What would the FFF have to do in order to be competative?

DMillier wrote:

Stillton wrote:

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP). Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers? Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

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?

The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

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?.

FFF needs to exist at least in its original (and not in Quattro) form retaining (or rather - rediscovering) its 1:1:1 Merrill spirit.

Combining that with better infrastructure (akin to FP or quattro platform) it will win any comparison within its limits (aka low iso performance and other stuff like this)

In fact, if Sigma could create 6x4 digital back with their sensor, they will destroy any bayer competition in that market too.

Recently looked at some 2010 hassel's images (100Mpx images) they were horribly blurred and meh colors. If foveon could only step into that segment, they would be by far the most "magical" sensor.

I've been in a weeding process of my back catalogue (going back to 1999) for the last few weeks. The standout (as in sticks out like a sore thumb) thing I've noticed is the really appalling colour from all my Foveon cameras. Colour casts of one hue or another across all the cameras.

I've seen enough images from other photographers to know that Foveon is prone to this (especially the early models that I have), it's not just me. I've also seen enough photos from other Sigma photogs to know that Foveon is capable of beautiful colour in the right hands and right light - skillful post processing plays an important part.

But even so... just looking at my images, it is clearly a major struggle with my workflow and (for me) the results are not worth the effort. I don't think I'll be using my Sigmas ever again or investing in the FFF if it ever appears.

Nonetheless, it is important that there are alternatives in the market and there is clearly a desire from fans for the FFF; I wish Sigma every success, I'm sure it will make plenty of people happy.

I wonder which cameras you have ?

The colours from the DP3M (processed in SPP) have always seemed to me to be very pleasing, and those from the sdQH DNG files depend on the input profile that I use with Adobe Camera Raw.

I think this is a JPG processed by the camera. Warm morning light well rendered, IMO.

The TIF version converted from the raw file looks the same.

Don