These new Sigma samples are AMAZING

Rita Viegas · Oct 27, 2003

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....

every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder " Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

That would be just perfect

Joao

Cliff. Johnston · Oct 27, 2003

Joao,

There's an old song title that's very appropriate at this time - Dream Weaver.

Don't we all wish...

Cliff.

Joao Sobral said:
I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

That would be just perfect

Joao

--
Cliff. Johnston

Another birder · Oct 27, 2003

Joao Sobral said:
I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that has really impressed me that much.

--

adh · Oct 27, 2003

This sample at http://www.pbase.com/image/22626268/original beats any non-1DS image I have seen.

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:
Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Dan Frederiksen · Oct 27, 2003

Yes that is rather beautiful in motif and clarity but what Tim perhaps meant and what I agree with is that the SD10 seems to be blurry compared to the SD9 which is a fargin' shame.

Perhaps it is a simple matter of using the SD9 software or changing a few parameters with the new software.

adh said:
I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

adh · Oct 27, 2003

The image you like for "clarity" is from a SD10.

adh

Dan Frederiksen said:
adh said:

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

softtower · Oct 27, 2003

While many of Phil's images appear to be out of focus, the gallery you've posted the link to indeed looks good.

However: nothing special. Those images seem to be a bit oversharpened, introducing some halo around edges of the mountains.

Why were those images sharpened so much?

I love FOVEON concept and SD9 seemed (and still seems) like a great camera to me as far as image quality at ISO100 goes, but I'm yet to see a ny improvement with SD10...

Let's just wait for a production model.

adh said:
I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

--
Eugueny

Ron Parr · Oct 27, 2003

adh said:
This sample at http://www.pbase.com/image/22626268/original beats
any non-1DS image I have seen.

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

I am favorably impressed with the detail in some of the SD10 shots, so don't take what I'm saying as any kind of contradiction. However, I do want to point out that that extreme closeups can be deceptive. They reveal so much more detail than we're used to seeing (and we have such poor knowledge of what we're missing) that we almost always come away amazed by the detail.

Here's a shot of a lily from my S400 (note sharpest focus is towards the bottom right):

http://www.pbase.com/image/17594582

It's not a sharp or detailed as the SD10 shot, but it's surprisingly close given that it's just a 4MP P&S. Does this mean that I think my S400 is nearly as good as the SD10? No. It means that I think closeups of lilies are not the best way to just sharpness.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Peter G · Oct 27, 2003

Ron Parr said:
I am favorably impressed with the detail in some of the SD10 shots,
so don't take what I'm saying as any kind of contradiction.
However, I do want to point out that that extreme closeups can be
deceptive. They reveal so much more detail than we're used to
seeing (and we have such poor knowledge of what we're missing) that
we almost always come away amazed by the detail.

As soon as the image started to come up, I dumped it because it was clear it was a macro. I am so tired of seeing people posting macros as "proof" of how sharp their cameras are. People are ignoring the phenomena Ron mentions. Macros are deceptive. Just about any camera looks sharp in macros, as they reveal detail we are not used to seeing.

If you want to compar cameras compare them on the same exact image under the same conditions or it is just about meaningless.

Like Erik M's comparison of the SD9 and 300D recently. The cameras are close. Some images looked better on the SD9 and some looked better on the 300D.

Peter

Another birder · Oct 27, 2003

adh said:
This sample at http://www.pbase.com/image/22626268/original beats
any non-1DS image I have seen.

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

Its nice - but Ive seen very similar levels of detail from my little 300D, when the images are re-sized to SD9 size.

adh said:
adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

--

Antonio777185508 · Oct 27, 2003

Geir Ove posted the following quote from imaging resource

"The SD10's images have a noticeably different character than those of the SD9 though, which may disappoint some SD9 enthusiasts. Because it had no anti-aliasing filter, the SD9 was known for producing extremely crisp images (some would say "overly crisp", myself among them), and it was this characteristic that many SD9 enthusiasts particularly appreciated. The downside of the unusual crispness was that the SD9 had a marked tendency to produce aliasing along sharp edges and in areas with lots of fine detail or repeating patterns of just the wrong spatial frequency. As described earlier in this review, one of the advances made in the SD10's sensor was the addition of microlenses on the surface of the array, to improve light-gathering efficiency and thereby light sensitivity. Because the microlenses effectively extend the light-gathering area of each pixel, they remove a great deal of the SD9's tendency to undersample the image data, which has two related effects: 1) It softens edge transitions in images a fair bit; and 2) it reduces the SD10's tendency to alias. Given that the "SD9 enthusiast" crowd was willing to overlook (2) because they liked (1) so much, it's my guess that many of them are going to be unhappy with the apparent "softness" of the SD10's images, even though they actually more faithfully reproduce the original subjects."

(End of Quote)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SSD10/SD10A12.HTM

After reviewing Phil's photos, even the iso 100 shots, I also took a look at Rick Decker's gallery.

I would agree that the SD10 images are soft. I'd still rather have the SD9. The micro-lens may have fixed the iso versatility but it has eliminated what was the selling feature of the SD9....unbelievably sharp images.

Ron Parr · Oct 27, 2003

Antonio777 said:
I would agree that the SD10 images are soft. I'd still rather have
the SD9. The micro-lens may have fixed the iso versatility but it
has eliminated what was the selling feature of the
SD9....unbelievably sharp images.

Maybe you should read the quote a little more carefully and think about what it means. If true, it means that the sharpness you are missing was a sampling artifact and not genuine sharpness.

Think of it this way: Since the active part of each pixel was only a fraction of the total area of the pixel, the SD9 would sometimes give the impression of an abrupt transition from light to dark because it simply failed to sample the area in which the transition occurred. With microlenses, each pixel actually sees what's going on in the gap between the pixels, so smooth transitions are better preserved.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Antonio777185508 · Oct 28, 2003

Ron Parr said:
Maybe you should read the quote a little more carefully and think
about what it means. If true, it means that the sharpness you are
missing was a sampling artifact and not genuine sharpness.

Yes, of course. I read the entire quote...but reviewers have a way of justifiying apparent weaknesses..and turning them into positives. The anti-aliasing explanation/justication sounds nice...but I don't believe it entirely. Perhaps you should be more skeptical of such explanations and trust your eyes. The Sigma SD9 photos had a three-dimensional quality that is not at all apparent with the SD10 photos...even after I've applied sharpening. I find it highly unlikely the three-dimensional quality of the SD9 samples were due to artifacts.

Yes, I've downloaded Phil's iso 100 SD10 test samples and tried sharpening them and could not get them to look as good as the SD9 samples. Surely the sharpening of the SD10 samples should provide artifacts and reverse the process creating an image similar to the SD9....BUT IT DID NOT. THerefore the imaging resource discussion is probably not true. Indeed, my little experiment proves something unrecoverable was indeed lost with the microlens in front of the sensor.

The saving grace of your comment is that you included the preface "If true". Needless to say, I'm skeptical. I don't believe everything a reviewer writes in a review. What we can say for sure is that Sigma put a lens in front of sensor that improves light sensitivity and solves the iso problem. But alters the clarity of the final image.

Antonio777185508 · Oct 28, 2003

OK, I made a hasty illogocal mistake. Sharpening the SD10 photos would not recreate artifacts...since they are not there. Rather it would create halos. I still am skeptical that a microlens (which acts as low-pass filter) will not introduce distortion of a sort.

Ron Parr said:
Think of it this way: Since the active part of each pixel was only
a fraction of the total area of the pixel, the SD9 would sometimes
give the impression of an abrupt transition from light to dark
because it simply failed to sample the area in which the transition
occurred. With microlenses, each pixel actually sees what's going
on in the gap between the pixels, so smooth transitions are better
preserved.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Laurence Matson · Oct 28, 2003

Dan,

There may be some truth in this. The sensor-camera itself is not less sharp than the SD9. Wait until you have a broader selection.

Dan Frederiksen said:
Yes that is rather beautiful in motif and clarity but what Tim
perhaps meant and what I agree with is that the SD10 seems to be
blurry compared to the SD9 which is a fargin' shame.
Perhaps it is a simple matter of using the SD9 software or changing
a few parameters with the new software.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Laurence Matson · Oct 28, 2003

better overall performance, better information per pixel, better color response, better ISO performance, etc.

Not too bad in my book. It will make a great primary body and a couple of very good backups.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Laurence Matson · Oct 28, 2003

Antonio,

Real X3 processing is done in SPP and not in PS. That is post-processing and more likely than not will muck up the result. If the image did not come out nearly optimum from SPP, it is a real mess cleaning it up in PS. On the other hand, it is easy to post-process (clean, crop, pre-flight) an image that has been correctly "developed" in SPP.

This includes sharpening.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Antonio777185508 · Oct 28, 2003

Laurence

Your explanation does offer me some hope for the SD10. I will have to wait for Sigma to offer sample images on their website and then process with the SPP software. The software is indeed excellent/superb.

Laurence Matson said:
Antonio,

Real X3 processing is done in SPP and not in PS. That is
post-processing and more likely than not will muck up the result.
If the image did not come out nearly optimum from SPP, it is a real
mess cleaning it up in PS. On the other hand, it is easy to
post-process (clean, crop, pre-flight) an image that has been
correctly "developed" in SPP.

This includes sharpening.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

adh · Oct 28, 2003

I am definitely considering the 300D as my next camera.

I would love to see any sample images you might have which show similar detail that the SD9/10 displays.

Macros are fine.

thanks...adh
============================

Tim O'Connor said:
adh said:

This sample at http://www.pbase.com/image/22626268/original beats
any non-1DS image I have seen.

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Its nice - but Ive seen very similar levels of detail from my
little 300D, when the images are re-sized to SD9 size.

Another birder said:

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Peter G · Oct 28, 2003

Admittedly the SD10 is pre-release, but this might give you some idea. All from IR, Sd9 and SD10 resized to 200%, 300D resized to match. No sharpening applied by me. Irfanview was used to resize (Lanczos method).

adh said:
I would love to see any sample images you might have which show
similar detail that the SD9/10 displays.

Macros are fine.

thanks...adh
============================

Tim O'Connor said:

adh said:

This sample at http://www.pbase.com/image/22626268/original beats
any non-1DS image I have seen.

I have been comparing images for several months trying to determine
what camera to buy.

Nothing beats the SD9/10 for detail in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Its nice - but Ive seen very similar levels of detail from my
little 300D, when the images are re-sized to SD9 size.

adh said:

adh
=====================

Tim O'Connor said:

Joao Sobral said:

I have a Fuji S2 that I love, but....
every time I see these samples from a feveon camera I wonder "
Imagine what you could do if the Foveon on a Nikon F100 Body"

Click to expand...

Can you point out one that is 'amazing'? Havent seen one yet that
has really impressed me that much.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
http://www.trytel.com/~pguidry/vacation.html

These new Sigma samples are AMAZING

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Ron Parr

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Ron Parr

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts