Foveon X3 is really a winner !

[Dolan Halbrook]

The lens is stated as 50mm, which makes me think 50/2.8. It may be a weak link in not being fast enough for available light photography (thus the camera shake -- i'm impressed that Phil's 1/20 handheld shots were as sharp as they were), but certainly not for sharpness.

Or it could be a weak link quality-control wise, as so many have mentioned wrt the Sigma lenses...

The coke can is undboutedly outside of the depth of field. I don't
think it has anything to do with motion blur.

Okay, cool. Do you think a number of the images possibly suffered
from poor focus? Is the lens the weak link here, or is it too soon
to judge?

 

[lip]

Did you see the image of the child with the swimming goggles here on Phil's website....

I mean...the colour accuracy and detail is just shocking...trying to compare a 707/717 with the Sony CCD is just not fair...it is in a different league...

Foveon has shown us something we have not seen up to now...We really only will know the true potential when someone (like Phil) does some more reviews along with other reviewers and compares it to the Fuji S2Pro and the other 6MP cameras....

The Sony 707/717, Nikon 5700, Minolta D7i are just not in the same league...from what I gather, the Sigma is doing very little image manipulation in camera, whereas the Sony does a ton!

Just my 2 cents,

Lyall

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

 

[dougr]

ok, that may be the case, but show me ANYWHERE on that photo that IS sharp. the plant in the still life is sharp... the leaves on the tree in the phil's sample (TIFF) show an amazing amount of detail. for lack of a better insult, the photo we're talking about looks like something I'd get in low light after a few beers.

i'd really like to know more details about the shots (which lens,
tripod or no, etc). the outdoor shot with the sd-9 appears soft to
me, but is that because of motion blur? soft lens? why? check out
the lower right corner of the outdoor shot for the sd9... that coke
can is just a fr?ggin ( i can't believe that is a censored word!)
blob of red. i seriously doubt that is the foveon chip...at least
not directly (maybe because of ISO limitations, the shot was taken
at a slower shutter speed than would be desired hand held, but that
is another issue). i do agree that comparing it to the 717 is kind
of nonsense though (not that the 717 is necessarily a bad camera,
but it is a different market segment). i want to see the d9 with ex
lenses compared to the d60 with standard and L canon glass (and
even with the same ex glass if possible). apples and apples.

The coke can is undboutedly outside of the depth of field. I don't
think it has anything to do with motion blur.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Deric]

I agree. I am a previous F707 owner. I sold it primarily in anticipation of the F717, but I have been keeping a close eye on the Sigma -- it is such a fluid situation.

Now to the point I want to make. Some portions of the Sigma shots on IR are arguably better than the F707. But are the shots so much better that they justify a price that is way more than double the price of the F707 after you factor in the cost of Sigma lenses (which are known to be average at best)? No. The shots are not close to being twice as good as the F707. Just PORTIONS of the image are slightly better.

The first images from the Sigma show promise. But I am even firmer now that the F717 is the camera for me. Nonetheless, I will wait as long as possible to see further test images from the Sigma -- its technology shows alot of promise. I can see myself buying a second generation Foveon (preferably produced by a major manufacturer or with the ability to mount lenses by Canon, etc.) sometime late 2003.

Just my opinion.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

 

[lip]

It's an interesting exercise to try. The SD9 shot holds up to
sharpening and reveals detail very well because of the lower noise.
The 717 shot just gets noisier looking.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

It's just not fair to compare the 717 to the SD9....they are in a different league...I've never seen ANY Sony images come close to this...then again, the Sony CCD is a couple of years old (almost) now...and it is not even close to being the best CCD, never mind competing with a completely newly image sensor!

Lyall

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Deric]

The image of the child with goggles is definitely impressive. But it is a manufacturer supplied image. Do you know the conditions under which that shot was taken? Do you know how many shots it took to get that image? Do you know whether the shot was manipulated in photoshop? Could the F707/F717 render then same color rendition and accuracy under similar shooting conditions (probably not, but it would come close IMHO)?

Evaluating real world samples by the Phil A's and John Does of the world are the best way to evaluate. The images on IR are a good start. And those images do not reflect an overwhelming increase in quality over the F707 (given all of the hype).

Foveon has shown us something we have not seen up to now...We
really only will know the true potential when someone (like Phil)
does some more reviews along with other reviewers and compares it
to the Fuji S2Pro and the other 6MP cameras....

The Sony 707/717, Nikon 5700, Minolta D7i are just not in the same
league...from what I gather, the Sigma is doing very little image
manipulation in camera, whereas the Sony does a ton!

Just my 2 cents,

Lyall

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

 

[lip]

Just my opinion...but I think you are just comparing apples to oranges...the 707 is a great "prosumer" camera...it is not meant for budding professionals or serious amateurs...

For this, you really need a detachable lense system and also gain more control with the camera. In other words, you need a DSLR system.

Up to now, the cost of these cameras were just soooo expensive. Now Sigma comes up with this camera which should hit the street at reasonable prices. Also, they bring a completely new sensor technology to the plate.

I just can't see how you can compare the images that we've seen from the SD9 (and these are just "samples" for the most part from non-professional photographers) and compare it to a prosumer 5MP CCD 707/717. Get real!

I have a D7i, but I'm not going to try and make myself feel better by believing that it can compete with the SD9....The 707/717/5700 can't compete either...but they are not meant to!

This is evolution....It's great!!!

Lyall

Now to the point I want to make. Some portions of the Sigma shots
on IR are arguably better than the F707. But are the shots so much
better that they justify a price that is way more than double the
price of the F707 after you factor in the cost of Sigma lenses
(which are known to be average at best)? No. The shots are not
close to being twice as good as the F707. Just PORTIONS of the
image are slightly better.

The first images from the Sigma show promise. But I am even firmer
now that the F717 is the camera for me. Nonetheless, I will wait
as long as possible to see further test images from the Sigma --
its technology shows alot of promise. I can see myself buying a
second generation Foveon (preferably produced by a major
manufacturer or with the ability to mount lenses by Canon, etc.)
sometime late 2003.

Just my opinion.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

 

[lip]

I agree...there is a lot of "hype"...
My opinion is that there is good reason for this....

Even Phil clearly is impressed....I just can't understand why people are so resistive to a new technology...I guess it's because people think they must have the latest and the greatest...well, for the price, I'm pretty sure we're going to find out that this is the SD9.

But you know what, this time next year, we'll probably have something else that blows the Foveon out of the water (maybe another Foveon?!)...

Lyall

Evaluating real world samples by the Phil A's and John Does of the
world are the best way to evaluate. The images on IR are a good
start. And those images do not reflect an overwhelming increase in
quality over the F707 (given all of the hype).

Foveon has shown us something we have not seen up to now...We
really only will know the true potential when someone (like Phil)
does some more reviews along with other reviewers and compares it
to the Fuji S2Pro and the other 6MP cameras....

The Sony 707/717, Nikon 5700, Minolta D7i are just not in the same
league...from what I gather, the Sigma is doing very little image
manipulation in camera, whereas the Sony does a ton!

Just my 2 cents,

Lyall

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Deric]

All I am saying is that before you bet the house know what you are betting on. It may be that the SD9 is a much better camera than the F707/F717 (and if it is better than the F717, it is most assuredly better than the D7i ;-) The fact is no one knows because there is not yet enough information available. Lets get grounded.

I have learned to take a more cautious approach over the years. Sometimes a product lives up to hype; sometimes not. Only time will tell. And until more images are available, a conclusion that the SD9 is better than the F707s/D60s/D100s/S2s of the world is wildly premature.

I am excited too. But I remain objective.

Up to now, the cost of these cameras were just soooo expensive.
Now Sigma comes up with this camera which should hit the street at
reasonable prices. Also, they bring a completely new sensor
technology to the plate.

I just can't see how you can compare the images that we've seen
from the SD9 (and these are just "samples" for the most part from
non-professional photographers) and compare it to a prosumer 5MP
CCD 707/717. Get real!
I have a D7i, but I'm not going to try and make myself feel better
by believing that it can compete with the SD9....The 707/717/5700
can't compete either...but they are not meant to!

This is evolution....It's great!!!

Lyall

Now to the point I want to make. Some portions of the Sigma shots
on IR are arguably better than the F707. But are the shots so much
better that they justify a price that is way more than double the
price of the F707 after you factor in the cost of Sigma lenses
(which are known to be average at best)? No. The shots are not
close to being twice as good as the F707. Just PORTIONS of the
image are slightly better.

The first images from the Sigma show promise. But I am even firmer
now that the F717 is the camera for me. Nonetheless, I will wait
as long as possible to see further test images from the Sigma --
its technology shows alot of promise. I can see myself buying a
second generation Foveon (preferably produced by a major
manufacturer or with the ability to mount lenses by Canon, etc.)
sometime late 2003.

Just my opinion.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

 

[lip]

My point is that you are putting the F707/717 in comparison with DSLR's...just doesn't make sense...

Personally, I wouldn't even put it in the same camp as the 5700/D7i in terms of control.

Yeah, Sony have some great noise algorithms, but I'm not a fan of having it applied to all my images. With the SD9 (other other DSLR's for that matter), this is not needed.

We can get into a D7i vs. 5700 vs. 707/717 argument, but this is the wrong discussion area for this. You're trying to compare an apple to an orange...simple as that!

It's an exciting time and yes, it might not be all it's racked up to be....jeez...we have no idea how the actual camera performs (AF system, write time, user friendliness, EVF screen, etc...) but it's the sensor I care about....hopefully if this sensor turns out to be what it looks like it is going to be, Minolta and Nikon can ditch that noisy Sony CCD once and for all!

Lyall

I have learned to take a more cautious approach over the years.
Sometimes a product lives up to hype; sometimes not. Only time
will tell. And until more images are available, a conclusion that
the SD9 is better than the F707s/D60s/D100s/S2s of the world is
wildly premature.

I am excited too. But I remain objective.

Up to now, the cost of these cameras were just soooo expensive.
Now Sigma comes up with this camera which should hit the street at
reasonable prices. Also, they bring a completely new sensor
technology to the plate.

I just can't see how you can compare the images that we've seen
from the SD9 (and these are just "samples" for the most part from
non-professional photographers) and compare it to a prosumer 5MP
CCD 707/717. Get real!
I have a D7i, but I'm not going to try and make myself feel better
by believing that it can compete with the SD9....The 707/717/5700
can't compete either...but they are not meant to!

This is evolution....It's great!!!

Lyall

Now to the point I want to make. Some portions of the Sigma shots
on IR are arguably better than the F707. But are the shots so much
better that they justify a price that is way more than double the
price of the F707 after you factor in the cost of Sigma lenses
(which are known to be average at best)? No. The shots are not
close to being twice as good as the F707. Just PORTIONS of the
image are slightly better.

The first images from the Sigma show promise. But I am even firmer
now that the F717 is the camera for me. Nonetheless, I will wait
as long as possible to see further test images from the Sigma --
its technology shows alot of promise. I can see myself buying a
second generation Foveon (preferably produced by a major
manufacturer or with the ability to mount lenses by Canon, etc.)
sometime late 2003.

Just my opinion.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Deric]

You have missed my point entirely. There is no way that I would compare the F717 to DSLR's (I have yearned for a D60 for the last few months). I would not do that because I have seen what the better DSLRs can produce. But I have not seen what the SD9 can produce. My only point is that we do not know which cameras to compare the SD9 to until we see the type of images that the SD9 can produce in the real world.

If it turns out that the SD9 lives up to the hype (after proper testing), I will probably jump in line for one. Until that time, I wait patiently for more reviews and samples to become available.

Finally, you are right -- this is not a discussion of the F707/F717 vs D7i vs 5700. It is off topic (and the majority conclusion appears to be the the F717 produces consistently sharper higher quality images under ALL lighting conditions -- sorry, just had to throw that in ;-).

-D

Personally, I wouldn't even put it in the same camp as the 5700/D7i
in terms of control.

Yeah, Sony have some great noise algorithms, but I'm not a fan of
having it applied to all my images. With the SD9 (other other
DSLR's for that matter), this is not needed.

We can get into a D7i vs. 5700 vs. 707/717 argument, but this is
the wrong discussion area for this. You're trying to compare an
apple to an orange...simple as that!

It's an exciting time and yes, it might not be all it's racked up
to be....jeez...we have no idea how the actual camera performs
(AF system, write time, user friendliness, EVF screen, etc...) but
it's the sensor I care about....hopefully if this sensor turns out
to be what it looks like it is going to be, Minolta and Nikon can
ditch that noisy Sony CCD once and for all!

Lyall

I have learned to take a more cautious approach over the years.
Sometimes a product lives up to hype; sometimes not. Only time
will tell. And until more images are available, a conclusion that
the SD9 is better than the F707s/D60s/D100s/S2s of the world is
wildly premature.

I am excited too. But I remain objective.

Up to now, the cost of these cameras were just soooo expensive.
Now Sigma comes up with this camera which should hit the street at
reasonable prices. Also, they bring a completely new sensor
technology to the plate.

I just can't see how you can compare the images that we've seen
from the SD9 (and these are just "samples" for the most part from
non-professional photographers) and compare it to a prosumer 5MP
CCD 707/717. Get real!
I have a D7i, but I'm not going to try and make myself feel better
by believing that it can compete with the SD9....The 707/717/5700
can't compete either...but they are not meant to!

This is evolution....It's great!!!

Lyall

Now to the point I want to make. Some portions of the Sigma shots
on IR are arguably better than the F707. But are the shots so much
better that they justify a price that is way more than double the
price of the F707 after you factor in the cost of Sigma lenses
(which are known to be average at best)? No. The shots are not
close to being twice as good as the F707. Just PORTIONS of the
image are slightly better.

The first images from the Sigma show promise. But I am even firmer
now that the F717 is the camera for me. Nonetheless, I will wait
as long as possible to see further test images from the Sigma --
its technology shows alot of promise. I can see myself buying a
second generation Foveon (preferably produced by a major
manufacturer or with the ability to mount lenses by Canon, etc.)
sometime late 2003.

Just my opinion.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Frank C.]

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

"for now"? How much bayer based cameras will be worth in
6 mos. is anyone's guess.... it all depends on whether Foveon
can cut deals with the likes of Canon Olympus Minolta Nikon
( not Sony ) and deliver the goods, so to speak. Watch for
a deluge, and I mean a DELUGE, of old technology bayer
cameras to hit Ebay in the coming year. Better sell early and
get the most you can for whatever you have right now.
There are still a lot of ppl out there that haven't heard of
the Foveon yet...........

 

[Deric]

I thought I was the only one. Either my eyes are severely deteriorated or the cropped image of with the power lines and building in the background are much sharper on the F707. I think the latter is true.

Imaging-resource just posted comparison shots betwee Sony F717 and
Sigma SD9.
In my opinion, there is just no comparison at all. Sigma SD9
delivers clean, live like images, no bayer interpolation artifact.
It is really a dream digital camera.

Amazing Foveon X3 ..
I am waiting for a cheaper digital camera with Foveon X3 (under 1
grand), when?

I don't know - in the still life the text did come out sharper from
SD9, but in the outdoor scene I'd give the edge to 717 - at least
in that crop that they show. And the indoor scene seems to show the
SD9's big limitation - due to low sensitivity (ISO) the subjects
are blurred.
--
Misha

 

[Deric]

Deluge ... end of Bayer ... better sell now .... Such statements are ridiculously premature.

I think I have posted more in this one thread than I have in the last 5 months. I just can not believe how much credence people put into hype without being able to properly assess the product at issue.

Lets embrace the new technology; evaluate it; and reach a measured, objective conclusion about its viability.

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

"for now"? How much bayer based cameras will be worth in
6 mos. is anyone's guess.... it all depends on whether Foveon
can cut deals with the likes of Canon Olympus Minolta Nikon
( not Sony ) and deliver the goods, so to speak. Watch for
a deluge, and I mean a DELUGE, of old technology bayer
cameras to hit Ebay in the coming year. Better sell early and
get the most you can for whatever you have right now.
There are still a lot of ppl out there that haven't heard of
the Foveon yet...........

 

[lip]

I don't think I missed your point, because it really sounded like you were trying to compare the 717 to this DSLR...

Anyway...I like your jab at the end!

It's a great time for digital photography...any of "our" prosumer cameras are great...but like you, I yearn for a DSLR someday and hopefully, if Sigma/Foveon do nothing else, they will stimulate much more competition together with the OLYDAK system so we can also go down this road...

Best regards,

Lyall

You have missed my point entirely. There is no way that I would
compare the F717 to DSLR's (I have yearned for a D60 for the last
few months). I would not do that because I have seen what the
better DSLRs can produce. But I have not seen what the SD9 can
produce. My only point is that we do not know which cameras to
compare the SD9 to until we see the type of images that the SD9 can
produce in the real world.

If it turns out that the SD9 lives up to the hype (after proper
testing), I will probably jump in line for one. Until that time, I
wait patiently for more reviews and samples to become available.

Finally, you are right -- this is not a discussion of the F707/F717
vs D7i vs 5700. It is off topic (and the majority conclusion
appears to be the the F717 produces consistently sharper higher
quality images under ALL lighting conditions -- sorry, just had to
throw that in ;-).

-D

 

[lip]

Canon make their own sensors I believe...so they won't be on the Foveon bandwagon...

Lyall

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

"for now"? How much bayer based cameras will be worth in
6 mos. is anyone's guess.... it all depends on whether Foveon
can cut deals with the likes of Canon Olympus Minolta Nikon
( not Sony ) and deliver the goods, so to speak. Watch for
a deluge, and I mean a DELUGE, of old technology bayer
cameras to hit Ebay in the coming year. Better sell early and
get the most you can for whatever you have right now.
There are still a lot of ppl out there that haven't heard of
the Foveon yet...........

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Tuba Paul]

You might have a point there--images from the Sony are head-and-shoulders above that of other cameras that have the same sensor. The question is how much of Sony's image quality is due to it's fine (for a consumer camera) lens, and how much due to the in-camera post processing. As a 707 owner, I'm impressed with Phil's shots--particularly the low noise in the dark areas. The other thing that I noticed in particular is that the depth of field is much more "film-like" which is kinda neat, IMO.

Foveon has shown us something we have not seen up to now...We
really only will know the true potential when someone (like Phil)
does some more reviews along with other reviewers and compares it
to the Fuji S2Pro and the other 6MP cameras....

The Sony 707/717, Nikon 5700, Minolta D7i are just not in the same
league...from what I gather, the Sigma is doing very little image
manipulation in camera, whereas the Sony does a ton!

Just my 2 cents,

Lyall

In looking at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1033071640.html the
thing I notice is that in the extreme blow-up of the text, the
Sigma is sharper. Not so much it is astounding, but sharper none
the less. With the shot of the tower , just look at the detail the
sony gets that the Sigma doesn't. I don't doubt there will be real
advantages for some people but even if the cost were the same I
would rather have the Sony shot from what little I have seen. At
the very least I'm glad it is not a dramatic increase in clarity
and color. It would have been hard if the sigma was clearly clearer
at $1400. that would have cost me some money.... I'm safe for
now.

--
Minolta D7i

 

[Karl Guttag]

Right Paul,

Many of the discussions have gotten very silly. What is surprising about a $1800 body with a much larger sensor doing better than a $1000 all-in-on camera with a small sensor?

I think it is also a bit silly to compare shots taken by different people of different subjects with different lighting, by people with different skills, with very different costs, and then try to compare and draw much of any conclusion.

This is not against or for X3, just that it is not a rational way to compare cameras.

Karl

Imaging-resource just posted comparison shots betwee Sony F717 and
Sigma SD9.
In my opinion, there is just no comparison at all. Sigma SD9
delivers clean, live like images, no bayer interpolation artifact.
It is really a dream digital camera.

Amazing Foveon X3 ..
I am waiting for a cheaper digital camera with Foveon X3 (under 1
grand), when?

--
Karl

 

[Deric]

And the SD9 pics on IR are not that much better than the Sony. Indeed, the F717 outdoor crop shows that the F717 is much sharper and reveals more detail. Imagine how the Sigma would compete against a D60 with prof. glass.

Many of the discussions have gotten very silly. What is surprising
about a $1800 body with a much larger sensor doing better than a
$1000 all-in-on camera with a small sensor?

I think it is also a bit silly to compare shots taken by different
people of different subjects with different lighting, by people
with different skills, with very different costs, and then try to
compare and draw much of any conclusion.

This is not against or for X3, just that it is not a rational way
to compare cameras.

Karl

Imaging-resource just posted comparison shots betwee Sony F717 and
Sigma SD9.
In my opinion, there is just no comparison at all. Sigma SD9
delivers clean, live like images, no bayer interpolation artifact.
It is really a dream digital camera.

Amazing Foveon X3 ..
I am waiting for a cheaper digital camera with Foveon X3 (under 1
grand), when?

--
Karl

 

[rick decker]

For those of you that think the 717 is better, I highly and heartily recommend you buy the 717. The 707 is a great camera and I am sure the 717 will be too. You will be very happy with it.

P.S.:

Can I have your Sigma wait-list position?