Reading mode: Light Dark

is X3 image quality really better?

Go to last post
It kind of irks me that this sort of very basic, fundamental comparison is generally not seen in test reports. Your shots clearly show differences that lay people such as myself can easily see and understand.

(BTW I'm also a Road Dyno user!!)

Stan
 
Stan said:
It kind of irks me that this sort of very basic, fundamental
comparison is generally not seen in test reports. Your shots
clearly show differences that lay people such as myself can easily
see and understand.
Click to expand...
I remember when the SD9 first came out, I posted here and other places, urging reviewers to do more than the standard B/W resolution tests. I think I had most reviewers convinced that to see the overall differences between images from different sensor types, you need to do a little more involved testing. I think time and resource constraints prevented truly comprehensive sensor comparisons, plus when most reviewers found that the 3.4 MP X3 sensor was resolving as much detail (sometimes more) than a typical 6 MP sensor anyway, I think most reviewers felt the point was moot.

As far as resolution is concerned, one improvement in reviewing/testing would be to do the standard B/W test target plus a test target that is black/green, one that is black/red, and one that is black/blue. You could then post the separate test results and also an average. Those four resolution tests (black/white, black/green, black/red, and black/blue) would give people a better idea of the overall sensor resolution and would also illustrate how normal bayer sensors are not able to resolve the same level of detail for all colors.
Stan said:
(BTW I'm also a Road Dyno user!!)
Click to expand...
That Trans Am taillight has seen many a Road Dyno test run. ;-)

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
AdmiralSchnitz said:
Are you sure that the 10D image is in focus for both 1 and 2? The
10D reflections on the lower shinny part of the car imply that the
deepest part of focus reaches both to the car and from the car to
the objects in the reflection (like focusing on an object seen in a
mirror). The SD10 reflections are no doubt blurred because of a
shorter depth of field where the focus does not reach the reflected
objects. Is it possible that #1 is slightly further from the
camera than #2 in the 10D image and is in better focuse ? Could
you check on this when you repeat the 10D shot?
Click to expand...
Yep. Already done (see update below). Even in the first test, I made sure to choose the same aperture and take several shots to make sure I got one with good focus for both cameras. My update shows the "inconsistency of sharpness through colors" problem on the 10D even more vividly. Nothing wrong with the 10D of course... just a side effect of bayer sensor images.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
I have seen a number of colored test target shots for both Bayer cameras and the SD9. While I agree they should be shot, I don't think they are as useful as your taillight comparison.

The reason is that the visual results are complex and it is much more useful for people to see them in real scenery to understand the tradeoffs. E.g. you've posted teo images image where two people could easily disagree on which is "sharper."

Anyone who has done a lot of critical DOF work with Bayer filtered sensors will understand the funkiness with the taillight. E.g. a useful technique in macro work is to take a number of exposures at slightly different focus points and then composite them under masks hand made according to depth. One notices all sorts of subtle things about DOF this way. (One will also occasionally see effects where the DOF is shifted to a different depth for certain colors. This was widely discussed over in the 1D/1Ds forum and is thought to be due to the focus of the lens varying slightly with different wavelengths of light. It does not appear to be a Bayer effect as it happens over large details.) Unfortunately, I never did this with film so I have no idea how it compares.

I also noticed in the original taillight shots that the highlights in the 10D version run slightly toward pink. Could be a lot of things, but if it is a demosaicing artifact, I find it more objectionable than the loss of sharpness in the taillight. (A red car should be red, not pink. And there are any number of legitimate ways for lighting to turn red into pink. The photographer can control that aspect of the picture, or fix it in postprocessing. No matter what camera or imaging technology is used.)

I would have expected to see this sort of real imagery example being pushed by Foveon marketing. Though frankly if you put the larger crops in front of lots of people, I expect it would be pretty random which one would be favored. But at least it shows the real world advantage of X3 fairly clearly.

-Z-
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
It kind of irks me that this sort of very basic, fundamental
comparison is generally not seen in test reports. Your shots
clearly show differences that lay people such as myself can easily
see and understand.
Click to expand...
I remember when the SD9 first came out, I posted here and other
places, urging reviewers to do more than the standard B/W
resolution tests. I think I had most reviewers convinced that to
see the overall differences between images from different sensor
types, you need to do a little more involved testing. I think time
and resource constraints prevented truly comprehensive sensor
comparisons, plus when most reviewers found that the 3.4 MP X3
sensor was resolving as much detail (sometimes more) than a typical
6 MP sensor anyway, I think most reviewers felt the point was moot.

As far as resolution is concerned, one improvement in
reviewing/testing would be to do the standard B/W test target plus
a test target that is black/green, one that is black/red, and one
that is black/blue. You could then post the separate test results
and also an average. Those four resolution tests (black/white,
black/green, black/red, and black/blue) would give people a better
idea of the overall sensor resolution and would also illustrate how
normal bayer sensors are not able to resolve the same level of
detail for all colors.
Mike Chaney said:
(BTW I'm also a Road Dyno user!!)
Click to expand...
That Trans Am taillight has seen many a Road Dyno test run. ;-)

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
 
By the way, the thread about DOF positioning varying with color on the 1D can be found here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=6724595

-Z-
Z (is real) said:
The reason is that the visual results are complex and it is much
more useful for people to see them in real scenery to understand
the tradeoffs. E.g. you've posted teo images image where two people
could easily disagree on which is "sharper."

Anyone who has done a lot of critical DOF work with Bayer filtered
sensors will understand the funkiness with the taillight. E.g. a
useful technique in macro work is to take a number of exposures at
slightly different focus points and then composite them under masks
hand made according to depth. One notices all sorts of subtle
things about DOF this way. (One will also occasionally see effects
where the DOF is shifted to a different depth for certain colors.
This was widely discussed over in the 1D/1Ds forum and is thought
to be due to the focus of the lens varying slightly with different
wavelengths of light. It does not appear to be a Bayer effect as it
happens over large details.) Unfortunately, I never did this with
film so I have no idea how it compares.

I also noticed in the original taillight shots that the highlights
in the 10D version run slightly toward pink. Could be a lot of
things, but if it is a demosaicing artifact, I find it more
objectionable than the loss of sharpness in the taillight. (A red
car should be red, not pink. And there are any number of legitimate
ways for lighting to turn red into pink. The photographer can
control that aspect of the picture, or fix it in postprocessing. No
matter what camera or imaging technology is used.)

I would have expected to see this sort of real imagery example
being pushed by Foveon marketing. Though frankly if you put the
larger crops in front of lots of people, I expect it would be
pretty random which one would be favored. But at least it shows the
real world advantage of X3 fairly clearly.

-Z-
Mike Chaney said:
Z (is real) said:
It kind of irks me that this sort of very basic, fundamental
comparison is generally not seen in test reports. Your shots
clearly show differences that lay people such as myself can easily
see and understand.
Click to expand...
I remember when the SD9 first came out, I posted here and other
places, urging reviewers to do more than the standard B/W
resolution tests. I think I had most reviewers convinced that to
see the overall differences between images from different sensor
types, you need to do a little more involved testing. I think time
and resource constraints prevented truly comprehensive sensor
comparisons, plus when most reviewers found that the 3.4 MP X3
sensor was resolving as much detail (sometimes more) than a typical
6 MP sensor anyway, I think most reviewers felt the point was moot.

As far as resolution is concerned, one improvement in
reviewing/testing would be to do the standard B/W test target plus
a test target that is black/green, one that is black/red, and one
that is black/blue. You could then post the separate test results
and also an average. Those four resolution tests (black/white,
black/green, black/red, and black/blue) would give people a better
idea of the overall sensor resolution and would also illustrate how
normal bayer sensors are not able to resolve the same level of
detail for all colors.
Z (is real) said:
(BTW I'm also a Road Dyno user!!)
Click to expand...
That Trans Am taillight has seen many a Road Dyno test run. ;-)

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thanks a lot mike for the good test.

but a couple of questions for you, the red colors shown are very different for 10D/SD10, which one is closer to the real thing?

on the second shot, I see lots of dust on SD10, but not 10D, don't know what's going on.

and on 2nd SD10, the image is not as clear as 10D, is it due to the lens? or reflection?
 
Z (is real) said:
By the way, the thread about DOF positioning varying with color on
the 1D can be found here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=6724595
Click to expand...
Interesting. While some aspect of how the lens focuses light of certain wavelengths could certainly be an issue, I think the above is a textbook case of how single color bayer sensors favor certain colors. There are twice as many green sensors as red so the black lines going through the green appear sharper simply because you have more (original) pixels to work with. I think that is a simpler explanation and probably the more likely cause.

I didn't read the whole thread but if you wanted to test this, there are some simple tests you could run. Inability to focus all wavelengths of light the same is simply chromatic aberation. If this were the problem, CA in the form of color fringing should show up in the same shot if you shoot a simple white sheet of paper with black lines on it. In other words, remove the "color" from the paper and repeat. If you get CA/color fringing then that could be the problem. In fact, if it were a focus issue, you should really see some color fringing on the photo that started the thread (some reds leaking into the green test and vice versa). I don't see any of that.

A second clue that this is not a lens/focus issue is that if the lens is simply focusing different color light at different places, there would be somewhere in the red grid where the lines are as sharp as the green. In other words, since the paper was shot at an angle, there should be an area in the red test (either above or below) where the lines in the red appear as sharp as the lines in the green even if they don't line up side by side. As you can see, the detail in the red never gets as sharp as the green.

I think this is a simple case of color based detail discrepancies found on all bayer sensors.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Oh, and I believe I can explain why even though the lines in the red never get as sharp as the lines in the green, they do appear to achieve best focus at a different point than green. It may be due to the way the lines align with the rows of pixels on the sensor. Every other row and every other column on a bayer sensor has no red sensors whatsoever. It could be that the lines in the red simply align with the red diodes on the sensor better at a point a little further from the actual focus point, creating the illusion that they are focused better there.

Of course, there could be some interaction here with the antialias filter too. I still think that it is some aspect of the hardware/software in the bayer design causing this (sensor itself, antialias filter, etc.) simply because if the focus points of red and green were that far apart, you'd have severe CA in the form of fringing in B/W detail. And because the SD9/SD10 don't exhibit the same problem even with much "cheaper" lenses.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Mishkin (processor) said that the effect is clearly visible via the angle finder C, which is a right angle magnifier on the viewfinder. This completely eliminates Bayer filtering as a cause. Obviously one cannot confirm that via the web.

I didn't quite believe the "lens focuses different wavelengths differently" explanation, but haven't had time to test it on my own.

-Z-
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
By the way, the thread about DOF positioning varying with color on
the 1D can be found here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=6724595
Click to expand...
Interesting. While some aspect of how the lens focuses light of
certain wavelengths could certainly be an issue, I think the above
is a textbook case of how single color bayer sensors favor certain
colors. There are twice as many green sensors as red so the black
lines going through the green appear sharper simply because you
have more (original) pixels to work with. I think that is a
simpler explanation and probably the more likely cause.

I didn't read the whole thread but if you wanted to test this,
there are some simple tests you could run. Inability to focus all
wavelengths of light the same is simply chromatic aberation. If
this were the problem, CA in the form of color fringing should show
up in the same shot if you shoot a simple white sheet of paper with
black lines on it. In other words, remove the "color" from the
paper and repeat. If you get CA/color fringing then that could be
the problem. In fact, if it were a focus issue, you should really
see some color fringing on the photo that started the thread (some
reds leaking into the green test and vice versa). I don't see any
of that.

A second clue that this is not a lens/focus issue is that if the
lens is simply focusing different color light at different places,
there would be somewhere in the red grid where the lines are as
sharp as the green. In other words, since the paper was shot at an
angle, there should be an area in the red test (either above or
below) where the lines in the red appear as sharp as the lines in
the green even if they don't line up side by side. As you can see,
the detail in the red never gets as sharp as the green.

I think this is a simple case of color based detail discrepancies
found on all bayer sensors.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
 
Tests like the one you've done are pointless if you use AF, sorry. You've got a pretty bad case of focusing error on both cameras on the second shot.
 
photogeek said:
Tests like the one you've done are pointless if you use AF, sorry.
You've got a pretty bad case of focusing error on both cameras on
the second shot.
Click to expand...
The "second shot" is the same photo. If you think that AF on pro cameras is inherently "defective" or doesn't work for some reason, feel free to point out exactly where in those photos you feel that there is a "pretty bad case of focusing error". I think there may be a "pretty bad case of focusing" in this thread, but it has nothing to do with AF or cameras.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Z (is real) said:
Mishkin (processor) said that the effect is clearly visible via the
angle finder C, which is a right angle magnifier on the viewfinder.
This completely eliminates Bayer filtering as a cause. Obviously
one cannot confirm that via the web.

I didn't quite believe the "lens focuses different wavelengths
differently" explanation, but haven't had time to test it on my own.
Click to expand...
Strange. Do you know where the AA filter is on that camera? Could light passing to the eyepiece be going through the AA filter first? I can't imagine that they'd put it between the lens back and the prism/mirror, but maybe???

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
I finally got around to reading most of the posts in that other thread. It does appear that there are two things affecting that image of the green/red/blue with black lines. First, it is clearly visible that none of the black lines on red ever get as sharp as the black on green. That's a pretty well established issue with the bayer sensor design.

The second issue as to why optimal focus appears to be different for the red area does appear to be some optical issue although it could still be related to some piece of hardware meant to "correct" issues with bayer sensors: like the AA filter. So it could still be a "side effect" of the bayer design. It doesn't look like anyone ever got to the bottom of the problem. I still find it difficult to believe that you can actually have that much of an optical focus discrepancy between red and blue/green without having severe CA show up in your photos! That's why I still find it hard to believe that it is purely optical/lens.

I wonder how accurate/reliable the angle finder report was. Since there is no obvious/horrible CA in the photos, that in itself sure points to the problem being related to the sensor or the way the data from the sensor is processed/sharpened. I just don't see how the actual focus could be that far off without having red/cyan fringing that is as wide (say 10-20 pixels) as the focusing discrepancy!

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Yeah, I've noticed. :-) Only on the second crop the focusing error is more obvious due to the dust and lettering present in the frame.
 
photogeek said:
Yeah, I've noticed. :-) Only on the second crop the focusing error
is more obvious due to the dust and lettering present in the frame.
Click to expand...
The second crop is at the far left edge of the photo. What you are seeing is not focusing error but rather edge-focus differences in the lenses. The focus difference is so slight that it doesn't affect the overall test IMO.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Laurence Matson said:
Sought,

At the end of your post, you ask for links to full-size Canon or
Nikon images. There is a reason why they are so scarce: They often
do not stand up well under intense scrutiny. In constrast, almost
all SD9 and SD10 images are full-size.

Why do I think it is better?
  • great color depth per pixel location
  • no Nutella
  • excellent color rendition despite all the yowling
  • in the SD10 and in the SD9 (since the most recent firmware) WB
that should work for almost everyone out of the camera

and the camera?
  • simple, straightforward operation including focussing (much
faster in the SD10)
  • unbeatable value for the dollar right down the line
Yes, there are shortcomings which are brought up here. The battery
situation in the SD9 was quirky for some and made it difficult to
use NiMH solutions. This is better in the SD10 but not perfect yet.
The lack of in-camera jpeg bothers some, although I have rarely
read a comment from someone after he or she is into the workflow.

And then there are the usual complaints common to all DSLRs: dust,
size, unwieldy files, blown this or that, noise or grain,
cold-weather performance.

At the end of the day, however, it is the image that counts. I just
think that the X3 images are better. If that is not your
perception, then go with the one you think is and don't look back.

--
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

Laurence

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)
Click to expand...
--
Laurence,

I could not agree more. It seems that people spend a lot of time with a magnifying glass looking at these photographs. I think they need to sit back, look at the picture, and pick the system that produces an image that appeals to them.
msoutherland
 
what your expectations are.

I will probably take some heat for this, but I have seen side by side photos from a SD9 with a 28-70EX and a 10D with a 24-70L both at F8 and the 10D was a sharp as the SD9 but was sharper at the edges. I do think that the SD9 would have been sharper with a prime lens though.

I have also shot a 14N at ISO80 which blows everything else away (except for maybe a 1DS), but underexposed at ISO 200 a SD9 processed double size beats it.

Also the 10D is a great low noise camera, but it has terrible DR and you will never get the best out of it unless you shoot all L lenses (super expensive).

I have also shot the S2 which is a great camera and somewhere in the middle. It is pretty sharp, fast and has good color and jpegs. The S3 should be better. I think the best thing about the S2 is the ability to shoot Nikon lenses, which I like a lot.

The SD9 had iffy color, but the SD10 seems to have much better color.

I guess if it were me making the decision it would be a toss up between the S2, SD10 (these are pretty close. the SD10 is sharper, but the S2 is more well rounded. The S2 cant meter through a manual lens and does not have a mirror lock up) or the 2DH. The DR of the 10D and 300D is terrible in bright high contrast situations. The S2 is a bit non forgiving too but not as bad as the 10D. The SD9/10 is much more forgiving in DR IMO.

Its a very difficult question.
seeking668 said:
I am quite impressed by full size images of SD10/9 posted on
pbase.com, and strangely couldn't find that many full fize images
of other type of DSLR's. I don't want to argue whether it's due to
those users don't like to post them full size, or just their full
size images are not so good. but the fact is, I don't have lots of
"data" about image quality of other CCD/CMOS DSLR's, contrary to
SD10/9.
Click to expand...
Check out the samples from phil. I did a lot of 40x60 crop enlargements and the SD9 beat all the cameras sharpness wise except for the 1DS and the 14N. OF course if you are only printing 5x7 it really does not matter.
seeking668 said:
So far, I am kind of geared towards getting a SD10, until I saw the
"chinese doll" shot of 300D vs. SD9 posted on this forum sometime
ago, both full size, the image quality is pretty much equivlent
using good lens. and after I saw images of SD10 vs other DSLR's on
http://www.imaging-resource.com , I lost most confidence in SD10/9:

SD10:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SSD10/FULLRES/SD10FARLs.HTM

10D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/FULLRES/E10DFARLF.HTM

D100:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ND100/FULLRES/D10FARLF.HTM

The details of SD10's image is less than other DLSR's (just look at
the window). but on the other hand, similar sample images on
steves-digicams.com show SD10's result at least as good (if not
better) than other DSLR's. (I understand lighting conditions/lens
etc can't be identical, that certainly places a role on the final
result, but the SD10's image is really disappointing)
Click to expand...
I would not base camera buying decision on 1 photo. There are a lot of blunders that can happen when shooting comparisons.
seeking668 said:
Granted I would only go for sigma if its image quality is at least
somewhat better than the other DSLR's (with good light condition,
forget about high ISO/long exposure), otherwise, I'd rather get
Canon/Nikon which has more lens and other benefits.
Click to expand...
I have shot a E20, S2, 10D, 14N, and a SD9 and for now I am sticking with the SD9. For the $ the SD9 or SD10 is a good deal.
seeking668 said:
I do believe in final results, they are what really counts, theory
doesn't do any good if the result is poor. now I don't really know
which way to go, maybe you guys can shed some light on this? thanks.
Click to expand...
You also may want to rent a camera and check it out.

Check out this pic with a SD9 and a 40yr old manual lens. This is a 1/2 crop processed double size, which would be the equiv of a 1.7 mp file. Pretty amazing for 1.7mp. A few of the crop duster photos are full size also. I also have some s2 photos on my site.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23118713/original
seeking668 said:
(any links of good full size images of C/N DSLR appreciated)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com
 
thanks a lot for the reponse.

I read elsewhere too that for really big prints, sd9/10 is really better, but I am just wondering if 10D can be as sharp as SD9, and 10D could be a bit "smoother", then why...

BTW, what is "DR"?

since you mention S2, from this link:
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/S2Pro-020602/index.htm

it seems S2 catches much more detail than D100/D60, I just can't believe it, is that real? :)

happy holiday
tammons said:
I will probably take some heat for this, but I have seen side by
side photos from a SD9 with a 28-70EX and a 10D with a 24-70L both
at F8 and the 10D was a sharp as the SD9 but was sharper at the
edges. I do think that the SD9 would have been sharper with a prime
lens though.

I have also shot a 14N at ISO80 which blows everything else away
(except for maybe a 1DS), but underexposed at ISO 200 a SD9
processed double size beats it.

Also the 10D is a great low noise camera, but it has terrible DR
and you will never get the best out of it unless you shoot all L
lenses (super expensive).

I have also shot the S2 which is a great camera and somewhere in
the middle. It is pretty sharp, fast and has good color and jpegs.
The S3 should be better. I think the best thing about the S2 is the
ability to shoot Nikon lenses, which I like a lot.

The SD9 had iffy color, but the SD10 seems to have much better color.

I guess if it were me making the decision it would be a toss up
between the S2, SD10 (these are pretty close. the SD10 is sharper,
but the S2 is more well rounded. The S2 cant meter through a manual
lens and does not have a mirror lock up) or the 2DH. The DR of the
10D and 300D is terrible in bright high contrast situations. The S2
is a bit non forgiving too but not as bad as the 10D. The SD9/10 is
much more forgiving in DR IMO.

Its a very difficult question.
tammons said:
I am quite impressed by full size images of SD10/9 posted on
pbase.com, and strangely couldn't find that many full fize images
of other type of DSLR's. I don't want to argue whether it's due to
those users don't like to post them full size, or just their full
size images are not so good. but the fact is, I don't have lots of
"data" about image quality of other CCD/CMOS DSLR's, contrary to
SD10/9.
Click to expand...
Check out the samples from phil. I did a lot of 40x60 crop
enlargements and the SD9 beat all the cameras sharpness wise except
for the 1DS and the 14N. OF course if you are only printing 5x7 it
really does not matter.
tammons said:
So far, I am kind of geared towards getting a SD10, until I saw the
"chinese doll" shot of 300D vs. SD9 posted on this forum sometime
ago, both full size, the image quality is pretty much equivlent
using good lens. and after I saw images of SD10 vs other DSLR's on
http://www.imaging-resource.com , I lost most confidence in SD10/9:

SD10:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SSD10/FULLRES/SD10FARLs.HTM

10D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/FULLRES/E10DFARLF.HTM

D100:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ND100/FULLRES/D10FARLF.HTM

The details of SD10's image is less than other DLSR's (just look at
the window). but on the other hand, similar sample images on
steves-digicams.com show SD10's result at least as good (if not
better) than other DSLR's. (I understand lighting conditions/lens
etc can't be identical, that certainly places a role on the final
result, but the SD10's image is really disappointing)
Click to expand...
I would not base camera buying decision on 1 photo. There are a
lot of blunders that can happen when shooting comparisons.
tammons said:
Granted I would only go for sigma if its image quality is at least
somewhat better than the other DSLR's (with good light condition,
forget about high ISO/long exposure), otherwise, I'd rather get
Canon/Nikon which has more lens and other benefits.
Click to expand...
I have shot a E20, S2, 10D, 14N, and a SD9 and for now I am
sticking with the SD9. For the $ the SD9 or SD10 is a good deal.
tammons said:
I do believe in final results, they are what really counts, theory
doesn't do any good if the result is poor. now I don't really know
which way to go, maybe you guys can shed some light on this? thanks.
Click to expand...
You also may want to rent a camera and check it out.

Check out this pic with a SD9 and a 40yr old manual lens. This is a
1/2 crop processed double size, which would be the equiv of a 1.7
mp file. Pretty amazing for 1.7mp. A few of the crop duster photos
are full size also. I also have some s2 photos on my site.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23118713/original
tammons said:
(any links of good full size images of C/N DSLR appreciated)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com
Click to expand...
 
I just got back from Stuttgart where I did not miss the chance to rub some more images in the face of my Nikon buddy. It's Christmas, and so I can get away with anything by calling it a gift.

(For those of you who have not been following this nonsense, he has been a highly successful Nikon pro for 35 years.)

In any case, Trojan horse that I am, I gave him a calendar with twelve dog shots, since we both breed the same dog and he is the owner of the father of Dorian, Eddie, and Jill. I also gave him two A3+ prints: the new shot of Henley (SD10) and the red hotel from Mont-St-Michel (SD9). All he could say was that he is now convinced. With every shot as he leafed through the calendar he said: There is nothing out there that touches this and no other camera delivers this kind of color depth. His final comment was that when they finally get this sensor into something that will fit his lenses, he will have one the next day.

Just to let you know that this is not some bumbling idiot; he is someone pulled in by Nikon Germany to check out new stuff. He tried the D2H long before it was announced. He has used one system for his entire career.

In any case, his take matches mine and what I hear from others. Everywhere I put up a print, I get comments similar to that. Of course, if you see it differently, fine. Get whatever matches your perception of what is good and stick with it.

As for me, I am convinced, and I find more and more people who agree every day. Punkt!

--
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

Laurence

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top