abera wrote:
ers
. . . snip . . .
They don't do miracles. They can only produce results the input data allows them to produce. This is exactly like comparing small exposures (typically high ISO) and larger exposures (typically low ISO) and processing them in a raw converter - clearly the limits of the results are different.
Now, whether the results one gets from a set of data a "good enough", or "pleasant" is a very different story. For example I find the colors of Sigmas to be usually perfectly fine.
Essentially it's about SNR on chrominance information.
Other small companies have been known for their color too, such as Leica, Hasselblad, and Phase One.
Foveon type multi layer system might work better in the future with different materials, maybe organic materials or perovskites. Plenty of perovskite developement is being done due to their potential for solar cells and at least one multilayer demonstration does exists (with hideous image quality). Maybe 15 years from now?
As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors? Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?
No. You need likely something like 70% of the pixel count to match conventional sensors, maybe more nowdays as AI-based demosaicing is on its way. This also diminishes the false color advantage.
Anyhow, as even 10MP is enough for very large prints...
The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?
Some like it's different colors and I'm sure many fans would buy because of them, but as the colors can be very problematic and lack in accuracy and because the conventional cameras are not exactly lacking in color accuracy, it's hard to see how the general public would get interested in this.
I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.
At this point, fanboys aside, the fact that we are still discussing this seems a bit absurd to me, so why did I start this thread lol?.
Foveon is very interesting concept and I'm happy it was brought to life. But it feels more like a hobby project, a niche project for those who desire something different. There aren't really any advantages over conventional sensors
Huh? You already gave one in your own reply here above . . . "The main advantage is reduction in false color artifacts (e.g. moiré)."
I said "really any advantages" - meaning that there aren't much relevant advantages. But I can agree that I should have used more careful wording.
As long the the sampling rates of conventional sensors are low enough for diffraction (and lens flaws) to not be enough to eliminate false color artifacts, this can be a small advantage.
Of course it could esily be corrected by using strong enough anti aliasing filters, but since pixel peeping is part of camera reviews and those sell cameras, AA-filters are now largely gone or very weak (and often unidirectional as well.
while the drawbacks may cause issues.
I hope a FF Foveon does see the light of day, but not only I'm not holding my breath, I'd expect the product to be a very low volume very high price item.
Of course the first FFF will be low volume and high priced, but for all we know Sigma will make a future generation in ten times the volume
How? In order for Sigma FFF be a large scale products it would need to have tangible advantages without tangible disadvantages. This is not the case. Also it would need to offer similar marketing (including indirect marketing like camera clubs, peer pressure etc.) and support networks, camera shop visibility and so on. There is no reason to believen any of this will happen.
There have been many products put on the market, which dominated a niche in their industry without a large support network or a significant marketing presence. The product just has to work well. Today, with the Internet, that is even more likely, because of how easy it is for people to find the information.
...and disinformation
There is very small market for "different" cameras which have practically no advantages over conventional cameras.
Tell that to the professional photographers who pay thousands of dollars extra to buy cameras that work slower, weigh more, and are harder to use . . . you know, those "niche" market cameras, like Phase One, Hasselblad, and even Fuji GFX cameras, which require those big, slow, heavy, and expensive lenses.
That is a very very small market. They are a fraction of a percent of FF, APS-C, m43-cameras sold. Most professional photographers use very different products btw.
The market shrinks even more if the product is more expensive and underperform in many ways.
Sure, but there is still a market, and it can be quite profitable. Rolls Royce kniws this. So does Ferrari. So does GoPro.
Sure, though I would not put GoPro in that list.
And by RR you likely mean cars, not jet engines It owned by BMW, btw.
Anyhow, you might want to realize that Ferrari etc. are have valuable brand names, like for example Leica has in photographic genre. For both it's either the brand or the red paint which costs a lot
, allowibg them to price it very low, so it sells quite well.
So it will sell well because it's price will go down because it sells well? Something circular in that argument.
No. It will sell well, because its price will be set low by the manufacturer from the beginning, because the manufacturer doesn't need to sell it for such high prices, because it costs less to make, since it is
I've already given multiple reasons. Did you forget?
1) Price is lower, because of higher volume of production, so more people buy.
But increase in production requires increase in demand.
Where did you get that idea? A company can decide to produce any number of products they want, whether there's "demand" for it or not. That sort of thing happens all the time. It's called taking a gamble. Sigma has an idea how many Quattros sold per yeat, but they really don't know how many full-frame cameras will sell. Let's say they decide to make 5,000 of the first model, but 50,000 of the second model, so they can price the second one lower. Obviously they can change that plan if the first one sells so slowly that they still haven't sold more than half of them after two or three years, and the new sensor is ready to go into production. They may decide to hold off, and produce half as many after waiting another year, and placing the first one on sale a couple of times to get rid of most of their inventory. Still, they can't sell them for 20% less or 30% less than the first one if they don't produce significantly more.
Demand comes first. From where does this come from? I don't see many new Sigma users, only some existing ones upgrading.
Demand changes with product features, quality, and price, of course.
2) Camera provides photographers with medium format image detail in a camera that weighs half as much, and has a huge selection of affordable lenses available.
Assuming Quattro pixel pitch - tough to go smaller due to technical reason like low SNR in lower layers - it would have 46MP.
The Merrill has a smaller pixel pitch than the full-frame sensor will, so the lower layers could certainly have a bigger pixel pitch than the Merrills, but slightly smaller pixel pitch than today's Quattros.
Normal CFA sensors capture capture - at least from mathematical point of view - just about all luminance information (which is what is relevant for resolution). Conventional raw-converters can have issues at fine details under some conditions, but with AI things are getting better and better as Adobe raw enhanced details has demonstrated.
Anyhow, 46MP does not create 100MP or 150MP "bayer equivalents".
Ummm, a full-frame Quattro with a 50 MP top layer would be equivalent to a 100 MP full-frame Bayer, with regard to resolution.
It only resolves at most 2800lp/ih.
Sorry, but my SD Quattro H probably could do that.
3) Foveon sensor advantage means that even with the sharpest lenses and the sharpest aperture setting, there is no color moire to deal with.
Quattro subsamples two layers, so I wouldn't call it immune to moiré,
Have you seen color moire in a Quattro image? If so, please post the link here. I've had three different Sigma cameras with Foveon sensors, and I've never seen color moire in any of my images. I saw it in images from my Nikon D810 though.
Aliasing will only go away with either AA filters, (significant) lens flaws or diffraction (i.e. much finer sampling than with todays large sensors).
There are other reasons to buy, but there are reasons to not buy too, of course. That's always how it goes with new camera buying decisions.
For example, I'd like to buy a Fuji X-H2, because it can do 8Kp30, but it can't do 4Kp120, like the Fuji X-H2S, and it has no built-in GPS, like the Canon 5D IV.
The product is and will always be a small niche product - it offers little to no practical advanages, even fewer in the future as diffraction removes false color artifacts (and other aliasing, from Foveon too too), offers several disadvantages, has far less marketing, support, visibility and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I like Foveon, but not because I think it's better, but because it's different.
You seem like a pretty well informed person.
Thank you. I know a bit of some stuff.
It's difficult for me to believe you don't know how this works.
I think I do know. I think I've been quite logical here.
Your comment brings into question your motives, and makes me wonder if you just have an axe to grind. Are you just trolling here?
That's quite childish.
Asking if you're trolling?
Yes. What kind of answer would you expect from a troll?
To me it seems like you have a emotioinal need to protect Foveon from what you perceive to be an attack on it.
Maybe. I believe in it.
Wow, I think you're the first person ever I've heard to admit such a thing. Admitting it is a good thing, having a feel to protect a brand from imagined attacks is not.
I'd protect the U.S.A.
Ok. A bit different though since you likely live in USA and so on, while Sigma is only a brand/corporation.
the same way if you attacked it verbally, trying to say it isn't really a great country after-all, because I would feel you're confused or just don't know the truth.
That's again very naive.
How do you define a "great country"? Maybe we have different metrics to define it.
What country is greater than the U.S.A? Name just one or two. I'd like to know. Overall the U.S.A. offers more freedom (not just to it's own citizens, but to the majority of the World), more variety, more opportunity, more technological advancement, and helps other countries more than any other country to ever exist on Earth. If that's not true, please tell me which country surpasses the U.S.A.
If we compare the highly developed countries, USA you love so much is not doing that well on many metrics. Like literacy, child mortality, life expectency, prison populacion, gun violence and lots and lots of more. Countries are not great.
Yes, they are . . . some of them. China, India, the U.S.A, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and a few others, no doubt, are all great countries.
They're all failures to some degree some more than others. The country I live in is one which is one of the least failed one in the history of mankind - at the moment - who knows what kind of failured it'll experience in the future. In 100 years it might be a horrible tyranny and my view on it would be quite different.
But I think this is just a bit off topic considering what forum this is.
Hard to see why you'd go on this road otherwise. Dish me more this and I'll return the favor. Ruins the thread from others though and mods will likele finnish it.
Not really. I don't think that calling someone out for attacking a product that is popular with the majotity of forum members ruins threads at all.
Would you please point out one place where I have attacked Sigma?
You're talking down their excellent line of sensors. Believe it or not, coming into the Sigma Camera Talk Forum and doing that is "attacking Sigma" almost as if you're saying Sigma cameras aren't any good.
You won't find any.
Do you know Sigma's history in the camera world?
Yes, pretty well. Both lenses and cameras. Actually one of my all time favorite lenses is a Sigma - the 1st generation 30/1.4 APS-C lens was splendid for street shooting.
Do you realise they've been selling cameras for about 20 years?
Yes, and frankly you're being quite impolite.
How is it impolite to ask you if you realize something I think you may not know?
The way you wrote the phrase is the key. Would you say that at people's face in the real world? If so, then you should practise your skills in polite communication a bit.
If you don't have an argument about the topic, then don't say anything. You don't need to defend the "honor of Sigma or Foveon".
If I don't, then who will?
Why would anyone need to?
If we let all sorts of people come into this forum and bash Sigma cameras, without defending them, then people who are looking for information, rather than disinformation, could be misled.
So am I now bashing Sigma? You won't find any evidence of that.
It sure seems like you think Sigma is doing the wrong thing by making a full-frame Foveon sensor, and you already said the Foveon sensor will soon go extinct. I've heard that before. You sound like one of those people who used to say Sigma will never make a full-frame sensor.
Your behaviour is frankly very immature and rude.
I'm not the one talking down our holy grail here man! Do you know what forum you're in here?!?
Do you know Foveon sensors have been improved time and time again,
Of course - for example the first generation had a read noise of something like 40 electrons if I don't remember wrong, while the most recent ones have cut it well below 10, maybe even below 5.
I wonder if conventional sensors have improved at all...
(The above was of course sarcasm.)
So you admit Sigma/Foveon has improved their sensors in the past. Will you admit that maybe . . . just maybe . . . they will improve them in the future too?
Seriously, please stop this juvenile behaviour.
No. Stop trying to bully me.
Products tend to be improved over time. But the fact is that Foveon has improved at the speed of a glacier, the conventional sensors not. There is little reason to believe that limited R&D would create some new miracle system to conquer the world. Foveon has certain inherit issues which can't really be solved.
They've been solving the issues, improving the dynamic range, resolution, and color accuracy. What are they not improving?
On the other hand conventional sensors have one main issue which is false color artifacts - this is being solved on two fronts - better demosaicing (using AI) and increased spatial sampling frequency.
My point is that both Foveon AND CFA sensors (Bayer pattern, X-Trans, etc.) have improved.
When was the last Foveon released? And it's predecessor? And it's predecessor?
Not just the sensors made by Sony and other big companies.
You do realize that the high volume manufacturers pour a thousand times more money on R&D?
Many people try to talk down the cameras with Foveon sensors
Really? I've yet to see anyone.
by saying Bayer sensors can make relatively clean images at ISO 6400 and even higher, and I think tjat's great, and shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 800 and 1600 is one of the reasons I have my Nikon D810, but that only goes so far. It's a small advantage, where most people are concerned, and a big advantage for some, but when most of my photography is done at ISO 100 or 200,
On most metrics the conventional image sensors outperform Foveon at low ISOs as well. The only tangible advantage of Foveon is the false color thing and that advantage is eroding every year.
This does not mean that Sigma isn't perfectly fine tool. Heck, I take most my photos on relatively modest mobile phone camera - and the photos are usually pretty good (technically) and easily handle viewing in sizes like 60cm by 40cm. And my mobile phone camera is quite a bit weaker performer than your favorite tool on almost all metrics.
having the ability to shoot reasonable quality photos at ISO 6400 really isn't that important. There are lots of advantages of other cameras. The list would be long (battery life, IBIS, speed, etc.). None of those advantages convinces me to not shoot with Sigma cameras though, and in the future Sigma will make even better cameras, which operate faster (like the Quattros vs the Merrills), have tilt screens, better viewfinders, and maybe they'll even have IBIS. Then the CFA cameras will have even less advantage.
Actually the only tangible advantage of Foveon is what is disappearing.
Sigma may well produce one more Foveon generation. It's hard to see them doing more as there's no rational reason for it.
Of course there is. Improving sensors requires making new sensor models.
Although, if it is a hobby project, a labor of love, so who knows.
and Sigma cameras have continued to offer some of the best quality digital imaging,
Not from the cameras. They have one basic strength - no (or less) false color artifacts compared the CFA sensors without (or with weak) AA-filters.
Well, that translates into spectacular image quality, I guess, and that's enough for me.
That is only one IQ metric out of many. And even that advantage is being reduced all the time. The disadvantages however are real and based on limitations of physics.
So you say, but I've heard that song and dance before too. You obviously have no idea what technology Sigma might invent to improve their sensors. Neither does anyone else. There's one thing that's for sure. They won't make better sensors if they listen to negative people like you, and give up on making their excellent sensors.
The weaknesses are numerous.
Absolutely they are, and in this forum we're well aware of the weaknesses of Foveon sensors. Believe me.
Well, considering how hard you've been ignoring and even denouncing them so far, this is quite a surprising statement
Foveon is a different product and I appreciate it for that, but I don't delude myself into believing that it's an all-a-round superior product.
Neither do I. I think many, if not most of the members here have other brands of cameras too - not just Sigma. Now that Sigma makes cameras with CFA sensors too though, there's less reason for us to own other brands. I look forward to the time when I have just one system of lenses, so I can build that out, and have a really extensive selection of lenses that work with all of my cameras.
The lenses are on the other hand nowdays absolutely stellar. They often used to be quite hideous several decades ago, but in addition to the typical lenses they also often had some options other manufacturers din't have. Slowly the lenses got better and nowdays they're easily among the leading manufacturers when it comes the quality, and if I recall right, the leading when it comes to quality.
edit: meant quantity there.
against the massive industry for all those years?
They've not been "against" the industry, but part of it.
I'm referring to the competition between CFA and Foveon (if you want to call it that). You're the one who mentioned
There isn't really any competition. Foveon is not even a blib on the radar.
Foveon is a nice novelty product. I find it interesting in many ways. But it's also a product which will die out almost certainly within ten years.
I've heard this kind of rhetoric for about twenty years.
Sigma on the other hand will keep on flourishing, I'm sure, though through the lenses, not likely through the cameras.
They might be a leader in studio and landscape cameras one day. They already make a couple of good full-frame video cameras. They certainly seem to be on the right path to succeed in the camera world.
I call that amazing,
Why? Sigma is just another corporation among others.
Would you call Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Volkswagen also amazing? They all started from nothing as well and are doing pretty well inspite of competition
and I prefer the images from the SD Quattro H to everything else,
Good for you. But this thread is not about your personal preference.
except a 100 MP (or more) medium format camera,
Wouldn't 99MP be enough? Does it have to be MF - would a 100MP FF be enough?
as do several other photographers here, despite the dynamic range disadvantage,
I feel temptend to ask what you think DR is, but maybe I shouldn't
I guess SNR isn't relevant to you since you did't mention it.
and despite how slowly the Sigma cameras operate. That alone should tell you something.
Sure, you like your camera. You. That's a personal thing. Not an objective statement of performance of some imaging technology.
I have used Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras (several from each brand), yet I prefer to shoot with Sigma cameras. That's not because I'm stupid, ignorant, or a masochist, but because my Sigma cameras produce better images.
No, it's because you like the results of your Sigma cameras.
For your own sake you should understand that your personal preference is not the same as objective reality.
First it would need to exists - if it will ever exist, the long depelopement doesn't really indicate that the mythological "next generation FFF" following it would be developed fast or that it would have enough tangible advantages when the competition will at that point have 200MP or more and be cheaper than it's predecessor.
When even medium format seems to have stopped moving forward in resolution, what makes you think that will ever happen?
Likely for two reasons - not much competition to push the resolutions up, and also processing/storage needs).
And how will that change over the next few years?
Processing and storage tends to get faster & cheaper all the time.
And mobile phones provide a push to increase resolution.
It's not like we can't buy a 5 TB hard drive for around $100. I just did myself, because my old 5 TB drive is full.
It's a bit more about the camera processing (and thus battery) and storage.
New image sensors ordered for MF aren't cheap as the sensors are big (yields go down with size - deficient pixels aren't necessarily problems, but for example an ADC would be) and the volume is low.
Sure, but that isn't anything new. It's been like that for the past twenty years.
Have you noticed how mobile phone cameras have now broken the 100MP barrier?
Meaningless. We're talking about ILCs, so mobike phone tech has no relevance, right?
Huh? Phones destroyed the low end of cameras. They are both the competition, but also share the technology - actually they are the thing where the advancements come first.
Competition drives things.
EXACTLY! There seems to be no resolution competitiveness in the full-frame workd these days.
There was a rather long period of little improvements, but for many reasons - one could even call it a perfect storm. Things change.
The idea of "no resolution competitiveness" is a bit weird. To sell more products and to outcompete the competition the products need to improve. One of the easiest ways to market improvement is having more pixels.
If that's true, then why did Canon actually go backwards in that regard. Years ago they made a 50 MP camera. Today they max out at 45 MP. Why?
I don't get it, frankly, but it seems that everyone is happy to leave Sony on top of the World, with regard to high-resolution imaging,
Really? How is that? Sony has exactly one camera with somewhat more pixels than the competition?
No. They have three in the full-frame world - the A7r IV, the A7rIV, and the A1.
What would be the economical sense in not competing and improving?
I think they just believe they can improve their products in other ways instead of getting into another megapixel race.
though Sigma did seemingly join Sony at the top, using what appears to be a modified version of the same sensor.
Both are maybe IMX 455 variants, possibly the same variant. They are used for many products nowdays. Though might be a cousin of IMX 455 as well, with different catalogue number.
Leica recently joined in at 60 MP too. Nikon and Canon appear to be happy at 45 MP. This is why I question the thinking that 100 MP is coming to full-frame.
Why would Canon and Nikon "be happy" to stay where they are now? To compete they need more resolution - both for quality, but also for marketing.
That's what I thought, but that isn't what's happening, is it?
Canon has the extra drawback that all their pixels have two photodiodes (due to the AF system), so it may keep them constantly slightly behind the competition, though there is no physical limitation for this - just the cost of needing slightly finer geometries might be a small issue.
Nikon has stayed at 45 or so for a while and before that they theyd at 36 for a while and before that at... Since video is more and more important, and 8K is the next big thing and even smaller sensor cameras are getting it and it requires more than 40MP and Nikons more video-able lineup is the Z6-series, it's likely that the Z6 III will have about 45MP - likely the same pixel design with Z7 but with different readout circuitry. Thus Z7 III would need more - 61MP is one option, but that would be playing catch up and not really be that much more than 45, and that doesn't bring in new customers.
Also, APS-C is also a competition - pixel counts go up there too, 40MP already. It would be awfully weird if the top of the line cameras were outperformed in the most marketable metric by lesser ones
One more point about resolution - as the cameras use EVF nowdays, a good video performance is needed - it's more difficult to get efficient (i.e. quality and batter consumption) video if the sensor has lots of pixels (as either there may be quality loosing line skipping or other issues - I remember by old NEX-7 having absolutely hideous viewfinder experience as the light levels went down). This is one of the reasons which has slowed down MP count increase. But technology has improved and keeps improving.
But anyhow, your logic above seems to be "FF has not increased MP count much over the last couple of years, thus they never will, but Sigma will release a new Foveon camera with extreme resolution and then a cheaper super resolution one after that", even though there are good reasons of the relative lack of pace in MP counts and new Foveons don't exactly appear every year, barely once or twice per decade so far.
I guess twice per decade is about right - a slow, steady pace. That's four more sensor generations over the next twenty years. Maybe that will be enough.
Panasonic just made two new cameras, and were either of them high-resolution, with a sensor that offered more detail capture than their first high-resolution full-frame camera? No. How about what Nikon, Sont, and Canon have put out recently? No.
There are lots of reasons - from marketing, manufacturing, COVID related supply issues and so on.
Well so be it, but COVID is over, and most of the supply issues have been cleared up too.
Actually COVID is not over and supply issues are still there.
COVID is not over? Now you're talking like a crazy person.
Maybe follow the news a bit more? The situation in China is not great and it's the main source for relevant components.
That's just China's government being ridiculous.
Still we get no announcement from anyone of a camera with a sensor over 60 MP.
Except Sony and Sigma?
NO. Sony and Sigma . . . and Leica too . . . make 60 MP cameras. Nobody has made a full-frame camera with more MP than that, like a 70 MP or an 80 MP camera.
Or if new ones haven't appeared right now, it means they never will?
It sure seems that way.
Everything else in the world improves, but not FF cameras? Really?
I didn't say the cameras aren't improving. Where did you get that?
If 200 MP sensors are coming, why are there no full-frame cameras from Canon or Nikon with sensors over 45 MP,
Sony has 61, but I guess it doesn't count as it doesn't fit you agenda.
I already mentioned them, so what's this about an agenda?
You dropped it in this context.
Sony stepped up like three years ago from 42 ti 60, presumably to compete with Nikon's 45 MP Z7 and Panasonic's 47 MP S1R, but since then there has been basically nobody doing anything to step up past Sony. Three years with no response (not even an announcement) seems like they just don't plan to step up past 60 MP.
Again, Covid, move to EVFs and so on - the main push over the last years has been to improve readout speeds (for video and EVF). Now the readout speeds allow for example 20fps full frame readout for the 61MP sensor, and that's without benefits of stacking - that's several years ago performance. EVF doesn't really need full frame readout, especially not unbinned.
Care to give one rational reason why pixel counts would not be at maximum? What would be the benefit? Drawbacks would be significant from capitalistic point of view.
Both Nikon and Canon have been making cameras with EVFs for many many years - not just 3 or 4. The Nikon Z7, with a 45 MP sensor, was one of Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless cameras. Since then they've made several new models, but none with more megapixels. Now here we are years later, but still no announcement of a 60 MP camera to match Sony, or a 70 MP camera to beat Sony. No. Instead they make a 45 MP camera that they sell for $6,000. To me that shows they don't care about stepping up.
Why would that be the end? It's kind of hard to sell new cameras if the specs don't improve.
Oh, specs do improve though. More and mire cameras will do 8K video
That requires more than 40MP - if an entry level vlogging camera has 40MP, even from marketing point of view a more expensive camera needs many more of pixels.
Obviously not, or Nikon's Z9 wouldn't sell.
, and they'll get better screens and HDR viewfinders, and they might even start making cameras with GPS and stuff like that. Sony just improved the screen AND viewfinder of the A7r line when stepping up frim the IV to the V. That sort of thing will keep happening. They'll make more stacked sensors too. Nobody seems interested in making even an 80 MP camera though, let alone a 100 MP camera. The megapixel race seems to have ended years ago, and Sony won.
Megapixels will go up all the time.
Are you actually an ostrich? Your head is in the sand. Megapixels are not going up all the time!
You have really weird idea that because Sony has 61Mp camera, and at this time of history it's main rivals don't, it somehow means that megapixel race is over even thoguh there is nothing that prevent CaNikon from for example using the very same image sensor on their products (ok, for Canon a pride of making their own sensors might be an issue).
Samsung has a mobile100MP+ sensor, so I guess they won the race because... oh wait, there are medium format cameras with even higher resolutions... surely their developement has also now stopped, right?
even though Canon made a 50 MP camera years ago, and Nikon made their first 45 MP camera (the D850), which was a DSLR, years and years ago?
There can be a million reasons. But none of them is what you seem to think (i.e. that Bayer CFA cameras has now peaked and will forever remain in this spot and this will bring glory to Sigma and it's loyal supporters.)
For example to use smaller pixels one wants to use finer geometries in manufacturing and their availability is limited.
Ummm . . . years ago Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, and others had the ability to make sensors with a lot more density than we have today in full-frame.
Actually apart from the early digital cameras Nikon has mostly used sensors from other manufacturers (Sony, Toshiba, Aptina come to mind), though their Sports guns have used (before Z9) their own sensors.
They did so with 1" sensors which were 18 MP and 20 MP. To think they couldn't do that today if they wanted to seems like fantasy to me.
Maybe you don't realize that there is limited amount of fabricatrion capacity in the world and most of the finest geometries used by image sensors (i.e. ones that are obsolete for many other purposes and have been re-purposed for image sensor production) are used for small sensors for mobile phones and automotive industry for exaple. There are priorities.
So they can get companies to make all the 45 MP sensors they like, but if they want a 60 MP sensor or a 70 MP sensor made those manufacturers have other priorities then, huh? Sure. I believe you. Honest.
The demand for image sensor grew at expolosive pace in the last decade and up until Covid - this is yet another reason for the perceived stagnation of FF resolutions. Simply most fine geometry production goes for small pixel sensors.
FWIW, Canon used to have two fab lines, 500 nm and 180 nm if I recall right. The 500 was still usable for the old 12MP FF sensors, but not really beyond it. I think it's still used for some other products as Canon's diversified it's portfolio to speciality sensors (not relevant for out hobby). The 180 also is limited, borderline obsolete and at least regarding smaller pixeled sensors Canon is now fabless, i.e. using fabrication services.
Image sensors tend to use fab lines which are obsolete for their original use. I think that one major reason - now this is only my educated guess - for the relative slow progress of increase in pixel counts over the last few years has been because of lack of fabs. Mobile phone cameras, automotive cameras and all other kinds of small pixel cameras need (relatively) fine geometries making them unavailable for larger sensors unless they put up enough cash.
That is all it would take, so the fabs are available - more today than ever.
No, less than ever. You don't seem to understand how much the demand for image sensors has increased - skyrocketed is the right word. That's why something what used to be unheard of has happened: building new fabs for image sensor production instead of just repurposing older fabs.
Demand has been larger than supply. How quickly this improves remains to be seen - building up new fabs from scratch is time consuming and expensive.
Considering that (large) image sensors are already by far the most expensive part of the cameras, doubling (or more) it's cost might be a problem.
Increasing density a little would double the cost of the sensor? Please explain your thinking on this.
If you need to use a different fab line - one with smaller feature size, you will have to pay more for it - depending on demand possibly a lot more. Additionally there may be need to do refinements to the process to suit the precice needs of the different sensor type. Also the yields would go down (although very slightly).
Designing a new sensor itself isn't that expensive for the big players, as long as there aren't any new innovations needed. Simply using part libraries and combining relevant elements would allow for example Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation to very quickly come out with a FF sensor with 100 or even 200MP.
Of couse developing something fancy with new technologies can be expensive.
Like Sony's A1 or Nikon's Z9, for instance.
So I think it's mostly been a manufacturing resource issue. But since small sensor production is no longer skyrocketing (at least the numbers and market studies say so), and have even for a while stalled, more older fab lines should become available for larger sensors at reasonable prices.
So the megapixel race will be back on next year?
I think it's weird some people think it's over (like you said vis-a-vis FF) or been on pause or something.
Well, m4/3 has been stuck at 20 MP for years, and the super-zoom, bridge cameras, with 1" sensors have been stuck at 20 MP for even longer. Why no 100 MP or even a 50 MP super-zoom, bridge camera, when Samsung has been making 100 MP sensors for their phones for like three or four years now?
I guess if bigger numbers don't appear every week the competition is over and captitalism died because having a competetive and easily marketable advantage evidently doesn't work. Sarcasm warning.
No need for the warning.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h/3
I'm not suggesting Sigma will fix all the problems with their in-house sensors, but thise sensors have improved in the past, and I have no doubt they will improve in the future too.
Sure. But the last new Sigma sensor came out when? Do you think Sigma has the resources to compete with the rest of the world - Sony and Samsung and others pour billions after billions into R&D getting constantly not only more refined products, but also all kinds of innovations.
I think there will always be a market for good quality, unique products, which offer something different.
Of course - I don't think I said anything contrary. I think I said something quite similar actually
But if you believe that Foveon sensor is some kind of game changer, I'm afraid you're significantly in error.
Leica keeps making monochrome cameras. That is a niche product, but obviously a successful one, or they wouldn't keep doing it.
Sure - though Leica has extreme brand value which gives them possibility of making that kind of "niche of niche" product. It's also dirt cheap for them as sensor without color filter array isn't any more expensive than one with it - likely slightly cheaper even in relatively low volumes and the revamped image processing is a job of a day or so for a software engineer. (They may have done more, but that's the general idea.)
Anyhow, Pentax is another intereting brand - it seems to become the one last DSLR manufacturer providing a DSLR "difference" in mirrorless world. It likely provides modest but solid income to Ricoh and will likely remain a good little niche.
I believe Sigma will continue to improve on the Foveon sensor, making more "niche" products with them in the future, and differentiating themselves from the competition by doing so.
Sure it's entirely possible and even likely. And i hope so. But it'll never be more than a niche player with this technology and an additional problem is that the relative advantage(s) of this technology get smaller and smaller every year. Also I doubt it'll ever try to go head to head with the big boys as the investments would be significant and the risks large. The competition is stiff and the markets aren't as good as they used to be before mobile phone camera revolution.
Sigma is a leading lens manufacturer. To me the cameras are a love child, a hobby - it's (AFAIK) a privata corporation, so they can afford to have such proyects. I do hope Foveon keeps on being developed and produced just for the sake of uniqueness. It makes the world richer. Though, in time it'll lose the false color advantage fully and then it's just game over. This is not that far away, thus investing heavily in dead-end technology is not likely, even if it is a hobby.
FWIW, here's a link to an interesting image about the vertical structure from Chipworks. The comments by Eric Fossum may be of interest. (EF is the inventor of for example 4T pixel structure commonly used in sensors.)
This might help you understand Sigma cameras:
https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/an-ode-to-the-sigma-merrill-506dd0864169
I actually do understand how Foveon sensor works, likely better than the person who wrote that love letter of an article.
I think this thread is getting way too long, so if you reply, I think we need to split this into two or three sections.
I'm not sure there's much point in continuing.
It's fun though!
The way I see it is that you have - as you admitted - a very emotional and protective relationship with Sigma - somewhat like a religion.
Absolutely! This is the land of the Foveonites! Bayerists are a small minority here.
This causes significant problems for a meaningful and peaceful discussion.
Come on . . . we have battles here all the time. You should have been here when the Quatronians squared off against the Merrillians!
