SD10 vs SD14

[mike earussi]

Has anyone made a direct comparison between the two to see how much actuial improvement in IQ/resolution there is?

 

[Hng]

What I see so far is that SD14 reaches optimal resolution of current lenses (higher resolution scared no chance for handheld, lower like SD10 details broken sometimes).



Pic above is with SD14 - a messy corner of Saigon, see original here.

http://www.pbase.com/image/80389969

Rgds,
Hung

 

[ChromeLight]

Yes. Here ya go:

http://www.pbase.com/kazfujieda/sd10_vs_sd14

 

[docmaas]

Hung,

I really like that picture.

Mike

What I see so far is that SD14 reaches optimal resolution of
current lenses (higher resolution scared no chance for handheld,
lower like SD10 details broken sometimes).



Pic above is with SD14 - a messy corner of Saigon, see original here.

http://www.pbase.com/image/80389969

Rgds,
Hung

--
'America is not at war,
The Marine Corps is at war;
America is at the mall.'

 

[Chuck Lantz]

Chromelight:

Thanks for taking the time to produce and post that great info.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

 

[mike earussi]

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, because he does not use the same software to process both cameras, the comparisons merely show how much better the new software is, not how much of a difference there is between sensors.

 

[richard stone]

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, because he does not use
the same software to process both cameras, the comparisons merely
show how much better the new software is, not how much of a
difference there is between sensors.

Well, couldn't it be both?

As happy as I was with 2.1, I think 2.2 is better even for the SD10. The SD14 images I have seen that were directly compared to SD10 showed a slight but obviously noticeable improvement. Also, I think the 3.0 is optimized for the SD14, not necessarily for the SD10.

When I read the posts from current or former SD10 users who now have the SD14 they all seem very pleased. Whether this is after the fact justification or rationalization I don't know, but it is pretty consistent.

Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

 

[SandyF]

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, because he does not use
the same software to process both cameras, the comparisons merely
show how much better the new software is, not how much of a
difference there is between sensors.

Well, couldn't it be both?

How much difference between sensors? I presume OP means in resolution or in what way? In resolution, for a comparison, of course you can take the technical figure (aka Roland style, analyze data) I'm not being scarcastic, I mean you can do the figures analysis. Or you can anecdotally describe what happens 'in the field.' BUT if my experience, that will vary with the scene. In a well-lit highly detailed scenes, say cliffs across the valley or landscapes in Monument Valley or out west or leafed out trees and foliage, the SD14 will capture more detail. How much? what % more? To which leaf? Very hard to say. I see this in my own photos. But I think the difference might be hard for others to perceive.

Where the advantage of the SD14 comes into play for me isn't pure resolving detail, but that it has greater latitude around different ISOs so different shooting circumstances. Like in the woods on Sunday http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann From how the SD14 worked there -- compared to SD10 in deep woods (Muir Woods) last year -- the SD14 would be my choice to take on the next walk too -- More later --
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (Sunday's SD14s)
In N

 

[NarrBL]

Yes, I do too.

Hung, thank you.

Regards to both,
Clive

I really like that picture.

Mike

What I see so far is that SD14 reaches optimal resolution of
current lenses (higher resolution scared no chance for handheld,
lower like SD10 details broken sometimes).



Pic above is with SD14 - a messy corner of Saigon, see original here.

http://www.pbase.com/image/80389969

Rgds,
Hung

--
'America is not at war,
The Marine Corps is at war;
America is at the mall.'

 

[SandyF]

(I had to leave the computer...) Another BUT: using the SD14 makes me appreciate my SD10's capabilities more. I was impressed by comparisons in some European shots, dim church interiors. With the SD10 I've always been impressed by the detail capture of highly detailed foliage in landscapes (Virginia woods, thick as jungles; parks are heavily wooded), Ideally someone can own both SD10 and SD14 possibly SD9 too and shoot them simultaneously http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=23593280 It's great having a tele-- lens on one camera and a wide-angle on the other, if the situation allows for carrying two cameras.

IF someone were really constrained by the cost of a SD14 but wanted a Sigma SDx, my recommendation would be to find a good, dependable SD10. Then add good EX lenses, then eventually a SD14 or DP1.

IF someone wants the ISO versatility and that on-board flash (much more useful to me than the in-cam JPEG) then the best choice is the SD14. I've used flash more in 2 months with the SD14 than I did in 2 years before with the SD10....
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[ChromeLight]

It's pretty easy to tell how much extra detail the SD14 pulls out of photos. There are numerous instances of detail that looks like detail in the SD14 but where the same detail is a little mushy in the SD10. The extra pixels do matter.

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, because he does not use
the same software to process both cameras, the comparisons merely
show how much better the new software is, not how much of a
difference there is between sensors.

 

[convert]

--
Thanks
Andy



C'est La vie

 

[DavidMillier]

Sandy

The sd14 has 16% more pixels in the long direction.

The sensor lacks an AA filter and uses the same X3 layout so there is no reason to believe anything will have changed the "per-pixel resolution" with the new sensor.

Therefore, compared to previous cameras, one should be able to print 16% wider for the same image quality

eg A 21 inch wide print from the Sd14 will have about equal quality to a 18inch wide print from an SD9/10.

A useful but not very exciting resolution increase in the scheme of things but then unless you double the pixel count or more you don't really get that dramatic an improvement from any camera type.

Unless you need that modest increase in enlargability, it's the camera/sensor's other qualities that ought to be the main appeal for sigma owners upgrading...

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, because he does not use
the same software to process both cameras, the comparisons merely
show how much better the new software is, not how much of a
difference there is between sensors.

Well, couldn't it be both?

How much difference between sensors? I presume OP means in
resolution or in what way? In resolution, for a comparison, of
course you can take the technical figure (aka Roland style, analyze
data) I'm not being scarcastic, I mean you can do the figures
analysis. Or you can anecdotally describe what happens 'in the
field.' BUT if my experience, that will vary with the scene. In a
well-lit highly detailed scenes, say cliffs across the valley or
landscapes in Monument Valley or out west or leafed out trees and
foliage, the SD14 will capture more detail. How much? what % more?
To which leaf? Very hard to say. I see this in my own photos. But I
think the difference might be hard for others to perceive.
Where the advantage of the SD14 comes into play for me isn't pure
resolving detail, but that it has greater latitude around different
ISOs so different shooting circumstances. Like in the woods on
Sunday http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann From how the SD14
worked there -- compared to SD10 in deep woods (Muir Woods) last
year -- the SD14 would be my choice to take on the next walk too --
More later --
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (Sunday's SD14s)
In N

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[SandyF]

I've seen such detail too in foliage in my photos. For example, cherry blossoms this spring, I could zoom in in SPP3 1600% and see the detail of hundreds of individual blossoms. I didn't have a side-by-side SD10 to compare, so that's just what I term 'ancedoctal' that perhaps other cameras wouldn't have captured that much detail. More detail than I would have expected from my SD10. You can see the detail, DMillier, more in large prints (PMA style) and in zooming in on your own X3F files than you can see on any photo online. Looking at photos ONLINE, same scene, shot apparently side-by-sde, SD10, SD14 in Monument Valley (Merrills' photos, the SD14 was a print at PMA) it's harder to tell differences between the shots.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[SandyF]

Yes, you're saying rather much the same as I'm saying, other varibles matter. But I have seen a difference in detail captured, upon close scrutiny of photos and prints.

BTW, the cherry blossoms I mention in another post weren't what may be termed 'false detail' as the blossoms were blossom shaped, irregular in positioning, not a regular symmetrical pattern like the balustrade effect of #s of lines.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (Sunday's SD14s)

 

[DavidMillier]

It's strange but I'm finding absolutely no difference in the rendering of distance foliage. The crops I have done of trees and forests - well, you couldn't tell whether they came from the Sigma or the Canon.

I'm really puzzled as to the circumstances where the 'magical' qualities of the Foveon sensor can be seen because I can't reproduce it.

When people come to the conclusion the sigmas can do foliage better did they do so after side by side testing or is just retrospective single image conclusions?

Yes, you're saying rather much the same as I'm saying, other
varibles matter. But I have seen a difference in detail captured,
upon close scrutiny of photos and prints.
BTW, the cherry blossoms I mention in another post weren't what may
be termed 'false detail' as the blossoms were blossom shaped,
irregular in positioning, not a regular symmetrical pattern like
the balustrade effect of #s of lines.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (Sunday's SD14s)

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[pete]

hope you don't mind me asking .. what lenses do you use? thanks

peter

 

[SandyF]

It's strange but I'm finding absolutely no difference in the
rendering of distance foliage. The crops I have done of trees and
forests - well, you couldn't tell whether they came from the Sigma
or the Canon.

I'm really puzzled as to the circumstances where the 'magical'
qualities of the Foveon sensor can be seen because I can't
reproduce it.

I just wrote a long reply post and lost it; shorter reply. We're writing/talking about several different qualities: the 'pop' which is more color differentiation, edge rolloff, color contrast. And then the detail in foliage.

When people come to the conclusion the sigmas can do foliage better
did they do so after side by side testing or is just retrospective
single image conclusions?

I see it in my own photos, I've shot the same scenes with different cameras, looking for grass, foliage detail. For example, look at the foliage and the background and building detail in these photos of the 'cow barn' http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman/fujifilm_f30_pointshoot Of course, people will say, 'different times' but I've taken this scene over and over, with different cameras. It's near my moth-in-law's home in PA. And the results are consistent: the SD10 and SD14 capture the best detail. The x530 (with small Foveon sensor) hangs in there pretty well too. More shots here of grasses, reeds at the end photos http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman/samples_sigma_1020mm__or_other_ex&page=all I had other cameras too side-by side but the photos aren't online. Also the scenes in the top part of that gallery, I've shot with different cameras.

And a classic foliage detail is Dominic Gross's photo in this gallery http://www.pbase.com/dgross/mixed&page=3 ninth photo from top, which has been displayed as A0 print at trade shows.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[Tom Rowland]

It's strange but I'm finding absolutely no difference in the
rendering of distance foliage. The crops I have done of trees and
forests - well, you couldn't tell whether they came from the Sigma
or the Canon.

I'm really puzzled as to the circumstances where the 'magical'
qualities of the Foveon sensor can be seen because I can't
reproduce it.

When people come to the conclusion the sigmas can do foliage better
did they do so after side by side testing or is just retrospective
single image conclusions?

There have been some side by side tests for the Nikon d200. It was not what I would call "really distant foliage", but more like 100 yards or so. To my eye the results were interesting because the d200 kinda picked up a little more detail (which it should due to more pixels in the final image) while the sd10 which it was matched against had better roll off (which it should due to no interpolation, and no AA filter).

While I dont have any trouble seeing this difference when pixel peeping at say +300% it is not easy to see any difference on my 1280 screen. And for me it is impossible to see any difference on an 8X10 print.

Where I see the biggest difference is in macro work. I attribute this to Foveon sensors ability to capture details at a smaller angular resolution than Bayer sensors. By this I mean if a detail in an image is smaller than say .001 seconds (like in degrees, minutes, seconds) a Bayer sensor may not be able to capture it while a Foveon sensor can. I just made up the .001 seconds, and would be interested to see what the real number was. I know telescopes and microscopes use this term to describe their ability to resolve details. And if anyone has too much time on their hands here is how to calculate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

I can consistently get better details of stuff like small hairs on a butterfly with my sd10 than I can with my 1d2, and the difference is even greater when I use my sd14. Here is an example from my 1d2

http://www.pbase.com/tommy2guns/image/69666373/original

and one from my sd10

http://www.pbase.com/tommy2guns/image/60307268/original

I realize this is not the best test for lots of reasons. But it does reflect my experience with getting sharp detailed images from both my Foveon sensored cameras that I just cant seem to get with my 1d2 or my xti.

 

[Ed_S]

Tom,

Interesting information - good stuff. Thanks for posting.
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires