Reading mode: Light Dark

Who is Steven M. Scharf, and why does he hate us so much?

Go to last post
"why does he hate us so much" ?????

I read Scharf's site and got no message about hate for SD owners.

The technical problems he addresses may be or may not be real.

What do I know? I bought my SD9 partly on the basis of information available at this dpreview website in January 2004.

The greater part of my decision to buy an SD9 was my budget, in close conjuction with my wish to buy the best technical options in digital cameras at that price range. For the same amount of money I could not have bought into any other DSLR system.

If I had had huger financial resources I'd probably have bought something huger.

No regrets. The SD9 has not disappointed me.

I have a lifetime of cameras of one sort or another. For my first digital camera the SD9 is giving me a good run for my money.

But SchARF, or whoever he is, wherever he comes from, has points to raise.

I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by the sensor.

And as a user of 35mm film version SLRs, mostly of models from the days before Auto Focus, how much would I not give for a split-screen focus aid and an indication on my Sigma DSLR lens to calculate DOF (Depth of Field).

I am not my camera. It isn't personal.

Surely?
 
Harry Irene said:
"why does he hate us so much" ?????

I read Scharf's site and got no message about hate for SD owners.

The technical problems he addresses may be or may not be real.

What do I know? I bought my SD9 partly on the basis of information
available at this dpreview website in January 2004.

The greater part of my decision to buy an SD9 was my budget, in
close conjuction with my wish to buy the best technical options in
digital cameras at that price range. For the same amount of money I
could not have bought into any other DSLR system.

If I had had huger financial resources I'd probably have bought
something huger.

No regrets. The SD9 has not disappointed me.

I have a lifetime of cameras of one sort or another. For my first
digital camera the SD9 is giving me a good run for my money.

But SchARF, or whoever he is, wherever he comes from, has points to
raise.

I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space
sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a
carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully
occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by
the sensor.
Click to expand...
The sports finder, for some, makes it easier to anticipate what's going to come into the field of sensor view. So it's quite subjective as to whether or not this is a bad thing.
 
Harry Irene said:
I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space
sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a
carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully
occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by
the sensor.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but even if the image were no larger?

What the site CONVENIENTLY leaves out is that because of the crop factor, you get similarly small views on any camera with a crop - AFAIK no current DSLR's with a crop come with a magnified viewfinder - witness this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=9641449

Try a google search for "D10 small viewfinder". Or "D70 small viewfinder". You'll see more evidence to the same.

The site actually says:

----

The problem with this approach is that the area inside the viewfinder, that represents the captured area, results in a small viewfinder image. Remember, one design issue with D-SLRs is that you cannot use the LCD as an electronic viewfinder, you only have the optical viewfinder, so it had better be good.

The proper way to have done the viewfinder would have been to redesign it to match the sensor size. This would have resulted in a larger view of the area that is actually captured.
----

It would sure be neat if ANY other camera maker had done just that, created a larger view of the area to be captured. Too bad it's not so - but that is the implication.

The whole site is pretty much like that. Ranting mostly against problems that are common between many cameras, while over-emphasizing flaws with the SD10. That is the devilish nature of the whole site, is the liberal mixing of truths with opinions and glaring omissions of key facts you would need to make an informed choice about what camera to buy.

I agree that I would like a larger image. But I also think the sports finder is preferable to what other cameras give you - a reduced view that is slightly larger (1.5x crop factor) and does not make use of the full area of the lens. I think the greyed out area is not very distracting, and I appreciate seeing elements that are just out of view for deciding if the composition could be improved.
Harry Irene said:
And as a user of 35mm film version SLRs, mostly of models from the
days before Auto Focus, how much would I not give for a
split-screen focus aid and an indication on my Sigma DSLR lens to
calculate DOF (Depth of Field).

I am not my camera. It isn't personal.
Click to expand...
All too true. But is it so wrong to try and correct misinformation?

I am not correcting this site out of a sense of brand loyalty, but instead out of a desire to correct misinformation. If you just let anyone say what they like the internet becomes even more of a jungle than it is already.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
My Week (updated weekly): http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/my_week
 
... it's called "Poisoning the Well".

(do a google on it)
pvs said:
I did a bit of research today, on that SIGMASD10.COM site as well
as this new "Fair and Balanced View of the Sigma SD10", and found
that they are both the demon-spawn an individual named Steven M.
Scharf, registered as:

The Nordic Group
P.O Box 467
Cupertino, CA 95015-0467
[email protected]
(408) 202-7910

I am quite surprised, as I thought these two similar sites were
going to belong to Ken Rockwell, but unless the Scharf name is an
alias, they are different people.

Does anyone on the forum know ... What is this guy's problem? And
why is he out to spread negative (and not at all honest) publicity
regarding Sigma and Foveon? What's worse, is that he seems to have
good contacts with Google, since he gets these lying webpages to
display very high in their result listings, and that is often not
an easy thing to do, even for legitimate sites that offer TRUE
information.

He also mentions this forum in particular, stating that WE post a
lot of mis-information.

So, does anyone know what his problem is? Did he get burned by
Sigma or Foveon in the past? He claims to own stock in Foveon, but
I doubt that myself, because every time I searched that avenue,
Foveon wasn't selling stock to private entities.

I'm confused as to why anyone would take the time, trouble, or
$4.99 to attack a company and/or product with this type of
slanderous, misguided, one-sided, and repetitive drivel. What the
heck is he afraid of?

Anyone wish to take a stab at his motivation?
-pvs

--
The Mayan Calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21,
2012. Be sure to have your camera ready and your batteries charged.
Click to expand...
--
Peace: Jarvic7

'Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to sleep'.
http://www.pbase.com/jarvic7
 
...really paid off!
Roger said:
pvs said:
I did a bit of research today, on that SIGMASD10.COM site as well
as this new "Fair and Balanced View of the Sigma SD10", and found
that they are both the demon-spawn an individual named Steven M.
Scharf, registered as:

The Nordic Group
P.O Box 467
Cupertino, CA 95015-0467
[email protected]
(408) 202-7910

I am quite surprised, as I thought these two similar sites were
going to belong to Ken Rockwell, but unless the Scharf name is an
alias, they are different people.

Does anyone on the forum know ... What is this guy's problem? And
why is he out to spread negative (and not at all honest) publicity
regarding Sigma and Foveon? What's worse, is that he seems to have
good contacts with Google, since he gets these lying webpages to
display very high in their result listings, and that is often not
an easy thing to do, even for legitimate sites that offer TRUE
information.

He also mentions this forum in particular, stating that WE post a
lot of mis-information.

So, does anyone know what his problem is? Did he get burned by
Sigma or Foveon in the past? He claims to own stock in Foveon, but
I doubt that myself, because every time I searched that avenue,
Foveon wasn't selling stock to private entities.

I'm confused as to why anyone would take the time, trouble, or
$4.99 to attack a company and/or product with this type of
slanderous, misguided, one-sided, and repetitive drivel. What the
heck is he afraid of?

Anyone wish to take a stab at his motivation?
-pvs

--
The Mayan Calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21,
2012. Be sure to have your camera ready and your batteries charged.
Click to expand...
Hi Everyone
This person is a want a be. He wants to be important and wants
attention and with all the threads on this subject this person is
getting it. Lets move
on. The company or companies he/she or it are working for are
scared of the changes that are taking place, and they should be.
Have fun and enjoy your Sigma SD's. Sigma/we are moving up fast.
They/he have every reason to be scared.
Enjoy
Roger J.
Click to expand...
--
Peace: Jarvic7

'Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to sleep'.
http://www.pbase.com/jarvic7
 
the foveon chip was just a retro-fit to a B grade SLR.
Harry Irene said:
"why does he hate us so much" ?????

I read Scharf's site and got no message about hate for SD owners.

The technical problems he addresses may be or may not be real.

What do I know? I bought my SD9 partly on the basis of information
available at this dpreview website in January 2004.

The greater part of my decision to buy an SD9 was my budget, in
close conjuction with my wish to buy the best technical options in
digital cameras at that price range. For the same amount of money I
could not have bought into any other DSLR system.

If I had had huger financial resources I'd probably have bought
something huger.

No regrets. The SD9 has not disappointed me.

I have a lifetime of cameras of one sort or another. For my first
digital camera the SD9 is giving me a good run for my money.

But SchARF, or whoever he is, wherever he comes from, has points to
raise.

I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space
sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a
carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully
occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by
the sensor.

And as a user of 35mm film version SLRs, mostly of models from the
days before Auto Focus, how much would I not give for a
split-screen focus aid and an indication on my Sigma DSLR lens to
calculate DOF (Depth of Field).

I am not my camera. It isn't personal.

Surely?
Click to expand...
--
Peace: Jarvic7

'Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to sleep'.
http://www.pbase.com/jarvic7
 
If you believe that: I got a bridge pass I'd like to sell you!!!

LOL!!!
ChromeLight said:
Harry Irene said:
"why does he hate us so much" ?????

I read Scharf's site and got no message about hate for SD owners.

The technical problems he addresses may be or may not be real.

What do I know? I bought my SD9 partly on the basis of information
available at this dpreview website in January 2004.

The greater part of my decision to buy an SD9 was my budget, in
close conjuction with my wish to buy the best technical options in
digital cameras at that price range. For the same amount of money I
could not have bought into any other DSLR system.

If I had had huger financial resources I'd probably have bought
something huger.

No regrets. The SD9 has not disappointed me.

I have a lifetime of cameras of one sort or another. For my first
digital camera the SD9 is giving me a good run for my money.

But SchARF, or whoever he is, wherever he comes from, has points to
raise.

I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space
sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a
carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully
occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by
the sensor.
Click to expand...
The sports finder, for some, makes it easier to anticipate what's
going to come into the field of sensor view. So it's quite
subjective as to whether or not this is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
--
Peace: Jarvic7

'Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to sleep'.
http://www.pbase.com/jarvic7
 
... it makes it sooo easy to focus using normal to wide lenses!
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Harry Irene said:
I'll give you one, and only one here and now. The waste of space
sports finder misnomer. As the person SChArf says, it is a
carry-over from the film version of Sigma. I would prefer a fully
occupied view-finder rather than one bordered by images unread by
the sensor.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but even if the image were no larger?

What the site CONVENIENTLY leaves out is that because of the crop
factor, you get similarly small views on any camera with a crop -
AFAIK no current DSLR's with a crop come with a magnified
viewfinder - witness this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=9641449

Try a google search for "D10 small viewfinder". Or "D70 small
viewfinder". You'll see more evidence to the same.

The site actually says:

----
The problem with this approach is that the area inside the
viewfinder, that represents the captured area, results in a small
viewfinder image. Remember, one design issue with D-SLRs is that
you cannot use the LCD as an electronic viewfinder, you only have
the optical viewfinder, so it had better be good.

The proper way to have done the viewfinder would have been to
redesign it to match the sensor size. This would have resulted in a
larger view of the area that is actually captured.
----

It would sure be neat if ANY other camera maker had done just that,
created a larger view of the area to be captured. Too bad it's not
so - but that is the implication.

The whole site is pretty much like that. Ranting mostly against
problems that are common between many cameras, while
over-emphasizing flaws with the SD10. That is the devilish nature
of the whole site, is the liberal mixing of truths with opinions
and glaring omissions of key facts you would need to make an
informed choice about what camera to buy.

I agree that I would like a larger image. But I also think the
sports finder is preferable to what other cameras give you - a
reduced view that is slightly larger (1.5x crop factor) and does
not make use of the full area of the lens. I think the greyed out
area is not very distracting, and I appreciate seeing elements that
are just out of view for deciding if the composition could be
improved.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
And as a user of 35mm film version SLRs, mostly of models from the
days before Auto Focus, how much would I not give for a
split-screen focus aid and an indication on my Sigma DSLR lens to
calculate DOF (Depth of Field).

I am not my camera. It isn't personal.
Click to expand...
All too true. But is it so wrong to try and correct misinformation?

I am not correcting this site out of a sense of brand loyalty, but
instead out of a desire to correct misinformation. If you just let
anyone say what they like the internet becomes even more of a
jungle than it is already.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
My Week (updated weekly): http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/my_week
Click to expand...
--
Peace: Jarvic7

'Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to sleep'.
http://www.pbase.com/jarvic7
 
Were this true in terms of the viewfinder, then the entire area of the viewfinder would be equivalent to 35 mm film. Have you checked that? The answer might surprise even you.
jarvic7 said:
Re: yes - sports-finder is just a marketing hack
the foveon chip was just a retro-fit to a B grade SLR.
Click to expand...
Funny, a German magazine rated the SA9 very highly in an article on film SLRs.

--
Laurence

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.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
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)
 
I find this thread very interesting to read! (I haven't managed to read all of it, unfortunatly I do not have the time :( )

My 2 pence:

I've looked at this guys site and I am sure that he beleives what he as written is true. Also that he isn't evil, just misguided (like guy:



)

I do not see any information that makes him qualified to talk about this subject.

In my opinion (as I have stated many times before) mega-pixels is not a good way to measure the performance of a camera.

People who do not understand the technology latch onto this as a definition of the quality of a camera.

My uncle asked me what I though of a digital camera he had bought, he told me that it must be good because it has 64 MB of ram?????? no he does not take illegal drugs, just does not understand.

I think that this is the case for all of us (to a certain level), If somebody gave us all of the bits could any one of us build a SD10???????

This guy (sigmasd10.com) has just made the mistake of beleiving that he understands something that he actually does not.

I can spot many many errors (or misleading quotes) in his site, I just do not have time to list them all...

Some of the things he says are true, my af does hunt (SD9)...

I think most of his techincal arguments are wrong though.

A far better way of defining camera quality would be to measure how acurratly it can reproduce INFORMATION This would be a very very hard thing to measure though.

Finally I ask this man to link to our sd9 sd10 galleries on pbase, then people can make up there own mind. I feel that the images speak for themselves!!!

Thanks,

Wes.

http://www.pbase.com/wes_armour/favoritesd9
http://www.pbase.com/wes_armour/sd9_images

P.S. I love my SD9!!!! (not in an unhealthy way though :) )
pvs said:
I did a bit of research today, on that SIGMASD10.COM site as well
as this new "Fair and Balanced View of the Sigma SD10", and found
that they are both the demon-spawn an individual named Steven M.
Scharf, registered as:

The Nordic Group
P.O Box 467
Cupertino, CA 95015-0467
[email protected]
(408) 202-7910

I am quite surprised, as I thought these two similar sites were
going to belong to Ken Rockwell, but unless the Scharf name is an
alias, they are different people.

Does anyone on the forum know ... What is this guy's problem? And
why is he out to spread negative (and not at all honest) publicity
regarding Sigma and Foveon? What's worse, is that he seems to have
good contacts with Google, since he gets these lying webpages to
display very high in their result listings, and that is often not
an easy thing to do, even for legitimate sites that offer TRUE
information.

He also mentions this forum in particular, stating that WE post a
lot of mis-information.

So, does anyone know what his problem is? Did he get burned by
Sigma or Foveon in the past? He claims to own stock in Foveon, but
I doubt that myself, because every time I searched that avenue,
Foveon wasn't selling stock to private entities.

I'm confused as to why anyone would take the time, trouble, or
$4.99 to attack a company and/or product with this type of
slanderous, misguided, one-sided, and repetitive drivel. What the
heck is he afraid of?

Anyone wish to take a stab at his motivation?
-pvs

--
The Mayan Calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21,
2012. Be sure to have your camera ready and your batteries charged.
Click to expand...
 
I cannot figure out why S.M.S posts explainaitoins on this board, but has yet to respond to one of Laurence's straightfoward questions?

I also can't tell why SMS seems not to have any photos that back up his claims of what must be the superiority of every other known DLSR?

That the SDx appears to be the only camera with Full Size images all over the place for folks to see, seems to suggest that it's all the other DSLRs that need proving?

Really, Mr SMS, can't you please cut to the chase and show us where in Laurence's Galleries the SDx falls short.

Your brave enough to brandish your pedantic opinion, maybe you can just do so with some of the Images the camera makes?

That's pretty much what we spend most of our time doing around here anyway, just step right in...

Love a reply.

G Hofgren
Laurence Matson said:
Credibility is not something I would attribute to you nor to your
buddy Ken.

And the questions about your interests related to Canon and Nikon
are also swept aside with a big nothing.

Tell us straight: You have no connection, direct or indirect, with
either Canon or Nikon? There is no reason to think that all of
those overwhelmingly positive recommendations are entirely unbiased?
scharfstevenm said:
I find it amusing that there is an entire thread that delves into
my motivation, history, other web sites, name of the company,
e-mail addresses, etc., and makes wild claims about aliases, but
where almost none of the material on the site was refuted. This
speaks volumes of just who has the credibility here, which of
course is why the website upsets some people so much.

I did make one correction as a result of this thread, and I added
my e-mail address for feedback (don't know how I forgot that, but
others have found it without much problem).
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

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.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
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...
 
nvanallens said:
The forum members are right to question you rmotivation, and it is
a pity that you can't see why. These are not ad hominem arguments,
nobody is shooting the messenger - well, okay, we have a few
shooters. The background here is that your site is so outrageous
and poor, but (sadly) possibly misleading to the uninformed (or
yet-to-be informed), that the reader has to ask himself why a
person would go to the trouble to put together so much
(mis)information. It is so blatant that the question is indeed
begged, and the fact that you can't see why we are led to wonder
about this is yet another example of the sever and lamentable
disconnect between reality and your views. If indeed you were to
present a fair and balanced view of the SD10, history has shown
that most of the forum members would be appreciative and supportive.
scharfstevenm said:
David Hughes said:
Tom,

A well balanced and formed response, backed with some data, from a
person with a real name (this of course can be utter fiction, but
still...), and a domain address that is not hotmail or msn or the
various free services that by the way, Phil indicates during
registration here may not work in a return response. There is a
reason why. Good response.
Click to expand...
Actually, I could not get my Earthlink address to work, something
that Phil indicates is a problem. Earthlink blocks messages from
dpreview.com's mail server as spam.

I have a real name, and a real ISP, and a real web hosting service.

It's pretty sad that almost no one can refute anything in the site,
but there are people with so much time on their hands for baseless
personal attacks. This means that there are a lot of people that
are extremely insecure about their purchasing decision, and are
desperately trying to validate it. Attacking someone that provides
a balanced presentation of the subject is their only recourse.
Surely someone can do better!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
George4 said:
I cannot figure out why S.M.S posts explainaitoins on this board,
but has yet to respond to one of Laurence's straightfoward
questions?
Click to expand...
Yup. My reaction too.
George4 said:
I also can't tell why SMS seems not to have any photos that back up
his claims of what must be the superiority of every other known
DLSR?
Click to expand...
This usually seems to be the showstopper. Don't tell me, show me. Odd how most continue with text. What image? God forbid it would be their own.
George4 said:
That the SDx appears to be the only camera with Full Size images
all over the place for folks to see, seems to suggest that it's all
the other DSLRs that need proving?
Click to expand...
That's what got me. Was on the cusp of going 'name' when I came across the SD9 and asked "why are these posted images consistently much larger??" 1.5 years later, still asking the same thing.
George4 said:
Really, Mr SMS, can't you please cut to the chase and show us where
in Laurence's Galleries the SDx falls short.
Click to expand...
I would not take that bet.
George4 said:
Your brave enough to brandish your pedantic opinion, maybe you can
just do so with some of the Images the camera makes?
Click to expand...
See, second point.
George4 said:
Love a reply.
Click to expand...
One with examples. Not reformed, biased text.

toodles
 
I have no interest in the Sigma SD9/SD10, but since this thread made the "Top Discussions" list yesterday, I took a look at it last night.

Since I don't own a DSLR, and don't plan on buying one anytime soon, I thought you may appreciate an "outsiders perspective". When I need to take photos beyond the capabilities of my "small sensor" digicams, I break out my old "amateur grade" Nikon n4004s (in fact, I used it at a friend's wedding two weeks ago).

Anyway, after reading through the "information" at http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/ with with interest, I followed the link to http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/

At the bottom of the page, you'll see the list of "Cameras to Avoid". It includes the Canon Pro 1, Sony DSC-F828, Sony DSC-T1, Konica-Minolta A2, Kodak C series, Sigma SD-9, and the Sigma SD-10.

The 8MP Prosumers using the Sony 2/3" CCD are all there, except for the Olympus C-8080 WZ. My guess is because Olympus seems to have included a more sophisticated noise reduction algorithm in the camera to better handle the appearance of noise. So, it "escaped the axe". ;-)

In any event, I do find the site on the SD-9 and SD-10 models very biased. However, it doesn't look like he's cutting much slack to Canon, Sony and Konica-Minolta either with their new 8MP "Prosumer" Models.

I'll admit that I haven't seen a site dedicated" to one of the other models for warning off consumers yet, though. LOL

I want to comment on the table he had on the Sigma site, comparing resolution, sensor size, focal length multipliers, etc., too. Even a dummy like me can see some benefits of a smaller sensor size.

For one thing, your lens cost, size, and weight goes down. You can use a shorter "actual focal length" lens, to get a longer "35mm equivalent focal length". Those long f/2.8 lenses are pretty pricey!

I've also noticed that manufacturers are beginning to take advantage of the "crop factor", with new (smaller and lighter) lenses designed specifically for them. One example is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC.

Now, it can be argued that it's more difficult to blur backgrounds to help your subject stand out (because DOF is based on the actual focal length of the lens). However, not everyone needs this ability (or wants to carry around a camera with larger, heavier lenses). In any event, because of the crop factor, a lens with a larger aperture for blurring backgrounds would be more affordable anyway. Aperture is equally as important as focal length, when trying to control depth of field.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/konica_kd510z
 
The other thing I noticed that he did not put a "larger is better" label at the top of the "Pixel Pitch" column comparing models. The sensors in the SD9/SD10 models have the largest pixel pitch of any model in his table.

Now, as we all know, pixel pitch is not the only factor in determing a sensor's performance from a dynamic range, and noise perspective. However, if you've got "deeper wells" to begin with, then I think a sensor probably has a lot more room for improvement in the future.

In the past few weeks, we've seen announcements from multiple manufacturers using even smaller and densor sensors (for example Konica-Minolta and Panasonic models using Panasonic's new 5 Megapixel 1/2.5" CCD. We also had announcement from Sony, for a product using a new 7.2 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD.

Heck, the noise characterics of the Sony 5 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD has been criticized heavily in some models, versus the less dense Sony 4 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD. Ditto for some of the smaller 3 and 4 Megapixel sensors (1/2.5", 1/2.7") used in many subcompact and "super zoom" models.

Sure, there may have been some improvements in some of these models in camera noise reduction, but probably at a loss of detail and dynamic range.

As a result, many camera models have objectional noise at anything much over ISO 50 (an ISO speed that you didn't see much a few years back).

Of course, now we're seeing more models with stabilized lenses (including Pansonic's new subcompact models). You NEED anti-shake technology in these models, just so you can take photos at the lower ISO speeds you're limited, too (but this won't help for subject movement).

Heck, in the past two weeks, I've recommended to two users trying to take existing light photos indoors without a flash (on a budget), that they go out and try to find a used camera with better noise characterics and a bright lens (for example, the Olympus C-3040z, with a 1/1.8" 3MP Sensor and a bright f/1.8-f/2.6 lens).

At smaller viewing sizes, these older models can produce reasonably useable ISO 400 photos (as compared to the newer models that replaced them), and that's all both users wanted (not to make huge prints).

You can't even find a newer, compact non-DSLR model with a sensor/lens combination that can do this (bright lens, acceptable ISO 400 performance). They just don't exist.

That's because manufacturers are replacing (or rather, already have replaced) the older models with newer "higher megapixel" models, without increasing sensor size. So, consumers are being forced to make a choice between poor high ISO performance (and I'm talking ISO 100 - 400 here), or buying a DSLR

Maybe that's what the manufacturers want (more margin from more expensive models, not to mention the revenue from lens sales).

So, from my perspective, I think the Foveon Sensor technology probably has the most promise of getting better dynamic range, with lower noise characteristics, in a reasonably high resolution (from a detail, not a resolution output perspective) sensor.

Sure, they're not "there yet". But, a little R&D money would probably go a long ways. I had hoped that the smaller Foveon 1/1.8" Sensor would generate more interest, but it looks like Polaroid is the only one that's going to try it for now.

Anyway, I'll be watching their sensor technology mature with interest.
--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/konica_kd510z
 
Jim Cockfield said:
The other thing I noticed that he did not put a "larger is better"
label at the top of the "Pixel Pitch" column comparing models. The
sensors in the SD9/SD10 models have the largest pixel pitch of any
model in his table.
Click to expand...
Good point, I've added that. Thanks.
 
Jim Cockfield said:
I have no interest in the Sigma SD9/SD10, but since this thread
made the "Top Discussions" list yesterday, I took a look at it last
night.
Click to expand...
Member said:
I want to comment on the table he had on the Sigma site, comparing
resolution, sensor size, focal length multipliers, etc., too. Even
a dummy like me can see some benefits of a smaller sensor size.

For one thing, your lens cost, size, and weight goes down. You can
use a shorter "actual focal length" lens, to get a longer "35mm
equivalent focal length". Those long f/2.8 lenses are pretty
pricey!
Click to expand...
But most people are more concerned about wide-angle capability, and this is where the small sensor sizes cause a problem. Let's face reality here, if full frame sensors could me manufactured economically then everyone would use them, but the cost of larger sensors is not linear due to yield issues. Only Canon has a decent full-frame sensor at this juncture, and it's only in a $7200 camera. The Fill-Factory's full frame sensor isn't very good which is why the Kodak D-SLRs haven't been successful.
 
scharfstevenm said:
But most people are more concerned about wide-angle capability, and
this is where the small sensor sizes cause a problem. Let's face
reality here, if full frame sensors could me manufactured
economically then everyone would use them,
Click to expand...
Everyone who likes lots of distortion and CA, anyway.
scharfstevenm said:
but the cost of larger
sensors is not linear due to yield issues. Only Canon has a decent
full-frame sensor at this juncture, and it's only in a $7200
camera.
Click to expand...
"Decent" is about the right word.
 
scharfstevenm said:
But most people are more concerned about wide-angle capability, and
this is where the small sensor sizes cause a problem.
Click to expand...
Steven, I don't buy it. Most non-DSLR models start off at a 35mm equivalent focal length of around 35mm.

We're starting to see lots of new lenses designed specifically for DSLR models with a crop factor. As their popularity increases, I'm sure the lens choices will, too. Heck, even Nikon is shipping an 18-70mm lens with the new D70.

A similar lens in a camera like the Sigma SD10 (with it's 1.7x Crop factor), would be equivalent to ~ 31-119mm. This is even better on the wide end, than the vast majority of non-DSLR models.

Most posts that I've seen lately from those shopping for DSLR models and lenses have been from users wanting longer focal lengths. So, with a model like the SD10; lens cost, lens weight and lens size would be all be lower - especially as more and more new lenses come out for non-full frame models. Since Sigma is a major manufacturer of lenses, they'll probably be at or near the "front of the pack", too.
scharfstevenm said:
Let's face reality here, if full frame sensors could me manufactured
economically then everyone would use them, but the cost of larger
sensors is not linear due to yield issues.
Click to expand...
Sure, the cost is higher for the larger sensors. I've seen the posts explaining this.

However, your statement that "everyone would use them", is just not true. It's biased Steven. Have you done a poll? If so, was it a true random sampling of the population?

Look at the direction that non-DSLR models is taking. Consumers are wanting smaller cameras, and the manufacturers are obliging with lots of new ultracompact models. Ditto for "Super Zoom" models. Look at the number of new long focal length models coming out right now.

Also, look at the lens cost to get these equivalent focal lengths in a full frame model, versus a model with a larger crop factor -- especially if you want a fast lens.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/konica_kd510z
 
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