Another quirktastic camera from Sigma....... Locked

absquatulate wrote:

I disagree, the foveon sensor is radically different from bayer sensor cameras, the processing demands are clearly way beyond what bayer cameras have to do, and foveon is marketed as being specifically different. The sensor is the unique selling point and marketing blurb always reflects this. It is not reasonable to expect a 3 layer sensor to perform similarly to a bayer sensor, because it clearly doesn't. Medium format gets a free pass on many things, because MF cmaeras have a much bigger sensor. No-one criticises them for not being able to be used effectively for sports or action shooting. It is understood what they are best at, and they are judged accordingly, Foveon should be no different in this respect. We will never see a Foveon camera that competes for action with the likes of the D500 or the 7DII, we will never see an MF camera with 8fps and fast tracking performance either. If anything Foveon is the poor mans MF and should be judged as such.

As I said, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

The Q isn't a medium format camera. You might argue that in resolution terms it could be compared to a MF camera but it still has a small sensor, it doesn't have the other characteristics of a MF camera. That is really a false comparison IMO.

A better comparison will require a little bit of an historical aside. Remember the introduction of T-grain film emulsions? The original marketing was that T-Max films were radical: the new grain structure was much, much finer grained than traditional film. It mean that 35mm film was suddenly able to provide medium and high ISOs with grain structure and detail that rival medium format detail, sharpness and tonal smoothness. Suddenly, 35mm could answer all the criticism of its image quality leveled at it by larger formats.

I won't delve into the argument about whether it did obsolete MF film but I will accept that the IQ potential of 35mm was upgraded by the new emulsion. They key thing though is the film worked in the old camera bodies. The improved image quality did not reduce the capability of current cameras of the time, it improved them.

But this is not the case with Sigma cameras.

There is a price to pay for getting a Foveon sensor: worse camera bodies.

I don't think it is fair to try and avoid this fact. There is no reason why Sigma shouldn't be expected to make camera bodies that rival the state of the art in APS-C cameras. Their bodies should be as well made, reliable, easy to use, full featured, good performing as a D500 or XT2 or EM1 or A6300 but they are not. And that needs to be pointed out.

The Foveon sensor is interesting and is powerful in some characteristics and weak in others. It provides an alternative look to mainstream sensors but differences between it and mainstream sensors are not actually that great. Does a Merrill or a Q sensor offer more resolution than a 24MP Bayer sensor. Yes, a little but not a radical amount. Do the files look different? Sometimes, a bit, but not radically different. Do they always look "better" (whatever that means)? No, they sometimes look worse. Different sensor types are better at some things and worse than others. It is quite subjective which is the most likeable and when.

Basically, as we stand at the moment, objectively the sensor types offer alternatives like slide vs print film, colour vs mono. Only a fan could pretend that Foveon is so radical and superior that it should replace conventional sensor types for everything.

And that means as alternative sensors for shooting the same images, it is fair and reasonable that the camera bodies should also be compared like for like. I think we all know how that tends to pan out in reviews. Your review is trying to dodge the problems people really ought to be informed about by giving Sigma a free pass on the false pretence that the sensor makes it like a MF or speciality camera.