Should Sigma make a 30 MP per layer full-frame Foveon instead of 20 MP per layer?

richard stone wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

D Cox wrote:

mike earussi wrote:

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Indeed - decreasing S/N = more noise = more smoothing during conversion = less "3D look".

Keeping them the same size as in the Merrill should give about 24 Mpix, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

36mm x 24mm /(5um squared) = about 35MP.

Ted...

If your math is correct, which I figure it is, then I would vote for an "improved" 35MP FF Merrill...maybe with a Q (x4) top layer. But the most used setting for me would be something like a FF Merrill. But for better Dynamic Range ("DR") I would be willing to go to something like 20M.

Would I buy or use such a camera? I really think that the Q and Q(H) variants already have plenty of MP. The key is holding the camera still. The main issue is minimal Foveon "DR" which makes the camera work like it is loaded with (ISO 100) slide film. It is usually a great look. Usually.

As for images, the point is that Anything you want to make an image of is fair game. Maybe no one else wants to see it? Too bad for them. The trick is, or seems to be, to make an image you like that also appeals to others. Some people are really good at that that. Others not so much.

But in the end what matters is your own personal satisfaction, or pleasure. Sometimes it is just fun to try out new cameras and see how they work. Assuming no one is going to complain too much about your camera purchases and expenses, then why not try out new cameras? About all we can do is enjoy our lives.

But from what I have read, we are getting near, or may have already passed diminishing returns in terms of MP: 24MP on a FF is plenty. Sure, more is more, and more can be better, but is 50MP really twice as good as 24? I kind of doubt that it is.

I think it is not most of the time, but there can be enough difference to differentiate an image, even though the difference is a small one, just like in the Olympics, where a fraction of the measure counts, whether it be in inches of height, fractions of a second in time, etc. Do people who shoot with medium format cameras really need to do that?

I know a photographer who sells huge prints. He recently upgraded from his 50 MP Canon 5 Dsr and L series lenses to a 100 MP Fuji GFX100 and four new medium format Fuji lenses. It cost him a lot of money, but he is very satisfied, and glad he spent the money. Some of his prints from single shots are as wide as eight feet. He can see a difference in his work, and he also has more dynamic range in his images to work with. He is urging me to get a Fuji too, but I told him I don't want such a heavy, expensive rig, and besides, who has that much money to spend on equipment?!? Maybe I will some day, but for now I'll stick with what I've got, because I agree . . . 50 MP is not really that much better than 24 MP, and we do indeed reach a point of diminishing returns.

Some day I will probably buy a 100 MP camera though, and I still hope for a full-frame Quattro that makes 80 MP native images (because of its 80 MP top layer). I believe Sigma can do that. I believe that a little more density than today's Quattro can be done, and still look good at ISO 100, as long as they tweak the processing a little in SPP.