The next Foveon camera?

Doppler9000 wrote:

josepmg wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

josepmg wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

tarmov wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

tarmov wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

You are definitely a romantic, dear Tarmo. I like that.
You doubt my 'rational' thinking, but when Professor Fossum speaks, ...

I very much doubt he was speaking about a niche market segment.

He was likely speaking about a potential wider market success.

No, certainly not!!!

I very much doubt about your claim.

He was talking about the unconquerable technical difficulties of the 3-layer Foveon sensor.

Technical differences and technical difficulties do not necessarily render niche tech market segments obsolete. And when it does it is due to other SIMILAR tech approaches taking over. Classical Bayer is DISSIMILAR to Foveon, thus it can never take over the Foveon market segment.

And one does not know if CEO Yamaki's engineers are still tinkering with the Foveon or not, he says they are, but this has also been some time ago.

Many months, I say. Perhaps even 2 months. /s

-Tarmo

If all you can tell me is that you don't trust me and that I'm telling lies, ... then I give up.

You'd better trust people a bit more, who have been taking pictures with Foveon for a very long time, and not question everything ...
If all possible negative criticism of Foveon sensors, from every famous and respected scientist to every Foveon fan is made out to be nonsense and lies by you ... then I'm done talking.

Jozef

Indeed. Don’t feed the troll - he or she is not interested in an honest, rational discussion, and lives in a world of fantasy.

I agree. Let's put aside fantasy and also the supposed rational discussions that are often pure fantasy.

My proposal is that you show us one or two photographs (with its respective X3F) with your best process, showing those supposed limitations of the Foveon sensor. Surely we can decide whether the limitations are from the sensor or the user.

If the respected scientist apart from theorizing has done a field test, a link in this regard would be appreciated.

Erik Fossum co-developed the CMOS sensor, he has a modicum of understanding of the material in question. The limitations of the Foveon sensor with regard to noise and poor efficiency were even acknowledged by its inventors. There is no field test that will repeal the laws of physics, sadly.

If someone posted a Foveon picture that you didn’t like, you would blame the processing, or something else - you would claim that the image didn’t prove the hypothesis. The only rational way forward is to turn to disproof. Why don’t you post a 400+ ISO Foveon image and show it’s superiority over an image taken with a recent camera at the same ISO?

In short, everything is blah, blah, bla.

Well said.

As understanding (or not), I don't have to demonstrate anything, because I have not questioned anything. And as is evident, a high ISO is not my priority when it comes to opting for a Sigma camera.

ISO 400 isn’t really “high ISO”. Well, other than for Foveon cameras.

My advice is that you expect to see that Sigma offers us before burying Foveon.

I assume you intended to write something else here - this sentence is incoherent.

I hope you will forgive my incoherence. I try to get along with the translator, but I don't always succeed.

I talked about high iso because obviously that was the intention of your first comment. Questioning the quality of the iso400 of the latest Foveon sensors demonstrates the lack of knowledge you have of the subject.

Returning to my proposal, I regret that it is not of your interest and that you question my intentions without knowing me. The intention is as simple as leaving aside the blah, blah, blah and go to what interests me: In a bad image foveon that weighs more, the limitations of the sensor or a poor development?.