Will Sigma FF have IBIS...

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 23,156
Re: Not this MP madness, again
1

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

TN Args wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

PrebenR wrote:

D Cox wrote:

I think 24 Megapixels would have been better than 20; not because there would be a huge difference in image quality, but because 24 has become a standard for entry-level cameras.

I prefer 20Mpx as it gives larger photosites which means better quality pixels. These cameras are not entry level cameras anyway.

I agree with that. I think Sigma decided they wanted to give their customers something they've been asking for over the years, which is a camera with big photosites like the original SD9, but in a full-frame sensor. They probably calculated that to be less than 16 MP, but were afraid to make a camera that offers less than 20 MP, so settled on 20 MP as the minimum. Nikon's most expensive camera is a 20 MP full-frame camera. Canon's most expensive camera is a 20 MP camera. No, they're not new, but both Nikon and Canon recently introduced their 20 MP speedy, pro-level, APS-C cameras too, so 20 MP is a "practical" sensor "resolution."

Full frame mirrorless cameras:

Sony A7iii 24 Mpix

Nikon Z6 25 Mpix

Canon EOS RP 26 Mpix

Panasonic S1 24 Mpix

Even the Sony A6000 APS_C camera has 24 Mpixels.

Now Sigma may well say "But ours are better pixels"; but what the prospective customer sees first is the basic number, and the price.

I don't think Sigma has much concern for the typical customer. When they were selling their SD14 it was called a 14 MP camera, and Nikon was selling a 10 MP camera for the same price range. Canon's 12 MP 5D was more expensive, and Canon's 8 MP 30 D was less expensive.

Sigma seems to be planning to call their new, full-frame camera a 60 MP camera. Considering the fact that the SD Quattro H is equivalent to 51 MP and costs less, and no doubt the new camera will offer better image quality, I think the 60 MP designation is reasonable.

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. So if Nikon make a 24 MP sensor with better IQ than Canon's 24 MP sensor, they should say it has 32 MP? Hey maybe 50 MP? In what warped world is that "reasonable"?

If it captures 32 MP worth of data, but the camera makes 24 MP jpegs, they should call it a 32 MP camera, yes . . . even if it doesn't make any 32 MP jpegs. No doubt the Sigma full-frame camera will make 60 MP jpegs, just like the 14 MP Sigma SD14 made 14 MP jpegs. The fact that people here like to call the SD 14 a 4.7 MP camera doesn't change the fact that it captures 14 MP worth of data, and the fact that people like you and Roland refuse to call the 60 MP full-frame camera what it is going to be is neither here nor there, and proposing absurd comparisons to try to make your point doesn't change the facts in what I said.

Facts? How about spin?!!

Sorry Scott, your impassioned diatribe is full of holes, the biggest of which is calling a layer photocell a "pixel" implied by your liberal use of "MP" which is just plain-assed wrong.

Yes, I'm afraid Scott is wrong here. Photosites are not pixels, especially not in a Foveon sensor.

A traditional (pre-Quattro) Foveon has three times as many photosites as it has pixels. A pixel is a location in the final image. Generally there are three numbers for each pixel.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
dlj
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow