many times.

The SD9 has a very nice price point and will certainly help prices drop further. May not be long before a nice $1499 DSLR is available form all the big names. Is the SD9 perfect? obviously not. The low light/night issues are significant for those who enjoy night photography. But I disagree with the statement that it falls short all the time when compared to the D60, etc. It seems to my eyes given the right conditions the SD9 is capable of making a photograph that appears more rich in color, more 3D in appearance and is simply a better picture than it's rivals. Yet with word of caution, it is not nearly as flexible or forgiving in terms of conditions.

Course my now aging SLR, the Canon EOS10S, also has many of these problems.. low light AF slowness, really poor sensitivity to low light when using ISO100 film, etc yet it is capable of making osme really pretty pictures as long as I am willing to work with it and help it see what my mind is seeing. After all the bottom line is creating a wonderful photograph.. I've never shown a picture to a friend and hear them say " hmmm I see a little CA here and the edges are a tad soft " Most of the daytime SD9 pictures thus far shown have been good enough to please my eyes. Nightime however is a different story thus far! :)
Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:
It's the second question that is more troublesome (this is a review
site after all.) Viewed on their own the photos are good. But so
far side-by-side, it's not quite measuring up.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
How so? There is more to a pleasing photograph than absolute
resolution at the single pixel level, that is if image making is
why you're involved with photography. I find this new technology to
be quite compelling and at this price point especially sweet.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com
Click to expand...
 
While I have my own issues with some of the samples that have been posted by others thus far, it's always an interesting balance to see the samples that are posted by the reviewers (including Phil's and Steve's up to this point).

I'd say that before counting our bad eggs (the disadvantages), I'm willing to wait for a solid review so as to be able to get a good idea of what's really happening here with regard to blooming (and how to control it), color rendition (and how to get the most out of the software), and the low-light performance (and how to work with it).

Learning how to overcome some of the existing challenges is just as important as recognizing that the challenges to the current tech are there.
Peter G said:
I have done side by side compares of the images and I agree with
Erik, the SD9 conveys no objective advantage and several
significant disadvantages; blooming, poor colour rendition,
terrible low light performance.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 
Maybe what I'll end up doing after all is getting an F717 for my nighttime work, and get an SD9 as my "daytime" camera. :-)

Yes, night shots have been, in a word, disturbing. However, it's probably a good idea to see what else Phil finds on these matters. There is a lot that comes into play here, not the least of which include: Proper use of the camera, proper use of the software.

Phil may have his own take on these issues, leading to perhaps more pleasing results than we've seen thus far in adverse lighting conditions.
JDavis37 said:
Nightime however is a different story thus far! :)
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 
Michael OHara said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Well, the night shots are unusable. In fact, most of the low light shots look dull as well.

For the portraits, there is no hair moire vs. the S2, but the skin tones seem off (too ruddy/blotchy.)

On the racetrack shot, both the track groomer and one of the orange cones blew out to complete white. This camera does NOT tolerate overexposure. Overall color and sharpness are no better and the "automatic" processing left the photo a bit dull. (Yes, I know you can change the processing. But the S2 was using defaults as well. Not enough info to say how much both can be improved by tweaking.)

On the doll shots, any specular highlight (e.g. the "gold" stand/hanger behind the head) blew out with ugly artifacts. Here the color balance was better than the S2 although after an "auto-levels" to fix the S2 exposure/ balance problems, again I preferred the S2 shots over the same step with the SD-9.

The bridge shot is very good, but no better than the D60 or D100 for detail. The D60 color looked better to me. The same comment applies to most of Steve's shots.

The "Davebox" shots show the same problem with ugly specular reflections and also flat area color noise.

More examples may change my opinion. But so far, not so good.
Michael OHara said:
I find this new technology to be quite compelling
Click to expand...
It's a neat idea, but the execution needs some work.
Michael OHara said:
and at this price point especially sweet.
Click to expand...
Fewer features but lower price. If you don't need them, then you don't miss them. RAW only is slower, fewer shots on the media. I like having a choice. I don't want to have to drag a computer around to share photos with family and friends and the "native XP support is still just a promise." (And still a minority of the people I know.)

--
Erik
 
Ulysses said:
Maybe what I'll end up doing after all is getting an F717 for my
nighttime work, and get an SD9 as my "daytime" camera. :-)
Click to expand...
I had mentioned that in another post as well - I have the 707 and love it - and plan to keep it.

I think the 2 compliment each other quite well -

(Think Sony and Sigma have a deal? Trying to get people to buy them both???)

Hee hee... kidding - just kidding of course.

I should have my SD9 this coming Saturday - I got the one from Jeffrey in Japan - so I will be able to see first hand what it can do well...

And also see where it needs some help... Like the night/low-light shots. But then, I will just whip out that ol' 707 - and have at it!!!

Either way - I will like it I am sure - and I am excited to get it...

=)

Sam

--
Sam Pyrtle
F707 Owner & Lover
Soon-to-be Sigma SD9 Owner (& Lover???) =)
[email protected]

http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=11179
 
Hello,

When it comes to bashing, you are the definite King on this forum.

When it comes to facts, you seem to be off, again...

I have upsampled (Bicubic sampling) the D60 Tower Bridge Shot to 4000 * 2667 and done the same with the SD9 shot. Then I cropped out approx. the same area of both pictures. The small spikes on the right and left can bee seen on both, all right, but I think they are somewhat more "fuzzy" in the D60 picture. The overall sharpness seems to be better throughout in the SD9 picture: As a matter of fact, the SD9 does reporduces more details in the other areas of this crop as well, the opposite of your claims (Foveon bash # 987 from your part? Count through your postings).

The Foveon does have problems, but its benefits does deserve to come out in the light.

D60 Crop:



SD9 Crop:



Gier Ove
Karl Guttag said:
The Phil's D60 Sample picture of the roughly the same scene shows
the same spike on top of the spires. While it is true that the
SD9 should be better than a 3.4MP Bayer, it is not clearly able to
pick up more detail than today's 6MP Bayers. So you seem to be
"Bayer bashing" without evidence.
Karl Guttag said:
Yes, I have seen the
problems with the Foveon (or is it the conversion software), but I
think these problems eventually will be overcome in the same way as
CMOS sensor problems where solved by Canon :-)
Click to expand...
The problems may be fixed in the long run, but as of right now, the
Bayer cameras have a lot of advantages. We will have to see which
of the problems can be fixed in software, hardware redesign, or are
inherent in the technology. But it would seem to be a big gamble
at this time to hope that they are all fixable in software.

Karl
Click to expand...
 
The D60 picture is of course by default better, and we can see no aspects of the D60 crop to criticize...

10 points to the D60 from all Referees
Noise and artefacts from all Bayer Refereees to the Foveon crop

Couldn't help it there :-)
Geir Ove said:
D60 Crop:



SD9 Crop:



Gier Ove
Click to expand...
 
Peter G said:
The camera gets a tremendous psychological edge because when
looking at 100% size image, it looks better than everything that
has preceded it. I don't know how this takes anyone by surprise, it
is pretty much expected.
Click to expand...
Thank you for helping make my point. People do sometimes get up close to look at my work in a gallery or installation but most often they're interested in the subject matter and how it looks displayed as a finished image.

Apparent softness in an image or part of an image is often intentional and can be advantageous to the meaning of the image. There is way too much emphasis placed on absolute sharpness in all DSLR discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have some exceptional images made with a 480x680 Hitachi MPEG 1A digicam several years ago, the original digi point-n-shoot that Hitachi never marketed correctly. Pixelated a bit? Sure. Thrilling images? I and others seem to think so. It's a classic debate between technology and art as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in the creative side of photography. The 'good SD9' images that have been posted so far show me enough to know this camera will be an exceptional creative tool. Other's may disagree depending on their needs and wants.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com
 
Ulysses said:
Hi there, Karl -

Do you see any advantages at all in the Foveon tech over Bayer as
they currently exist?
Click to expand...
Sure there are advantages,

The most obvious being color Moire reduction which is the main problem that the X3 technology solves. But I have shot about 20,000 pictures with my D30 and I can only remember a few were color moire was a problem (and those could be solved quickly in Photoshop with a layer mask with a blur in the color).

There is some apparent moire with the SD9 in some of the test pattern images. I honestly think there is a radial color problem with the SD9 that is a function of the angle of the light exiting the lens (not necessilly related to the Focal length as very wide angle lenses have "reto" lens groups that reduce this angle). This is different from traditional lens Chroma Abberations where the lens is separating the light. It is a function of the angle of the light as you move away from the center of the image. I think in the end we will find that this is one of those "digital things" that one has to watch out for. The X3 seems more sensitive to this than Bayers. This could in turn require lenses with different retro groups or a change in the X3 structure.

The resolving power of the 3.4MP X3 is certainly "comparable" to a 6MP Bayer. Clearly the a "Bayer Pixel" is a form of marketing/lying. The "real" resolution of a Bayer "MP" is about 1/2 its stated MP.

A number of people seem to think the images "look" better. The ones were there is good lighting and no special problems do look good. But then that is true with any of today's $2,000'ish DSLRs. I'm not convinced by the "colors or truer" kind of comments when looking at random pictures. With digital, a little contrast or color adjustment can made a big difference, much more that the difference between cameras. What I want the CAMERA to do is accurately capture the image, not make it look "better" or worse (one can do that in photoshop).

What I was hoping for was that X3 would perform better than Bayer in low light applications rather than worse. The Bayers start by throwing away about 2/3rds of the light in the filters. In the long run, low light performance will be the key to X3 success (or not). The Bayers are going to have plenty of pixels, even with the Bayer pattern to generate great pictures for 99.999% of the applications. I can't see were X3 has a cost advantage over Canon's CMOS. I'm wondering, based on the X3 images to date, whether what it gains by not having the filters is lost in the translation of the color separation of the silicon.

Karl
Member said:
Karl Guttag said:
The problems may be fixed in the long run, but as of right now, the
Bayer cameras have a lot of advantages.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Thanks for going to all the trouble of resizings. I think we can get into quibbling whether the spikes are more defined on the D60 or SD9.

But look at the spike on top of the center Gold spire. It is there in the D60 and not seen in the SD9. Maybe the spike is not there any more as the shots were taken at different times. Maybe it is the lighting. Or maybe the D60 caught it and the SD9 did not. I which I could personally check as I miss going to London regularly.

Karl
Geir Ove said:
When it comes to bashing, you are the definite King on this forum.

When it comes to facts, you seem to be off, again...

I have upsampled (Bicubic sampling) the D60 Tower Bridge Shot to
4000 * 2667 and done the same with the SD9 shot. Then I cropped out
approx. the same area of both pictures. The small spikes on the
right and left can bee seen on both, all right, but I think they
are somewhat more "fuzzy" in the D60 picture. The overall sharpness
seems to be better throughout in the SD9 picture: As a matter of
fact, the SD9 does reporduces more details in the other areas of
this crop as well, the opposite of your claims (Foveon bash # 987
from your part? Count through your postings).

The Foveon does have problems, but its benefits does deserve to
come out in the light.

D60 Crop:



SD9 Crop:



Gier Ove
Karl Guttag said:
The Phil's D60 Sample picture of the roughly the same scene shows
the same spike on top of the spires. While it is true that the
SD9 should be better than a 3.4MP Bayer, it is not clearly able to
pick up more detail than today's 6MP Bayers. So you seem to be
"Bayer bashing" without evidence.
Geir Ove said:
Yes, I have seen the
problems with the Foveon (or is it the conversion software), but I
think these problems eventually will be overcome in the same way as
CMOS sensor problems where solved by Canon :-)
Click to expand...
The problems may be fixed in the long run, but as of right now, the
Bayer cameras have a lot of advantages. We will have to see which
of the problems can be fixed in software, hardware redesign, or are
inherent in the technology. But it would seem to be a big gamble
at this time to hope that they are all fixable in software.

Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Well said Michael.. some see the technology, others see the art. A beautifully composed photograph with less than perfect focus, etc is still more eye catching than a super crisp detailed picture of say a gnat's butt. But then I'm more into the photograph than I am the perfection part! A friend of mine just printed an 8x10 of a Pro70 shot I took while we were out this weekend. I had emailed the pictures to her in a lower resolution format saved as a medium 7 in Photoshp just so she could see them on her monitor before i hand delivered the full sized versions.. in short she had printed at 8x10 size, and framed them before i could hand deliver the full files. Am sure the printed output is less than perfect but then she seemed very happy and glad to have them framed! Given that, I'd say for many the art of the photograph is as imporant as the technical details. If the SD9 works for a particular person, that is what counts.:)
Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:
The camera gets a tremendous psychological edge because when
looking at 100% size image, it looks better than everything that
has preceded it. I don't know how this takes anyone by surprise, it
is pretty much expected.
Click to expand...
Thank you for helping make my point. People do sometimes get up
close to look at my work in a gallery or installation but most
often they're interested in the subject matter and how it looks
displayed as a finished image.

Apparent softness in an image or part of an image is often
intentional and can be advantageous to the meaning of the image.
There is way too much emphasis placed on absolute sharpness in all
DSLR discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have some exceptional
images made with a 480x680 Hitachi MPEG 1A digicam several years
ago, the original digi point-n-shoot that Hitachi never marketed
correctly. Pixelated a bit? Sure. Thrilling images? I and others
seem to think so. It's a classic debate between technology and art
as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in the creative side
of photography. The 'good SD9' images that have been posted so far
show me enough to know this camera will be an exceptional creative
tool. Other's may disagree depending on their needs and wants.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com
Click to expand...
 
No the SD9 picture is better, but it also is probably taken with a different lens, from a different angle under different light.

Its not even remotely the same picture. As a result adds nothing to the debate.
Geir Ove said:
10 points to the D60 from all Referees
Noise and artefacts from all Bayer Refereees to the Foveon crop

Couldn't help it there :-)
Geir Ove said:
D60 Crop:



SD9 Crop:



Gier Ove
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't quite see how this makes your point. Once you print the image you resample, it is then equivalent to any bayer 6mp image.
Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:
The camera gets a tremendous psychological edge because when
looking at 100% size image, it looks better than everything that
has preceded it. I don't know how this takes anyone by surprise, it
is pretty much expected.
Click to expand...
Thank you for helping make my point. People do sometimes get up
close to look at my work in a gallery or installation but most
often they're interested in the subject matter and how it looks
displayed as a finished image.

Apparent softness in an image or part of an image is often
intentional and can be advantageous to the meaning of the image.
There is way too much emphasis placed on absolute sharpness in all
DSLR discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have some exceptional
images made with a 480x680 Hitachi MPEG 1A digicam several years
ago, the original digi point-n-shoot that Hitachi never marketed
correctly. Pixelated a bit? Sure. Thrilling images? I and others
seem to think so. It's a classic debate between technology and art
as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in the creative side
of photography. The 'good SD9' images that have been posted so far
show me enough to know this camera will be an exceptional creative
tool. Other's may disagree depending on their needs and wants.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com
Click to expand...
 
Hello,

It is bearly visible on the original picture, and the D60 shows it more clearly. This can be due to reflections and lighting at the time when the picutre was taken: Hard to tell

But what about overall details.....

Geir Ove
Karl Guttag said:
But look at the spike on top of the center Gold spire. It is there
in the D60 and not seen in the SD9. Maybe the spike is not there
any more as the shots were taken at different times. Maybe it is
the lighting. Or maybe the D60 caught it and the SD9 did not. I
which I could personally check as I miss going to London regularly.

Karl
Geir Ove said:
When it comes to bashing, you are the definite King on this forum.

When it comes to facts, you seem to be off, again...

I have upsampled (Bicubic sampling) the D60 Tower Bridge Shot to
4000 * 2667 and done the same with the SD9 shot. Then I cropped out
approx. the same area of both pictures. The small spikes on the
right and left can bee seen on both, all right, but I think they
are somewhat more "fuzzy" in the D60 picture. The overall sharpness
seems to be better throughout in the SD9 picture: As a matter of
fact, the SD9 does reporduces more details in the other areas of
this crop as well, the opposite of your claims (Foveon bash # 987
from your part? Count through your postings).

The Foveon does have problems, but its benefits does deserve to
come out in the light.

D60 Crop:



SD9 Crop:



Gier Ove
Karl Guttag said:
The Phil's D60 Sample picture of the roughly the same scene shows
the same spike on top of the spires. While it is true that the
SD9 should be better than a 3.4MP Bayer, it is not clearly able to
pick up more detail than today's 6MP Bayers. So you seem to be
"Bayer bashing" without evidence.
Karl Guttag said:
Yes, I have seen the
problems with the Foveon (or is it the conversion software), but I
think these problems eventually will be overcome in the same way as
CMOS sensor problems where solved by Canon :-)
Click to expand...
The problems may be fixed in the long run, but as of right now, the
Bayer cameras have a lot of advantages. We will have to see which
of the problems can be fixed in software, hardware redesign, or are
inherent in the technology. But it would seem to be a big gamble
at this time to hope that they are all fixable in software.

Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
 
Geir Ove said:
It is bearly visible on the original picture, and the D60 shows it
more clearly. This can be due to reflections and lighting at the
time when the picutre was taken: Hard to tell

But what about overall details.....
Click to expand...
The D60 is a bit softer at the edges. But it's taken with an ultra-wiode zoom (Canon EF 17 - 35 mm.) The SD-9 shot is with the 50mm 2.8.

Hmm....

--
Erik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
And now, the end is near. Pictures.
Replies
4
Views
1K
James O'Neill
J
M
*** Challenge 317 Something new you tried in/since lockdown *** RESULTS
Replies
7
Views
242
tripleC
tripleC
E
Elliott's Saved Setup Text: 2021, 2022, 2023
Replies
16
Views
8K
marlyd
M
P
The "Perfect" Bridge Superzoom (Swiss army knife /All-in-one) Camera?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
FrancoD
F
Marco Nero
M6 + 100-400mmL II - no Extenders (PICS)
Replies
15
Views
162
Marco Nero
Marco Nero

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