Three new SD9 pics - all for now

Peter G · Nov 8, 2002

graham said:
Having initially suggesting the SD9 has not a lot to offer, I have
read lots of other postings and come up with the theory we must
rate the image in 3 common ways.

1. Printing on inkjet, just to full numberr of pixel staight
through your printer driver

Handy for people who don't know how to use good interpolation programs, to determine results before printing. But in reality a properly calibrated printer will not make a good image bad, or a bad image good.

Graham Sp said:
2. Viewing 100% on our VDU, and there are at least 3 kind out there!

When viewing at 100% you crop the image to your screen size so a 2MP image will essentially have the same same quality as a 11MP image crop, There is just more of it.

This is where X3 shines and is responsible for the wow factor. It has more detail per pixel, so it looks better. Doesn't mean it contains more detail just that you see more of it at once, so it looks impressive.

Graham Sp said:
3. After sizing to 800 or 1024 pixels wide and viewing at 100%

A lot of detail thrown out, so this is primarily a quality judgement about color and composition, not the camera that took it. When you see people asking for more pixels, they want to see the cameras capabilities and not the photographers.

Peter

Ulysses · Nov 8, 2002

Karl Guttag said:
To paraphrase what somebody else said, "photography is all about
making the best set of compromises."

Good grief, how true this is.

If I had the means (and I don't), I'd get three or four cameras just so that I wouldn't have to settle. And to me, any of even the current $2000-ish DSLR cameras on their own would feel like "settling" to me.

I'm not sure who is more impatient: Me as I wait to see the results from all of this, or my wife who listens to my constant sighing.

--

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

I'm an uncle!!!

Kok Chen · Nov 8, 2002

Erik Magnuson said:
You mentioned Ansel Adams in another thread. Have you read much
about the extent of the manipulations he would to to both the
negative and the print to get the look he wanted?

You mean "The Print?"

Long time ago. Without all the dodging and burning, we would not see the prints we see; that is why I don't believe in "default settings."

Another reason for the dodging and burning is that negative transparencies have a larger dynamic range than printing paper. You have to somehow map a higher DR source to a lower DR output device. A similar scenario holds true with good image sensors and JPEG files.

(Sent you an email earlier this morning, Erik...)

kc

mango · Nov 8, 2002

No text

Samuel Pyrtle · Nov 8, 2002

very well put indeed....

;-)

-Sam

Kok Chen said:
Ladehaug said:

You are into some important observations! It's difficult to
describe what it is, but it's definately there, this "something"
about the SD9 images that makes it more "alive and kicking"!

Click to expand...

Take a look at fine textures, Geir.

Everybody worries about aliasing causing Moire. That is the
extreme case. Before the onset of visible Moire, alaising will
already cause textures to smear.

Look at the detail in stones, fabrics, leaves, tree branches.
These are the common things that we see (well, excluding the dollar
bill . We are used to seeing certain textures in real life,
when they are smeared in images, we feel they don't look natural
(posterized, whatever) but often can't put a precise handle on it.

At every resolution, not just high resolution, you expect to see
different textures (fractal nature of "nature" , otherwise your
brains just don't click. It is something that is hard to measure,
but easy to "feel." But when assembled together, gives the entire
image your "alive and kicking" perception. Your mind is not
playing any new tricks on you anymore than what it is already doing
when you see a naturall scene.

Show me a machine that can differentiate between a mediocre violin
and an execellent violin. Humans can tell right away.

kc

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

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

Erik Magnuson · Nov 8, 2002

Kok Chen said:
You mean "The Print?" Long time ago. Without all the dodging
and burning, we would not see the prints we see;

Don't forget "The Negative". There are a lot of things you can do to the negative even AFTER normal development so that it can be more easily printed (e.g. reduction, intensification, and selective application of both, etc.)

Kok Chen said:
that is why I don't believe in "default settings."

Well, there are two kinds of photos for amateurs:

Art (with a capital A)
snapshots

Guess which is more common ;-) Most people want a camera that can do both. After all, I don't think you would want to use Mr. Adams favorite camera for Cartier-Bresson's style of photography!

Kok Chen said:
You have to somehow map a higher DR source to a lower DR output
device. A similar scenario holds true with good image sensors and
JPEG files.

Again, this is not unique to X3 images (and I notice that increased dynamic range over CCD was not in the list of claims.)

--
Erik

Gavin McKinlay38537 · Nov 8, 2002

Karl Guttag said:
Phil,

Just curious, what specifically do you think I said that will
proven to be untrue?

The SD9 has proven to have problems with bright saturated Red
turning yellow or white. That pretty well means leaving out a lot
of sports uniforms.

It is noisy with certain colors in flat areas (see for example IR's
color test patterns).

The purple blow outs and problems with lights at night are even
acknoledged by many Foveon fans.

The lack of performance at higher ISO (or even having ISO's above
400) is a big drawback in a DSLR of this price class.

I left off the problem with "Dust". Every SD9 shot I have seen
with sky in it has dark spots even at F8. It looks like your
camera has relatively little dust compared to the other SD9's we
have seen. I would suggest you do a dust check shot before and
after shooting. I think eveyone would like to know what is
causing these spots (a lot could be told by taking shots of the sky
at various apertures to isolate the distance of the dust from the
sensor).

My only really "controversial" item is that the X3 sensor likely
has a radial color problem based on the exit angle of the light
from the lens. I would really like to see a crop of a scan with a
film body using the same lens using that 20-40mm zoom at F8. I'll
be curous to see if the other wide angle lenses have similar
problems with the X3/SD9. You probably will not see it with the
50F2.8 but might with some prime that is wider. I'm fairly
confident that I will be proven right on this one.

I think when you have fully evaluated the camera under a variety of
shooting conditions you are going to have to come to the conclusion
that it has a limited range of application when compared against
the other DSLRs available today (particularly the D60, D100 and S2).

It MAY be that you will find that when the light is good and the
colors are not extreme (particulary Red) that the camera produces
very good images. but so do the other DSLRs. In my experience, I
end up shooting a lot of pictures where I can't control the
lighting as much as I would like and can't keep certain colors out
of my pictures.

Maybe the SD9 will make it as a "specialty camera" for taking still
lifes. But I can't see it competing with the other DSLRs as a
general purpose camera for shooting in a variety of conditions.
Imagine trying to shoot Soccer/Football will a long telephoto in
bright sun and cloudy conditions. In bright sun you have to worry
about blowing out colors, in cloudy conditions you are limited by
the ISO to get the shutter speed you want. And forget indoor
sports with ISO400.

I would be really suprised, based on your other reviews, if you
will in the end be able to come out and whole heartedly recommend
this camera over the others.

Karl

Hi Karl,

Pushing it again? Are you trying to influence Phil or intimidate him?

I can assure you I will take whatever Phil will publish to the hogwash you are trying to stuff down peoples throats.

I don't think you are doing yourself any favors by appealing to Phil, I guess
you must know that most of us are pretty disgusted with your replys.

If you would only approach things in a manor that would want people
to appreciate what you are driving at that would be wonderful.

Funny thing Karl, my son and I had a discussion about my son starting a

new business and my son's best friend is an engineer and a genius at that. My son told me that he wouldn't let his friend interact with any of the

clients. I asked him why? He told me he was brillant but did not know how to interact with people and could do more harm than good.

Karl if you would understand this princaple and adhere to it, I would be you biggest fan.

Have a great day Karl.

Karl Guttag said:
Phil Askey said:

Weird guy, Karl you're certainly on a mission to discredit yourself.

Click to expand...

--
Karl

--
Regards,
Gavin
Canon Pro90IS, B-300 Canon Pro 70

Michael OHara · Nov 8, 2002

Peter G said:
Michael OHara said:

Rather subjective on both our parts, wouldn't you agree? I like
what I see in the x3. You're entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

So in the subjective sense, you think the SD9 appears better in
this side by side compare??

I won't comment on some test strip shot. Were they taken at the same time under the same lighting conditions? We're the lenses comparable? I will say that on my calibrated monitor the SD9 exhibits a better tonal gradation in the grey scale though. Why are you consumed with making this a grudge match? I like what I see in real world SD9 images. What I see will work well for me and my style of photography. Give it a rest please.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Erik Magnuson · Nov 8, 2002

Michael OHara said:
Were they taken at the same time

No. But the same applies to most of Phil's review shots.

Michael OHara said:
under the same lighting conditions?

Yes. You can count the lights in the bell reflection ;-)

Michael OHara said:
We're the lenses comparable?

D60: 100mm F2.8 prime
SD-9: 50mm F2.5 prime

Michael OHara said:
What I see will work well for me and my style of photography.

Which is all that matters.

--
Erik

tim martin · Nov 8, 2002

Karl Guttag said:
I would be really suprised, based on your other reviews, if you
will in the end be able to come out and whole heartedly recommend
this camera over the others.

But that's setting the bar pretty high. It would seem obvious that
won't be the case. But the fact that it is $400 cheaper, and then
looking at how much less of a camera it is ... it might slip by
somehow that way. And be true too.

Peter G · Nov 8, 2002

Re-read the thread, some of us in the camp who actually compare images, find that they are lacking, but if we try to show how, it is a grudge match?

I am looking for more objective evidence that there are improvements. I am finding none. I hear a lot of "special qualities" type arguments, but little in the way of objective evidence.

Objective evidence wise. Detail is similar to 6MP bayer camera, sensitivity is lower, bloomnig problems abound, and in the example I showed and you ignored there was obvious colour noise/purity issues.

I fail to see the magic in this technology that others see.

Peter

Michael OHara said:
I won't comment on some test strip shot. Were they taken at the
same time under the same lighting conditions? We're the lenses
comparable? I will say that on my calibrated monitor the SD9
exhibits a better tonal gradation in the grey scale though. Why are
you consumed with making this a grudge match? I like what I see in
real world SD9 images. What I see will work well for me and my
style of photography. Give it a rest please.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Michael OHara · Nov 8, 2002

Erik Magnuson said:
Michael OHara said:

Were they taken at the same time

Click to expand...

No. But the same applies to most of Phil's review shots.

Member said:

under the same lighting conditions?

Click to expand...

Yes. You can count the lights in the bell reflection ;-)

Member said:

We're the lenses comparable?

Click to expand...

D60: 100mm F2.8 prime
SD-9: 50mm F2.5 prime

Member said:

What I see will work well for me and my style of photography.

Click to expand...

Which is all that matters.

--
Erik

Thanks Erik.

I guess that leaves me wondering about the lens selections used as I have been a Nikon guy for over 30 years and have never owned Sigma or Canon glass.

I can 'see' the difference between the two test strips in terms of sharpness and fringing; but I honestly would have to say that I find the D60 image too harsh and contrasty. The SD9 image appears to be softer (lens?) but more realistic, especially in representing the tonal gradation in the grey scale. On my Cornerstone p1650 there is a gradation all the way with the Foveon shot, the D60 becomes solid black about 3/4 of the way down.

Oh well. Time will tell. I really don't think one has to be a tech wizzard to grasp that full color at every pixel will ultimately win out over an averaging of neighboring pixels. If not the Sd9, maybe the D2?? D69? SD10???

Talke care and thanks for the info.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Michael OHara · Nov 8, 2002

Peter G said:
I fail to see the magic in this technology that others see.

Peter

Fair enough. You don't like the Foveon concept as an empiracal scientist. I'm more hip to the overall process of image making and can live with a little fringing on the single pixel level. I do see magic in some of the images posted so far. There is a dimensionality and richness there that I haven't seen before. It's my personal belief that a perfectly sharp photograph isn't necessarily the most visually pleasing. There is so much more to a good photograph than apparent sharpness. At least in my opinion. Can't we leave it at that?
--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Karl Guttag · Nov 8, 2002

tim martin said:
Karl Guttag said:

tim martin said:

But in general, overall, that horse track picture isn't really so bad.

Click to expand...

A large part of the picture is fine. But what about the cones were
they totally lost the color? Let say you are out shooting soccer
in the Sun. Are you going to accept the teams wearing red uniform
blowing out all the color?

Click to expand...

I would prefer to see an actual picture of kids (or adults) playing
soccer in the sun, with one team wearing red uniforms, and their
uniforms being all blown out, before I accept that would happen.

I too would like to see the picture. It is the team with the Red uniforms that are most likely to blow out based on what we have seen so far (similar to the orange Traffic cones in the "racetrack picture."

Actually it would be more scientific to take a large rounded red object primarily lit from one side so that one gets a full range of intensities and then compare shots taken with the SD9 versus some of the other cameras.

I suspect that what we will see is that the SD9 will "blow out" before the other cameras. We might even see the Red turn orange before blowing out. Phil's image number IMG000146 would be a start, but it would have been nice to compare to some other cameras under the same condition.

tim martin said:
Maybe you right, but I am still doubtful that the situation of "red
in sunlight" is entirely hopeless for the Foveon sensor.

It may or may not be "hopeless" but it would be interesting to know how bad the problem is.

tim martin said:
tim martin said:

As Eric pointed out, this is a lot of apples to oranges and backing
out the extras gets you back to about a $420 difference. Ignoring
the shell game of the packages, the diffrence is about 20% for the
D60 body.

Click to expand...

Part of me would like to get a D60, because I own a Canon G2, and
so I look at the D60 and I already know about what 75% or more
of the controls do.

Believe it or not, I am not an advocate of any of the cameras. I have a D30 and it has been a great camera for me. It has its problems too, particularly with respect to Auto Focus.

I don't think the SD9 is ready for "prime time" for the average camera person. They may save $400 or so up front (don't forget the others come with Lithium Ion batteries), but then they are tied into only Sigma lenses and a "funky" batery system. With Nikon or Canon mounts you can still buy Sigma lenses as well as from other 3rd parties.

Someone ironically, Sigma does not seem to make many of the "normal" prime lenses like a 50F1.4/50F1.8 or the like. As a 3rd party lens maker, it seems they have focused on making the lower cost versions of expensive lenses like the 70-200F2.8. This is not "Sigma Bashing" but just stating a fact. Go to say the Adorama Site (their site is nicely organized) and see what lenses they have that fit the Sigma mount. Then try the same for Canon or Nikon.

I honestly think that it would be unwise for somebody new to DSLRs to invest $2,000 into a Sigma SD9 to save $400. The SD9 may look great compared to a Point and Shoot, but it is not up to the other DSLR offerings for all around shooting. IF saving $400 is important, then I would recommend waiting some more.

I'm not that much of a Canon or Nikon fan, but they dominate the Camera market today. I wish the Sigma SD9 was a clearly better alternative.

tim martin said:
tim martin said:

Frankly, I think Canon and Nikon need the equivalent of a "Digital
Rebel G." A DSLR that comes in at about $1000. I expect to see
this in the next year to hook people on their various lens systems.

Click to expand...

It would be nice to buy my first SLR. I would enjoy that. Regular
film photography was too expensive, on a per image basis, to be
fun for me. But this digital stuff is great. And I get to see the
images on my PC as soon as I get home. I enjoy digital photography
much more than film, so I am finally ready for a SLR, I guess.

Based on how much I use my G2, I get the impression it would
be a smart purchase for me.

Well I bought the D30 about 2 years ago for $3,000 and I have taken about 20,000 pictures with it. That is pretty cheap per picture and fun. A DSLR is really the way to learn photography. I owned 2 SLRs before the D30, but never really learned how to work them. With the DSLR you can try all the stuff you have seen or read about and really learn photography.

--
Karl

nvn007 · Nov 8, 2002

Samuel Pyrtle said:
;-)

-Sam

Kok Chen said:

Ladehaug said:

You are into some important observations! It's difficult to
describe what it is, but it's definately there, this "something"
about the SD9 images that makes it more "alive and kicking"!

Click to expand...

Take a look at fine textures, Geir.

Everybody worries about aliasing causing Moire. That is the
extreme case. Before the onset of visible Moire, alaising will
already cause textures to smear.

Look at the detail in stones, fabrics, leaves, tree branches.
These are the common things that we see (well, excluding the dollar
bill . We are used to seeing certain textures in real life,
when they are smeared in images, we feel they don't look natural
(posterized, whatever) but often can't put a precise handle on it.

At every resolution, not just high resolution, you expect to see
different textures (fractal nature of "nature" , otherwise your
brains just don't click. It is something that is hard to measure,
but easy to "feel." But when assembled together, gives the entire
image your "alive and kicking" perception. Your mind is not
playing any new tricks on you anymore than what it is already doing
when you see a naturall scene.

Show me a machine that can differentiate between a mediocre violin
and an execellent violin. Humans can tell right away.

kc

Click to expand...

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

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

We should all be shooting film. hehe

kalahari · Nov 8, 2002

I was thinking the same thing. My friend and I were having this conversation while looking at film scans. The question was is it texture, film grain or scanner noise? I think we had a combination of all three.

So of the supposed noise identified in the sky on some posted messages on this forum appear as texture to me.

Kok Chen said:
Ladehaug said:

You are into some important observations! It's difficult to
describe what it is, but it's definately there, this "something"
about the SD9 images that makes it more "alive and kicking"!

Click to expand...

Take a look at fine textures, Geir.

Everybody worries about aliasing causing Moire. That is the
extreme case. Before the onset of visible Moire, alaising will
already cause textures to smear.

Look at the detail in stones, fabrics, leaves, tree branches.
These are the common things that we see (well, excluding the dollar
bill . We are used to seeing certain textures in real life,
when they are smeared in images, we feel they don't look natural
(posterized, whatever) but often can't put a precise handle on it.

At every resolution, not just high resolution, you expect to see
different textures (fractal nature of "nature" , otherwise your
brains just don't click. It is something that is hard to measure,
but easy to "feel." But when assembled together, gives the entire
image your "alive and kicking" perception. Your mind is not
playing any new tricks on you anymore than what it is already doing
when you see a naturall scene.

Show me a machine that can differentiate between a mediocre violin
and an execellent violin. Humans can tell right away.

kc

Peter G · Nov 8, 2002

Yes.

Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:

I fail to see the magic in this technology that others see.

Peter

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You don't like the Foveon concept as an empiracal
scientist. I'm more hip to the overall process of image making and
can live with a little fringing on the single pixel level. I do see
magic in some of the images posted so far. There is a
dimensionality and richness there that I haven't seen before. It's
my personal belief that a perfectly sharp photograph isn't
necessarily the most visually pleasing. There is so much more to a
good photograph than apparent sharpness. At least in my opinion.
Can't we leave it at that?
--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Leah · Nov 8, 2002

You are begining to sound like Karl...please let us who see a quality difference in the images who aren't as technically oriented as you and others...just point out that there is a "difference" between bayer sensors and the foveon sensor. We all understand we will truely be beta testers, but the quality difference is there never the less. The night shots show all the problems that hopefully will eventually be ironed out...

Leah

Peter G said:
I am looking for more objective evidence that there are
improvements. I am finding none. I hear a lot of "special
qualities" type arguments, but little in the way of objective
evidence.

Objective evidence wise. Detail is similar to 6MP bayer camera,
sensitivity is lower, bloomnig problems abound, and in the example
I showed and you ignored there was obvious colour noise/purity
issues.

I fail to see the magic in this technology that others see.

Peter

Peter G said:

I won't comment on some test strip shot. Were they taken at the
same time under the same lighting conditions? We're the lenses
comparable? I will say that on my calibrated monitor the SD9
exhibits a better tonal gradation in the grey scale though. Why are
you consumed with making this a grudge match? I like what I see in
real world SD9 images. What I see will work well for me and my
style of photography. Give it a rest please.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Click to expand...

nvn007 · Nov 8, 2002

Eric Bazan said:
Dana Jacobsen said:

Eric Bazan said:

[...]
A camera like the canon 1ds has very impressive resolution,
but its images still look softer when viewed at the same
DPI - by looking the images on ones monitor for example.
No doubt you get get a better print from the 1ds because
of its higher intrinsic resolution, but the SD9 appears to
have an advantage in producing a higher quality 'pixel'
in the first place.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to be blunt, but if the print is better, there is less
noise, and the operation of the camera is better, how is this an
advantage? OK, price versus the 1Ds certainly.

Click to expand...

Currently I see no advantage. Resolution is resolution - it
amounts to the same thing. For example, I doubt that
the 3.5 MP X3 is any better then a 6 MP bayer sensor -
probably worse in the majority of shooting situations.

You know, in some ways a bayer sensor is closer to
how the human eye works. My understanding is there
are three (or more) types of light sensitive cells in the fovea,
each one sensitive (more or less) to one primary color.
So the eye does not 'see' a full color point until after
the brain has processed the input from these cells,
much like the processing that must be done with a
bayer sensor.

I don't have any serious problem with the bayer design -
a little intelligence (the demosaicing algorithm) goes a
long way. In general I think it's better to do things in
software if possible - it's more flexible than having to
attempt to change the hardware (sensor).

How the camera seeing the scene is not that important but rather the imaged it produced. previous poster already try to make this point, doesn't matter how many technical stuff you can throw in, the final image is what we judge the camera by. Like audio, solid- state is so far a head, yet many people still buying tube gear. Think of the SD9 as a solid-state amplifier that can reproduce tube-like sound, or something close.

You can be the best programmer in the world, but you still cant program an abacus to be a web server, database server...etc. The Foveon may not be that far ahead of Bayer(as suppose a PC to an abacus) but it does capture better raw data than a bayer sensor. Whatever "magic" you can do with bayer sensor data in software I'm sure you can do the same with foveon sensor

Eric Bazan89646 said:
Eric Bazan89646 said:

In the future this ought to be more of an advantage, when the
mosaic sensors start having to get obnoxiously small pixel spacing
to increase MP (past 16MP I think this will be an issue), and
Foveon-type sensors can then step in. A 16MP full-frame Foveon
would be pretty cool.

Click to expand...

The future is where I think the Foveon will really shine.
Assuming they can improve the sensitivity and get out some
of the other bugs. Consider:

On a per pixel basis the foveon is superior. When things

finally settle down and there are some standard resolutions
and sizes for sensors the foveon will be hard to beat. A full-
frame 16 MP foveon is going to beat a full-frame 16 MP bayer
sensor, clearly.

Assuming they can manufactor the foveon using a

smaller process (than the current .18 micron ) things will
improve. The 'fill factor' (the part of each pixel devoted
to control circuitry and not sensitive to light) will be smaller,
and the overall sensitivity of the design will improve.

Of course, none of this means the foveon will survive.
They may have missed their window of oppurtunity.
Time will tell.

-Eric

Eric Bazan89646 said:

It's funny since I am always seeing people say, "the final print is
the only measure," and so far I've actually disagreed somewhat --
otherwise I'd be using a 4x5 film camera, but there are host of
reasons why I prefer 35mm digital. Hmm -- I could argue that the
D30 has better quality per "pixel" than an 8x10 film camera. Of
course that 8x10 has just a few more pixels.

Click to expand...

-Eric

jdavis37 · Nov 8, 2002

Well said Michael.. and while the SD9 may NOT be what I buy I can agree in some of the pictures thus far published the SD9 colors and depth do bring about some magic. Obviously each camera has different strengths and weaknesses and each person ahs different eyes. Why else would we have Panasonic, Sony, JVC, Hitachi etc TVs? Some like the Sony brightness , others prefer the Panasonic flatness, etc. Each is 100% correct in their arguments as to which tube is better but only when arguing with themselves. You simply have to at times step back and realize the other tube MAY be better for the other person. Same for digital images. To my eyes the D100 looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as does the D60. Just means I won't buy the D100 but does not in any way shape or form imply no one else should do the same. it's a great camera and is making a bunch of people happy. I see a lot of promise in the foveon sensor but at same time recognize it is a version 0.9 from the images thus far posted. Night time shooting is perhaps a real issue as are the occasional blowouts, etc but when it is on it is ON. Bayer sensors are going to 11 and 14MP to increase detail captured, and this little 3.4 MP foveon is grabbing detail that a 3 MP sensor should not be able to grab. In that it is revolutionary. Given the intense debate on here versus it and existing cameras, it is revolutionary. Now is it the Holy grail?? Hmm of course not. And the camera has not even yet been reviewed.... the camera body itself may be garbage and yet another thing to consider. But for those bashing the sensor without mercy, word of advice.. your bashings may be better heeded if you can find some positives along the way. If all you see are the negatives ( and yes there are obvious negatives ) then you will be seen as merely a negative person! Enjoy the images, discuss the faults but find a few merits and admit on occasion the SD9 is cranking out some extraordinary pictures! Have fun

Michael OHara said:
Michael OHara said:

I fail to see the magic in this technology that others see.

Peter

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You don't like the Foveon concept as an empiracal
scientist. I'm more hip to the overall process of image making and
can live with a little fringing on the single pixel level. I do see
magic in some of the images posted so far. There is a
dimensionality and richness there that I haven't seen before. It's
my personal belief that a perfectly sharp photograph isn't
necessarily the most visually pleasing. There is so much more to a
good photograph than apparent sharpness. At least in my opinion.
Can't we leave it at that?
--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

Three new SD9 pics - all for now

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts