Reading mode: Light Dark

Some interesting questions for SD1Q

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Huh? It's an incremental step up from the SD1 Merrill (and the original SD1, which is basically identical). There are NO major difficulties in implementing the improvements they will be/are making. They switch out the sensor, put a different processor into it, and that's about it (unless they are using different memory chips with double the capacity, which would be great). There is probably a little more to it, but a slight improvement in the focusing system or something is not a big deal. In fact, there is nowhere near as much to change as they changed when they went from only having the SD14 and SD15 to introducing a new, bigger, weather-sealed SD1.

Why are you trying to say the upgrade would be difficult? I'd guess it's more like when Nikon upgraded from the D200 to the D300 or when Canon upgraded from the 5 D Mk II to the 5 D Mk III. Not much of an upgrade at all, really . . . though the improvements will surely be worthwhile. I think this upgrade will be less of an upgrade then when Nikon went from the D7000 to the D7100, and you didn't think THAT was much of an upgrade, causing lots of technical problems, did you?
 
Truman Prevatt said:
I've tried all the automated and semi-automated focus tuning on my D800E - it is not as easy as the people wanted to sell you the systems claim and they are not that good. The issue is a given lens will focus differently at 10 feet and infinity. It's not much and never was an issue with film but it is an issue on the D800E. Zooms are a nightmare - different focal lengths different fine tuning offset.

I happen to have a good target at my house for fine tuning lenses. The paper targets you get really suck. I ran Focal four times on my D800E and 50 mm lens and their "perfect target" from the same spot on the same target and got different four answers. What you find is they are close and on film or a low resolution camera or with a low resolution lens you can't tell the difference. With a D800E and a good lens you can.

Manufacturing and QC are the extremely critical as long as PDAF is being used. Sony has started to look at trying to do phase detection on chip but that means electronic viewfinders have to replace optical viewfinders and mirrors have to disappear form the light path.

Now the accuracy of the motors is a whole different question.
Paul Petersen said:
Seriously Yamaki-san has already stated focus is the biggest challenge for and Quattro SLR.

We have micro focus adjustment already to correct issues yourself since focus can vary from lens to lens on your body.

With Live View I don't think it would be that hard to build a micro focus calibration for each phase detect point. Automated calibration routine could focus on a target using each phase detect location and compare its position with with a corresponding contrast detect position on the sensor as the reference. This difference is your correction factor for the Phase detect.

This would make manufacturing QC less critical since the user could run the calibration routine with each lens they own and have the best PD practical and still have the option of slow CD for less time demanding critical work.

As far as driving lens focus mechanisms the days of the pizeo hypersonic motor is numbered IMHO since the adoption of better technology in stepping motor drive is taking its place being quieter and more accurate.

Pete
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Truman Prevatt said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Truman Prevatt said:
<...>If the Q is as good as touted - it will tax Sigma both in the design of the PDAF system and in the manufacturing tolerances for building the PDAF into the cameras. If the sensor as comparable to the D800 - then I expect that Sigma will have a lot of technical issues to overcome. At least they should know them from the Nikon experience. This also brings to the front the question of live view. If the resolution is that good, should not Sigma have live view in an SDQ and a more robust PDAF system.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand why this is even a question - we already know Sigma was close to having Live View in the SD-1 as it is, so pretty obviously any SD-1 update will have Live View.

The real question to my mind is if the SDQ would have a mirror or not, and how people would feel about that.
Click to expand...
Live view is going to take a significant investment in a high resolution display - and to be very useful it needs to be articulating.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Live view works GREAT on the D800 and just about every other camera with it. The auto-focus does not. Many people manual focus in live-view, using magnification. I would do this with my Sony A55, which had excellent focusing ability, while using the fold-out screen.

It would be nice to have an articulating screen. I have been a proponent of this for years, since I bought my Sony R1. For more than 20 years video cameras have had them, and the screens did not "break off" . . . like SO many photographers have mentioned over the years. A folding screen has many advantages . . . one of which is the ability to turn it around, when closing it, so the screen can not be scratched. That's REALLY nice . . . and a huge advantage over typical DSLR screens.

But a folding screen is NOT necessary. They haven't put them on the DP series, and those cameras are nothing but live-view cameras. Or did you not realize this?

Truman Prevatt said:
In reality Liveview on the current Nikons is marginal at best. The problem is the resolution of the sensor and PDAF. That is where Nikon stumbled with the D800. They have recovered but it cost them.

Can Sigma design a manufacturing process with sufficient QC that will support the tight tolerances demanded by a high resolution sensor and the Sigma Art lens?

After Nikon's issues with the D800 I would hope Sigma is concentrating on developing both the PDAF and the manufacturing capability to support PDAF in a high resolution camera. It is not trivial.
Truman Prevatt said:
Hence my thought about the mirror.
Truman Prevatt said:
You eliminate the PDAF upgrade along with the PDAF alignment issues in manufacturing. On the other hand you will need to develop new lenses or have a camera that is larger than the need be.
Click to expand...
It would be potentially smaller than the SD-1 though in reality I think it would use the same body.
Truman Prevatt said:
and convince people that an EVF is as good as an OVF.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely not, but that may not be enough of a reason.

I don't think Sigma would want the added expense a good EVF brings though, and I don't think they want a poor EVF just to have EVF. You can do live view with a mirror, just figuring out how to make that system work better is probably a better bet.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Erik Magnuson said:
With larger lenses, you really need an eye level finder.
--
Erik
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to disagree with you again Erik, but I believe that while the viewfinder is more likely to be used more, when shooting with big, long lenses, the ability to use live-view with a long lens is important too. I've done this myself more than once. Live view is GREAT, and a camera with no viewfinder can be used with long lenses quite well. The ability to shoot without your eye right up to the viewfinder gives more creative flexibility, so people use such ability more often with small lenses . . . but if you have no viewfinder, there is no reason you can not still use the camera just fine, when using a big, long lens.
 
Roger said:
Greetings

In one of the interviews the CEO of Sigma explained how difficult it is to build a AF DSLR. Everything has to be in perfect alignment and stay that way of your images will be off. As the sensors and lenses get better and better this becomes more and more difficult. Zooms make it even worst. If Sigma brings out a DSLR Q it needs to AF of the sensor and it would be nice to have a split image screen for manual focus OVF or EVF I don't care just need one and live view with tilt screen. I hope the camera will be small and fast. As for the AF they all have issues sometimes it a nightmare. More later right now it's time for coffee.

Regards

Roger J.
Click to expand...
Zoom do NOT make it even worse. It is easier to get good focus with a zoom, considering the fact that the depth of field is much greater. Long lenses with wide apertures, such as 85mm f1.4 or 300mm f2.8 are where it is most critical . . . or maybe the 180mm f2.8 macro will be the most difficult, considering how shallow the depth of field is with many macro shots. Still . . . I think people expect a macro shot to be out of focus, and do not blame the camera as much, when it is not in focus perfectly.

We already have a good camera with good focusing capability. There is no need to change the geometry or even most of the components in the SD1 M focusing capability, when upgrading to the SD1 Q. It already works quite well. Some people complain, but most people like it, say it is faster than they old camera, etc. Slight improvement is likely. They may upgrade the focusing processor, when upgrading to the True III imaging engine. Surely the SD1 as is, but upgraded to have a better sensor and faster processing of the images, would be quite a nice upgrade. I would certainly buy it, if I had the money to do it right away. I plan to get an SD1 M when the price comes down to $1,500 or so. I'll get the Quattro version DSLR when it comes down under $2,000 . . . if I have the money at the time. Or I'll be so happy with my SD1 M that I will just wait until the price of the SD1 Q comes down to $1,500 too. I guess it depends how much better the images from the Quattro sensor are, how much extra buffer there is in the SD1 Q, hoe much faster the processor empties that buffer, etc.

;)
 
Rudi said:
Well that´s all nicely said, but one who wants certain features has to accept the limitations of the special sensor technology and a higher price tag for the new features. But it´s allwys been in the past, every new introduced virtue was accompanied by severe criticism.

I think Sigma knows about the shortcommings of it´s cameras and the engineers there are trying to implement what´s possible. We should not expect a Foveon SD DSLR with the specs of a Nikon D4s for the price of a DP2M. That certainly won´t work out.

Cheers,

Rudi.
Click to expand...
I don't think we have to ". . . accept the limitations . . ." at all. I think that if we demand more we will get more, but if we do not demand more, companies will just give us tiny little improvements and think we're happy with that. They have no vested interest in giving us more than we want or "need" in order to buy. If people demand huge improvements in order to buy, we will get huge improvements. The companies do what the customers want . . . or they go broke. How are we supposed to let them know what we want, other than saying what we want in forums like this? Just not buying is not much of a way to communicate with them, is it?
 
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
Zoom do NOT make it even worse. It is easier to get good focus with a zoom, considering the fact that the depth of field is much greater. Long lenses with wide apertures, such as 85mm f1.4 or 300mm f2.8 are where it is most critical . . . or maybe the 180mm f2.8 macro will be the most difficult, considering how shallow the depth of field is with many macro shots. Still . . . I think people expect a macro shot to be out of focus, and do not blame the camera as much, when it is not in focus perfectly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Who Pard, how about a zoom that covers 180 mm at f2.8 - they have the same DOF as a fixed focus at 180 mm f2.8 plus they have the issue that the focus plane changes slightly with focal length. With a lower resolution sensor - you might not notice it but trust be the advent of the D800E - you notice it.

And you better believe the CEO of Sigma understands that because if he hasn't been talking with his friends at Nikon he's been watching their struggles with AF on the D800E. There is a reason the owners of the D4 are very happy with their AF and don't see why the problems with the D800 - the reason is simple 16 MP compared to 36 MP.
 
Roger said:
Greetings

In one of the interviews the CEO of Sigma explained how difficult it is to build a AF DSLR. Everything has to be in perfect alignment and stay that way of your images will be off. As the sensors and lenses get better and better this becomes more and more difficult. Zooms make it even worst. If Sigma brings out a DSLR Q it needs to AF of the sensor and it would be nice to have a split image screen for manual focus OVF or EVF I don't care just need one and live view with tilt screen. I hope the camera will be small and fast. As for the AF they all have issues sometimes it a nightmare. More later right now it's time for coffee.

Regards

Roger J.
Click to expand...
Contrast detection is normally what is done using the sensor. Contrast detection is the AF method used in live view AF on cameras with live view and in cameras like the DPX. However, it is slow and requires the sensor to be on for a period of time - draining the battery and creating heat (and noise). Sony is working on a sensor that incorporates PDAF on chip but I expect for multiple reasons that is a long way off for Sigma. PDAF has a lot of advantages (it's basically an automated range finder) but on chip raises issues. However, it is unclear if such a system could match the current speed of say the Nikon D4 AF system in AFC mode.

To have all AF off the sensor - you can't easily have an OVF. EVF's are still not there yet for many people who prefer to look through an OVF and see the image. It may very well be that anything larger than 36 MP on a 135 format sensor is where the requirements on PDAF light path alignment are to stringent to meet without breakthroughs in either the design, control of the manufacturing process or both. It may very well be that the current lenses and sensors have outstripped of the current designs of PDAF systems.
 
Scottelly said:
Erik Magnuson said:
With larger lenses, you really need an eye level finder.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
... to be commercially successful as a serious system ILC.
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
--
Erik
Click to expand...
Live view is GREAT,
Click to expand...
And so the eye level finder may be electronic like Sony A7, Oly EM-1. EVF resolution is typically much higher than the rear screen, so my comment is in reply to why what the Quattro does is not enough for an SD1 replacement. Either EVF or optical pentaprism AND rear screen live view is required.
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Scottelly said:
Erik Magnuson said:
With larger lenses, you really need an eye level finder.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
... to be commercially successful as a serious system ILC.
Click to expand...
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
--
Erik
Click to expand...
Live view is GREAT,
Click to expand...
And so the eye level finder may be electronic like Sony A7, Oly EM-1. EVF resolution is typically much higher than the rear screen, so my comment is in reply to why what the Quattro does is not enough for an SD1 replacement. Either EVF or optical pentaprism AND rear screen live view is required.
Click to expand...
I don't know that anyone was thinking Sigma would make a DSLR replacement with no viewfinder at all though.

--

---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
Last edited:
Scottelly said:
Roger said:
Greetings

In one of the interviews the CEO of Sigma explained how difficult it is to build a AF DSLR. Everything has to be in perfect alignment and stay that way of your images will be off. As the sensors and lenses get better and better this becomes more and more difficult. Zooms make it even worst. If Sigma brings out a DSLR Q it needs to AF of the sensor and it would be nice to have a split image screen for manual focus OVF or EVF I don't care just need one and live view with tilt screen. I hope the camera will be small and fast. As for the AF they all have issues sometimes it a nightmare. More later right now it's time for coffee.

Regards

Roger J.
Click to expand...
Zoom do NOT make it even worse. It is easier to get good focus with a zoom, considering the fact that the depth of field is much greater. Long lenses with wide apertures, such as 85mm f1.4 or 300mm f2.8 are where it is most critical . . . or maybe the 180mm f2.8 macro will be the most difficult, considering how shallow the depth of field is with many macro shots. Still . . . I think people expect a macro shot to be out of focus, and do not blame the camera as much, when it is not in focus perfectly.
Click to expand...
I expect all my shots to be in perfect focus. Zoom change focus at different focal lengths. You can't set adjustment for every focal length on a zoom lens. My primes that are f2.8 or f1,8 work better than my zooms. This is why all my cameras have split image screens.
Scottelly said:
We already have a good camera with good focusing capability. There is no need to change the geometry or even most of the components in the SD1 M focusing capability, when upgrading to the SD1 Q. It already works quite well. Some people complain, but most people like it, say it is faster than they old camera, etc. Slight improvement is likely. They may upgrade the focusing processor, when upgrading to the True III imaging engine. Surely the SD1 as is, but upgraded to have a better sensor and faster processing of the images, would be quite a nice upgrade. I would certainly buy it, if I had the money to do it right away. I plan to get an SD1 M when the price comes down to $1,500 or so. I'll get the Quattro version DSLR when it comes down under $2,000 . . . if I have the money at the time. Or I'll be so happy with my SD1 M that I will just wait until the price of the SD1 Q comes down to $1,500 too. I guess it depends how much better the images from the Quattro sensor are, how much extra buffer there is in the SD1 Q, hoe much faster the processor empties that buffer, etc.
Click to expand...
We have a great sensor. We have bodies with ok AF sometimes iffy. Of my 2 SD14 they have never been in for AF issues, of my 2 SD15 they go in every 8-12 months for adjustment and of my 2 SD1 they go in 7-12 months or sooner for AF adjustments. My DP's are a different story. The lenses that work the best are my primes my zooms give me problems, some are better than others. For the money I pay I will complain if things don't work the way I want. I have all my cameras and lenses tagged on how they work with each other and which ones works best together and that's where they stay. Most people except what they get and don't enlarge their images up enough to see a difference. Most people can use a 6-12 MP and get "good enough results" for them. The SDQ will have to show me fast fast AF, problems free AF, small body fast processing. The SD1M is below $1500 now is the time to buy. The better the sensor, the better the lens the more it shows up the issues, in all brands. Here's what I'm doing now, I find what lens works best with a body and leave them together so my 2 SD14 gets a lens each my 2 SD15 get a lens each my SD1 get a lens each the rest go up for sale. Six bodies six lenses six flashes enough to do any job. If I buy a SDQ, if it's produced it must work with all my lenses and flashes without a glitch not one.
Scottelly said:
;)
Click to expand...
Regards

Roger J.
 
Which is exactly why Sigma would need to invest in more capable live view: the whole premise of the OP was that conventional PDAF/OVF was not going to be good enough. Even a OVF + rear screen live view may not be good enough given handling limitations of using the rear screen. Nikon DSLR live view implementation vs Canon demonstrates the differences possible even though both makers have perfectly good rear screen implementations on their fixed lens bodies -- which implies that Quattro experience is not enough to guarantee a good DSLR implementation.
 
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
Live view is going to take a significant investment in a high resolution display - and to be very useful it needs to be articulating.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Live view works GREAT on the D800 and just about every other camera with it. The auto-focus does not. Many people manual focus in live-view, using magnification. I would do this with my Sony A55, which had excellent focusing ability, while using the fold-out screen.

It would be nice to have an articulating screen. I have been a proponent of this for years, since I bought my Sony R1. For more than 20 years video cameras have had them, and the screens did not "break off" . . . like SO many photographers have mentioned over the years. A folding screen has many advantages . . . one of which is the ability to turn it around, when closing it, so the screen can not be scratched. That's REALLY nice . . . and a huge advantage over typical DSLR screens.

But a folding screen is NOT necessary. They haven't put them on the DP series, and those cameras are nothing but live-view cameras. Or did you not realize this?
Click to expand...
The lack of a hinge on the screen of the DP cameras is a major inconvenience. Why should the user have to lie on the ground to photograph a flower ?
 
Canon and Sony have this and it seems the way to go. No alignment problems and fast autofocus in one. Doubt Sigma has the finances to develop their own though......
 
Last edited:
Truman Prevatt said:
While I tend to agree that Sigma has the body and they could build an SD1Q and while building a camera with a mirror box is not difficult and Sigma has one, there are some significant issues with an SDQ having to do with alignment and quality control - especially if the sensor is a good as advertised. Just look at all the problems that showed up with the Nikon D800 when first introduced in the PDAF system. PDAF is very prone errors without absolute alignment in the light path. As the resolution goes up the alignment gets more critical since a high resolution sensor will show alignment errors sooner (with soft images) than a lower resolution. The D800 sensor just outstripped the Nikon factory to get the proper alignment. In reality it may very well be that the D800E detector density along with no AA filter and the new high resolution lenses are to the point that are PDAF tolerances to the point they can no longer be easily be met.

If the Q is as good as touted - it will tax Sigma both in the design of the PDAF system and in the manufacturing tolerances for building the PDAF into the cameras. If the sensor as comparable to the D800 - then I expect that Sigma will have a lot of technical issues to overcome. At least they should know them from the Nikon experience. This also brings to the front the question of live view. If the resolution is that good, should not Sigma have live view in an SDQ and a more robust PDAF system.

I think there is a lot of engineering to go before Sigma is ready to put a Q sensor in a DSLR body. In reality a mirror less like the Sony AR7 I think makes more sense. You eliminate the PDAF upgrade along with the PDAF alignment issues in manufacturing. On the other hand you will need to develop new lenses or have a camera that is larger than the need be and convince people that an EVF is as good as an OVF.
Click to expand...
 
Scottelly said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Scottelly said:
Wrong. Live view works GREAT on the D800 and just about every other camera with it. The auto-focus does not. Many people manual focus in live-view, using magnification. I would do this with my Sony A55, which had excellent focusing ability, while using the fold-out screen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I will defer to Thom Hogan on the current generation of rear screens to deterring critical manual focus - especially zoomed in. It is not always that simple. He's not impressed and neither am I. He discussed this issue in detail on his site and it his book on the D800. AF on Nikon live view is fine. It suffers the same issues that contrast AF suffers in other cameras.

Scottelly said:
It would be nice to have an articulating screen. I have been a proponent of this for years, since I bought my Sony R1. For more than 20 years video cameras have had them, and the screens did not "break off" . . . like SO many photographers have mentioned over the years. A folding screen has many advantages . . . one of which is the ability to turn it around, when closing it, so the screen can not be scratched. That's REALLY nice . . . and a huge advantage over typical DSLR screens.
Click to expand...
The main reason for an articulating screen is simple - the current fixed screen is pretty worthless when you want to hold the camera over you head and take shots, or when the is at your back, or when you like to hold the camera close to waist level and don't want to kill your knees, etc.

The one thing the fix screen is good for is to look at the images after capture and see if the exposure and/or color balance was right. However, again for determining critical focus not so good. I would use live view a lot more - now only use it off a tripod and then not all that much - if it came with a good articulating screen.
 
OK - may be you don´t have to accept technological limitations, but still you have to live with it.
Sigma is doing a great job in extending those Limits for the Foveon technology (DP2Q), but it takes a lot of research, developement of production platforms, peripherals etc. and that takes time. Wishful thinking is one thing, putting it to reality is something else.

So live with your demands and try to go 200mph with your bicycle, push cevélo by demanding higher and higher top speeds and see if you can get it one day. You also got your limits which you can not exceed, regardless how hard you try to.
 
As most people don't buy Sigma cameras but Canon/Nikon, I imagine Sigma management understand pretty well what people think of their products. I also imagine that if they could change that situation easily, they would. The fact that they don't respond to demands for this and demands for that but painfully inch for forwards increment by increment is a good clue as to both the challenges involved and the resources they have.

Shouting about what we want will probably will achieve very little. As consumers we are left with deciding when the offerings achieve a minimum fit with our needs. Not there yet for me, but there are other products in the meantime while we wait...
 
Truman Prevatt said:
Scottelly said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Wrong. Live view works GREAT on the D800 and just about every other camera with it. The auto-focus does not. Many people manual focus in live-view, using magnification. I would do this with my Sony A55, which had excellent focusing ability, while using the fold-out screen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I will defer to Thom Hogan on the current generation of rear screens to deterring critical manual focus - especially zoomed in. It is not always that simple. He's not impressed and neither am I. He discussed this issue in detail on his site and it his book on the D800. AF on Nikon live view is fine. It suffers the same issues that contrast AF suffers in other cameras.
Truman Prevatt said:
It would be nice to have an articulating screen. I have been a proponent of this for years, since I bought my Sony R1. For more than 20 years video cameras have had them, and the screens did not "break off" . . . like SO many photographers have mentioned over the years. A folding screen has many advantages . . . one of which is the ability to turn it around, when closing it, so the screen can not be scratched. That's REALLY nice . . . and a huge advantage over typical DSLR screens.
Click to expand...
The main reason for an articulating screen is simple - the current fixed screen is pretty worthless when you want to hold the camera over you head and take shots, or when the is at your back, or when you like to hold the camera close to waist level and don't want to kill your knees, etc.

The one thing the fix screen is good for is to look at the images after capture and see if the exposure and/or color balance was right. However, again for determining critical focus not so good. I would use live view a lot more - now only use it off a tripod and then not all that much - if it came with a good articulating screen.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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