OP
(unknown member)
•
Forum Pro
•
Posts: 12,354
Re: Review criticism justified
The Davinator wrote:
absquatulate wrote:
DMillier wrote:
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.
No I'm not, I'm just pointing out the obvious, Foveon and Bayer cameras are simply not comparable for one huge reason, the sensor, it affects everything to do with speed of performance on the camera, that's simply a fact.
That's a fact to you
No, it's a fact based on simple physics.
...but the argument does not hold up to scrutiny. In the end, you are simply making excuses. The camera is indeed excellent in many ways...but a good sensor does not completely erase shortcomings. You're doing so is nothing more than fanboyism
If you choose to ignore the facts I can't help you, the Foveon sensor simply demands much more processing power to do it's work, yes or no?
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.
That's the point of the SD Quattro, it isn't a worse camera body, in fact I like it a lot. The only downsides are things that are directly affected by the demands of the sensor, the battery life and evf resolution for instance. There are things on the SD Quattro that are better than any other camera I've owned. I even like the design, it's a matter of taste but I like it. The build quality and buttons are also excellent, as is the innovative side screen, unique diopter control and placing of the power switch.
True in many ways. Still weak AF....and the dynamic range is exactly at the bottom of the martket.
So tell me, what is the dynamic range of the Quattro sensor? The AF is not weak, it's highly accurate, it's just slow, but how fast does it need to be for Landscape, Studio and Portraiture work? The AF in all my Foveon mirrorless cameras is very reliable.
So even if we look at the sensor, which you say over rides the rest, we still see a failing.
Bayer sensors clip to pure white more suddenly than Foveon sensors, that's why they are known for shooting excellent black and white images, so I can equally argue that the other way.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/03/the-sigma-dp2-merrill.html
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.
I disagree, they are very functional, I owned an XT1, I much prefer the SD Quattro design and especially the grip, the XT1 needed an additional grip attachment and even then it doesn't match the grip on the SD Quattro, which is really nice. The SD Quattro is entirely functional for what it needs to do. The Sony menu system is awful, all over the place, Sigma's menu system is great, very clean and simple, just how I like it, it does what it needs to do, make it simple to use the camera. My K3II has loads of bells and whistles, much of it I never use, it just clogs up the menu system.
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.
At low ISO the SD Quattro sensor is way ahead of APS-C sensors, the acutance and pure sharpness is superior, as is the colour to my eyes. Scenes look just as they should, colours are natural and accurate without being over saturated. I have a K3II, which has a very nice 24mp sensor, but in terms of the things I mentioned the SD Quattro sensor is clearly superior. I have the same lens on both cameras, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8, an excellent lens which is very sharp, on the Quattro it is incredibly sharp, that's a lens that cost me £200 for the Quattro as it was an open box deal. I have seen comparisons with the Nikon D800E, using the same lens, a prime, the Quattro bests it low ISO's, that's a 36mp camera that is much heavier and costs a lot more.
You are only addressing resolution...while conveniently ignoring dynamic range. It appears you are picking and chosingwhat you want to discuss. Again, that is excuse making.
Well you tell me what the DR of the Quattro SD sensor actually is as you know so much about it, I presume you've used one? The colour is also more realistic in my experience.
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.
I never claimed that, but it does look different, a difference I can see and like, I am definitely not alone that. Which you prefer is up to you and how you see things. I like the biting realism of foveon, but that's just me.
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.
No, I recognise that the Foveon sensor is radically different by design, and this design has significantly more demands in terms of processing power than bayer sensors. They work completely differently, Dick Merrill designed the Foveon sensor to replicate the look of film, I think he succeeded. To ignore the radically different architecture and demands of the foveon sensors, and expect them to perform the same as a bayer camera is just simply not logical. Effectively the SD Quattro is dealing with the 3 times the amount of data that a 19mp bayer camera does, you just cannot dismiss that and expect bayer like speed and performance. To get that you'd need a huge battery and multiple processors, which would give you a much bigger and more expensive camera.
No-one who buys a Foveon camera does not understand whats involved, it's a completely different and specialist tool, you simply cannot compare it to a Bayer camera, that's the reality. If Sigma were able to make it much faster in all respects, in an affordable way and acceptable size, they would undoubtedly have done, there would be no reason not to, that in itself is obvious.
No argument there....but irrelevant to the discussion.
How can the computing power required and sensor architecture be irrelevant when comparing cameras? so presumably the light gathering qualities of film are irrelevant to comparing cameras as well? You've just dismissed the two things that actually make Foveon sensored cameras completely different as "irrelevant" lol, seriously?
