Reading mode: Light Dark

Some interesting questions for SD1Q

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
I think first Q is experimental phase of 4:1:1 Foveon. my opinion is that it is similar with Merill in comparative resolution (DP2M versus DP2Q) but better noise and color management, possibly better dynamic range. possibly solved picture issues that plagued Merrill. if true and successful, then 4:1:1 ratio can be implement same 4:1:1 concept for future cameras with higher resolution, possibly a 40:10:10 which in my opinion might be very expensive but not as ridiculous expensive as first SD1.
 
jennyrae said:
I think first Q is experimental phase of 4:1:1 Foveon. my opinion is that it is similar with Merill in comparative resolution (DP2M versus DP2Q) but better noise and color management, possibly better dynamic range. possibly solved picture issues that plagued Merrill. if true and successful, then 4:1:1 ratio can be implement same 4:1:1 concept for future cameras with higher resolution, possibly a 40:10:10 which in my opinion might be very expensive but not as ridiculous expensive as first SD1.
Click to expand...
Above the experimental, as I said, it is a new platform for next years. Let say that the foveon as we used to know it do not exist anymore and that the future can bring even more evolution on sensors, after the Quatro.

The DP2Q prints are sharper than the Merrill prints.

The picture issue who plagued the DP2m, now, we know the origin of it.

Conversion problem between the Green and Red signal (on sensor) and (I know it since today from trusted source) the back lens distance from the sensor. In the DP2m the back lens element is extremely close to the sensor. In the DP3m it is not. that's why the DP3m produce superior renditions (with some very little problems too).
 
this is reason I get DP3M aside from focal size is because of known problem of DP2M. I not know much of concept of 4:1:1 on why positioning of W&B/R/G. I not think top layer is exclusive blue channel so I think it with white also but maybe I am wrong with this. improve resolution. I think between color channel, blue is least reactive so needed more to boost signal, Red and Green are reactive so require less pixel. maybe blue is positioned on top part also. atleast this is my thought on ratio to create perfect balance of colors since 1:1:1 does not appear to work nicely. have to see how this new ratio and concept work but sound promising.
 
jennyrae said:
this is reason I get DP3M aside from focal size is because of known problem of DP2M. I not know much of concept of 4:1:1 on why positioning of W&B/R/G. I not think top layer is exclusive blue channel so I think it with white also but maybe I am wrong with this. improve resolution. I think between color channel, blue is least reactive so needed more to boost signal, Red and Green are reactive so require less pixel. maybe blue is positioned on top part also. atleast this is my thought on ratio to create perfect balance of colors since 1:1:1 does not appear to work nicely. have to see how this new ratio and concept work but sound promising.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, if a final picture get all her acutance from the top layer (blue white mix) ... that's a very good new. That mean that resolution is bound only to the "top layer". The other layers are just color information. Before, the calculation of the acutance was probably on the 3 layers or more complicated.

That mean that the processor is as important as the sensor. The TRUE III processor is working in a totally different way than the TRUE II.

Overall, Foveon have done his homework and I'm sure this "next gen" foveon design is the key factor of a very bright future for SIGMA cameras. (My gust are telling me this, at least).

--
Kind regards - http://www.hulyssbowman.com
 
Last edited:
I am under the impression that the Q sensor is meant to eventually replace the Merrill sensor.

They can replace the DPxM cameras one by one as Q sensor production ramps up. However, keeping the M sensor in production just for the SD1M doesn't seem economical. Perhaps they will make a pile of sensors to cover a few years of SD camera production but that is also expensive.

It only makes sense to eventually go completely over to the Q sensor for all their cameras.
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I don't think whatever limitations that brings matter to most Sigma users,
Click to expand...
Of course -- that's why they are current Sigma users. It's appealing to users who are not already Sigma users that would require more.
Click to expand...
That's quite a lot of DPM users now, who possibly would wan tot move up to a Sigma DSLR at some point. Giving them an upgrade path is probably a clearer path to sales than trying to attract everyone.
Member said:
Member said:
If Sigma does those things then I think they will have passed muster.
Click to expand...
One option is to do as you suggest: basically update the SD1 with the Quattro sensor and live view. The cost is low, the risk is low but it's not going to attract much in the way of new customers.
Click to expand...
Given the sensor quality, I would disagree with that being an impediment to new customers.
Member said:
The other option is to do something more like the A7R - higher risk but capable of creating a buzz in the market.
Click to expand...
The A7R has buzz because of image quality (due to both lens and sensor) - which the Sigma camera would also offer as a reward.
Member said:
Which is best for Sigma? That's hard to say but there is merit in each idea.
Click to expand...
I think what is best is what can be done sooner rather than later. Adding Live View and a few other improvements to the SD-1 (buffer in particular) along with the new sensor is enough of an upgrade to get a lot of people to spring for one.
 
Trevor G said:
Scottelly said:
EVF? Why? You have a huge 3" screen with almost a million dots to look at for composing photos. That's the way I would normally do it with my Sony A55, which WAS an EVF camera . . . but I hardly ever used the EVF. You are making statements that don't make sense to me. Please explain.
Click to expand...
It's a wonderful gift to have really good eyesight.

Mine has deteriorated to where, although i can read without glasses much of the time, I get a much clearer view, perfectly magnified, through an EVF, compared to seeing the much larger rear screen at a distance.
Click to expand...
Hoodman Loupe (or equivalent) is the perfect answer to this and better for everyone overall than adding $400-$500 to the cost of an SD-1.
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Trevor G said:
Scottelly said:
EVF? Why? You have a huge 3" screen with almost a million dots to look at for composing photos. That's the way I would normally do it with my Sony A55, which WAS an EVF camera . . . but I hardly ever used the EVF. You are making statements that don't make sense to me. Please explain.
Click to expand...
It's a wonderful gift to have really good eyesight.

Mine has deteriorated to where, although i can read without glasses much of the time, I get a much clearer view, perfectly magnified, through an EVF, compared to seeing the much larger rear screen at a distance.
Click to expand...
Hoodman Loupe (or equivalent) is the perfect answer to this and better for everyone overall than adding $400-$500 to the cost of an SD-1.
Click to expand...
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:
The A7R has buzz because of image quality (due to both lens and sensor) - which the Sigma camera would also offer as a reward.
Click to expand...
The main buzz for A7 and A7R was that they were FF (and rather compact FF). The extra buzz for A7R was that it lacked an AA filter. And it also helped a lot that thy could take your legacy FF lenses.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I think what is best is what can be done sooner rather than later. Adding Live View and a few other improvements to the SD-1 (buffer in particular) along with the new sensor is enough of an upgrade to get a lot of people to spring for one.
Click to expand...
Yes, the SD1Q should really be here now. I have no idea when it will arrive, but I am quite sure that e.g. autumn 2015 is by far too late.
 
jennyrae said:
Late? Unless they make sd1q 35mp or 40mp camera. Medium format quality is never late for apsc.
Click to expand...
What do you think Sony have made autumn 2015? Quality is always measured in comparison with the competition. To be able to get any substantial market shares you need to exceed the competition. Just being slightly better is not enough.

Moreover - lenses is a part of the medium format advantage.
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
That's quite a lot of DPM users now, who possibly would wan tot move up to a Sigma DSLR at some point.
Click to expand...
How many of those have bought SD1Ms?
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
One option is to do as you suggest: basically update the SD1 with the Quattro sensor and live view. The cost is low, the risk is low but it's not going to attract much in the way of new customers.
Click to expand...
Given the sensor quality, I would disagree with that being an impediment to new customers.
Click to expand...
That same rationale has been given since 2002. Does Sigma want to simply preserve the status quo or grow DSLR share? The basic difference in SDQ naval gazing is based on what one thinks an SDQ should accomplish.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
The A7R has buzz because of image quality (due to both lens and sensor) - which the Sigma camera would also offer as a reward.
Click to expand...
The A7 and A7R have the same IQ as the D800/D610. The lenses are nothing special either: only the 55mm is notably better than Canon/Nikon equivalents but Sigma has fixed that.
 
Definition of better can be sketchy. When I bought sigma cameras, I look for that microcontrast that I not see with sony sensor and color type. Surely resolution is high and have advantages of ff can offer in my rx1 but result is just different to say one is better than other. Was not happy with apsc a6000 turnout with their supposed highend lens. Maybe limitation of sensor pixel level on apsc with existing sony apsc e-lenses. I think advantage of sigma is having ability to provide great lenses optimized for foveon sensor which sony lacks. Also foveon sensor seem to enhance legacy non-sigma lenses than on sony sensor if not mistaken.
 
HBowman said:
richard stone said:
I tend to agree with this, although I am reluctant to give business advice to camera makers. But has that ever stopped anyone...

And: what about "I think we should not underestimate what can do (or can't) SIGMA." A definite yes.

My thought is something like this: Sigma is not likely to take away the sports/wedding/documentation market from Canon/Nikon anytime soon, even if Sigma cameras produce superior images. That market is not going to change quickly. Not that Sigma should give up, because the requirements of those image makers benefits many other more casual uses of the cameras.

I can see the benefit of producing an APS-C Q SD1, in terms of allowing the excellent new Sigma lenses to be used on a Sigma DSLR. and although there may be some production/tolerance issues, those are within Sigma's capability. Just upgrade the SD1. How hard can it be?

But seriously, no small (APS-C) sensor, even in an excellent DSLR, is going to match or beat the D800 or, more importantly, the next generation of D800, whatever the name of that beast will be. Competing successfully with the D800 etc. will take a full frame Q technology camera. A FF Q could have either much larger pixels or many more smaller pixels. The q (4-1-1) concept is what matters.

What may be very important is simply the size of the sensor, to get the benefits of better gradation and tone, not to mention shadow detail, things that come with larger sensors.

From my perspective, the big issue is usability: each one stop increase in usable ISO at least doubles the market and potential sales of the camera.

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
richard stone said:
HBowman said:
richard stone said:
I think that the PDAF is not really an issue. It won't be an issue on the SD2 (eg: Canon 7D).
Click to expand...
I think we should not underestimate what can do (or can't) SIGMA.

In the other hand, the SD2 should be different than the SD1, for sure. Now we have a new processor, designed for the Quatro sensor. 2 of them should be enough to propel a larger sensor that the DPQ sensor. Having tested the sony stuff ... It's a good idea but it is not that comfortable to shoot as a dslr. So I hope OVF will stay, and for a long time. In +, the noise produced by the sony A series curtain is horrible.

What matter the most is the place of the SD2 on the actual market. At an overall level, does the SD2 as we think it now will compete with the pentax K3 ?? hell no. Even if the files "have magic inside and can be printed very big" (a very small % of the very small sigma user base print big).

The next decade will be very hard to overcome for niche products like SIGMA.

If DP mean Digital Pocket, I'm ok with the APS-C sensor size, it is perfect.

For the SD, I think we reached the limit of what can swallow the APS-C user base, even though that the DPM series is far more usable then the SD1m, just because of the live view and the flawless lenses.

The next SD should raise the barre by a large margin and the Q sensor only isn't a large enough bait, even for the SIGMA die-hard core.

My guestimate is that very few of you will jump on the new SD if its only a SD with Quatro sensor inside. its not a big improvement as we seen with the SD15 >> SD1.

So, the SD2 should be APS-H or full frame... or many will pass on this roll.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I don't think whatever limitations that brings matter to most Sigma users,
Click to expand...
Of course -- that's why they are current Sigma users. It's appealing to users who are not already Sigma users that would require more.
Member said:
If Sigma does those things then I think they will have passed muster.
Click to expand...
One option is to do as you suggest: basically update the SD1 with the Quattro sensor and live view. The cost is low, the risk is low but it's not going to attract much in the way of new customers.

The other option is to do something more like the A7R - higher risk but capable of creating a buzz in the market.

Which is best for Sigma? That's hard to say but there is merit in each idea.
Click to expand...
 
HBowman said:
In my opinion, if a final picture get all her acutance from the top layer (blue white mix) ... that's a very good new. That mean that resolution is bound only to the "top layer". The other layers are just color information. Before, the calculation of the acutance was probably on the 3 layers or more complicated.

That mean that the processor is as important as the sensor. The TRUE III processor is working in a totally different way than the TRUE II.

Overall, Foveon have done his homework and I'm sure this "next gen" foveon design is the key factor of a very bright future for SIGMA cameras. (My gust are telling me this, at least).
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting - I hope you're right!
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Trevor G said:
Scottelly said:
EVF? Why? You have a huge 3" screen with almost a million dots to look at for composing photos. That's the way I would normally do it with my Sony A55, which WAS an EVF camera . . . but I hardly ever used the EVF. You are making statements that don't make sense to me. Please explain.
Click to expand...
It's a wonderful gift to have really good eyesight.

Mine has deteriorated to where, although i can read without glasses much of the time, I get a much clearer view, perfectly magnified, through an EVF, compared to seeing the much larger rear screen at a distance.
Click to expand...
Hoodman Loupe (or equivalent) is the perfect answer to this and better for everyone overall than adding $400-$500 to the cost of an SD-1.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with shading the screen from the sun, but on the very close distance from the eye, I believe.

How come some people in some forums know all about this, even down to the correct medical/optical terms, and in others they don't !! ;-) We need some official help here...

I can see perfectly, with either eye, a close-up EVF display, and am able to assess focus, colour and the like. I can only see well the detail on a 24" monitor (or a 3" LCD) using reading glasses.

I understand there is a technical name to describe that condition, it is very common, and is why so many prefer EVF output because they don't need glasses!!
 
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