The next Foveon camera?

Scottelly wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

tarmov wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

tarmov wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

Yes, but the compression ratio measure is easier as a crude measure.

How is comparing a camera’s resolution to an arbitrary jpeg easier than just looking at the resolution?

If you are looking at a 1:1 zoom on a fixed resolution screen, then the compression ratio measures the reduced ratio of information (and noise) per output pixel.

3.7x less information than the hypothetical 24-bit maximum.

And 2.2x less information.

If that 3.7x holds as an average compression ratio for average images from that Canon camera, then one could argue that Sigma DP2m records about 1.6x more information (and noise) per output pixel.

This is a new metric to me, so please correct any errors I have made.

As a photographer, aren’t you more interested in total image resolution, or resolution per image height? Measures of per-pixel information ignore the adavantages of higher pixel counts.

Higher pixel counts are irrelevant when looked at a fixed resolution screen.

Higher pixel counts may become useful at 4x resolution or 9x resolution, because in those cases there would be exactly 2x2 or 3x3 pixel binning.

Screens have a resolution of 2,5k or 4k or 5k or 8k. Ok, there might also be 6k screen oddities.

Professionals who have to make large prints for customers may benefit from intermediate resolutions, but non-professionals are better with the Merrill 5k or with a potentially upcoming 8k Foveon sensor. Merrill APS-C upscaled to the full frame would be more or less at 8k (28-34MP), depending if the new sensor keeps the 3:2 sides ratio or goes with the 16:9 sides ratio. Such an 8k sensor would be competitive against 40-50MP Bayer sensors within Foveon's prior niche market segment.

Sigma would have to model and account for both market segments: professionals and non-professionals.

At higher ISO levels, the noise to signal ratio of the Foveon will increase relative to the Bayer sensor.

Within the Foveon niche market I would rank the relative importance of criteria the following way:

1. relative image quality (microcontrast, then noise, then colors). New Foveon cameras may continue at ISOs comparable to Merrill and Quattro, or perhaps hopefully improve that by up to one stop.

2. relative speed

3. relative battery longevity

(*) relative to how Merrill performed against its competitors and / or how Quattro performed against its competitors.

Whether Sigma manages to cram the in-camera sensor stabilisation or not, well, having it would certainly be a bonus.

The decision model composed here would inevitably be hopelessly incomplete and thus would provide very little community value besides giving false impressions.

How have you determined this? If the best case for the FFF is trivial sales volumes, it might be the case that it will have been a poor investment, your fact-free assertion otherwise notwithstanding.

All Sigma has to do is achieve comparable success as it did with Merrill and Quattro. That would guarantee the continuation of Foveon niche market. Whether such sales volumes are trivial or not, that is for Sigma to decide.

My point with the 'hopelessly incomplete decision models' was that a complete group decision model would have to get representative samples (individual decision models from each sample) from all relevant market segments - full decision models from individuals. You can't compose such a group decision model at the level of criteria, it won't work. The group decision has to be made at the level of alternatives.

Therefore such free form discussions as done in this forum are rather pointless. It only manages to map generally relevant criteria and perhaps relevant scenarios, no more.

Yes, Foveon relative image quality is important, likely the most important criterion. But that is not enough to draw conclusions on the final outcome of the group decision model.

The most plausible approach would be to treat Merrill and Quattro cameras as a relative baseline against competition. And either try to repeat that relative success or try to improve a bit, relatively.

I also doubt that the profit margins are much different from the past when digital cameras were in its infancy and production volumes were small.

Based on what?

Based on ceteris paribus.

This means “other things equal”. You don’t believe that the camera market has changed significantly over the past 25-30 years, and can’t understand how, for example, the iPhone et al have exerted significant competitive pressure on camera makers?

Merrills came out in 2012. Less than 11 years ago.

Not much has changed since then.

This reminds me of a line from Spinal Tap. In describing Boston, the manager said, “Not much of a college town”.”

Merrills did not have superior numerical resolution back then. But it did have excellent image quality at 5k resolution at ISO100 and ISO200, at least for a small subset of photographers.

All that is needed is to achieve relatively similar success. And that is doable with an 8k full frame sensor.

Based on your premise that the camera market is unchanged since 2012?

-Tarmo

Well for Sigma it likely hasn't changed much. The Quattro cameras sold, with relatively few drops in price. In fact, I believe the SD Quattro H sold out in less time than the others, even though it was the last to be introduced and the most expensive of the Quattros by hundreds of dollars. Ultimately Sigma raised the price to more than the introductory price, even though it was an "old" model by the time they were nearly sold out. The Quattros are almost all gone at this point, and there's nothing to replace them. Sigma should make something to replace them, but in L mount . . . in my opinion. In fact, I would buy one if they did, and the prices were just a little more than they used to be, even if they look and perform the same. No doubt though, Sigma woukd change components, like the processor, and the new cameras would operate faster, have a better viewfinder, and auto-focus better, and more quickly. With a faster processor and memory card slot, they could clear their buffer faster, and Sigma might decide to finally add wi-fi. If the original SD Quattro and SD Quattro H had L mounts instead of SA mounts they might have sold out in half the time, making them even more successful than they were.

Today cameras do 4K video, and most new cameras (all?) are mirrorless, unlike back when the Quattros were introduced, and both Nikon and Canon were introducing new DSLRs every year. So yeah, the camera market has definitely changed. Most, if not all new cameras introduced iver the past year have IBIS. Even medium format cameras have IBIS these dats. That was a feature unheard of in the medium format world just a few years ago.

But does Sigma need to include such features in their new cameras to sell them? As we know, the SD Quattro H sold out relatively quickly for a Sigma camera, and it didn't have many of the new features of modern cameras at that time, like tilt screens, wi-fi, and video capability. So maybe Sigma can just keep making their simple, high quality cameras, with their excellent sensors, and more and more photographers will buy them, even if they don't gave IBIS and can't shoot video - even if they can't shoot fast, focus on birds in flight, or be controlled using wi-fi. Maybe they would still sell, just because their image quality at low ISO settings is amazing.

The fewer the features the better for me ... in fact a FF "SD9" would get my vote