Foveon X3: Larger image samples

[Arlene]

Peter,

What exactly is a 4/3" sensor. Shouldn't it be 3/4" sensor. I don't understand the size of a 4/3"
Arlene

Peter

Let's see who's in the market right now in terms of producing
decent cameras:
Canon
Casio *
Epson *
Fuji
HP *
Kodak *
Minolta *
Nikon
Olympus *
Ricoh *
Sony
Toshiba

These are some of the major players. Now, which ones would you put
an asterisk next to, signifying that they'd take the Foveon Flying
Leap of Faith in order to increase their product awareness, while
at the same time heightening their quality?

Looks interesting, now, doesn't it?

--

Ulysses

 

[Arlene]

Why not carry both sensors. They do now.

But Kodak... now that's a good candidate.

These are my picks

Canon

--

Ulysses

 

[Cubfan]

I agree. Those images were surely touched up and edited to a certain extent. You'd have to do alot of touching up to get that cleanness and clarity out of a current digicam, so things look good. Like most everyone else, I'm dying to see some images in a more pure form.

The resized images that I mentioned earlier this week are nice to
look at. But to be honest, they only tell us a limited amount of
information about the sensor technology, and almost nothing about
the camera that was used.

For all we know, it could have been a reference developer's kit
that was used... it could have been a Sigma... we just don't know.

The images could have been resized and enhanced, cropped and
retouched. Again, we just don't know.

There is some indication in the shots, however, the noise level is
extremely low. The best sample of this is in the billiards
table, where any number of areas could be chosen that would present
ordinary consumer/prosumer level cameras with fits. There are a lot
of things happening with highlights and shadows in that shot that
are reproduced really well, assuming that there was no great
attempt at retouching.
--

Ulysses

 

[Cubfan]

I haven't seen any fullsize 2560 x 1920 images from the Foveon.
Where are they?

Actually, that's not the correct size for the Foveon images.

yeah, i know... typo

But currently, as far as we know, Phil has a number of X3 samples
(shot with a reference camera... he may also have a Sigma, I'll
bet), but he won't be able to post any of the full-size shots until
at earliest the PMA announcement.
--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

For the same reason that most major PC companies don't carry both AMD and Intel chips. Simplification of inventory and marketing pressure from their suppliers.

Think about it: How many of the Canon products are using even their own CMOS tech. The only way a company like Canon would make a leap like that would be if they almost totally cut their ties with Sony Semiconductor. And that's not going to happen.

Why not carry both sensors. They do now.-- Ulysses

 

[Ken N]

After looking at that Sigma, I finally realized that the lense isn't part of the deal. $3k for the camera, about another $1100 to $1200 for lenses plus a flash attachment. The Foveon CMOS looks great, but Sigma was definitely the wrong camera company to introduce it. Also, Sigma lenses are proprietary. I'll wait for the Foveon to show up in another company's camera before handing out the money. JMHO.

I really enjoyed this link to make people understand exactly the
difference between digital and 35mm, and what it will take to make
the 2 different formats equal. I think he did his homework well.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

 

[Ulysses]

but Sigma was definitely the wrong camera company to introduce it.

Why? They make a quality product, according to reviews of their lenses and camera bodies.

Also, Sigma lenses are proprietary.

So are everyone else's. -- Ulysses

 

[Ken N]

Ulysses.....The idea of introducing new technology is to put it out in front of the buying public in as big of a way as possible to get maximum exposure for obvious reasons. Going with a camera company that is just putting out their first digital camera isn't the way most companies would handle it. One of the first things mentioned on the STF was the consideration of waiting until all the bugs have been identified and ironed out. Personally, I would be very hesitant at putting out $3k+ for a camera with brand new technology from a camera company that had never sold a single digital camera before. The other companies have years of history and thousands of cases of handling problems problems. Sigma is just too new to the digital game to suit me. I would have much rather seen Sony, Canon, or Nikon come out with the Foveon. At least they're electronics oriented.

but Sigma was definitely the wrong camera company to introduce it.

Why? They make a quality product, according to reviews of their
lenses and camera bodies.

Also, Sigma lenses are proprietary.

So are everyone else's.
--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

Ulysses.....The idea of introducing new technology is to put it out
in front of the buying public in as big of a way as possible to get
maximum exposure for obvious reasons. Going with a camera company
that is just putting out their first digital camera isn't the way
most companies would handle it.

Sure it is. We're talking about a matter of scale here.

Foveon is not a large company. They need help (National Semiconductor) to even roll their product out the door. This is also their first venture into a major market of this type (they previously were a niche company producing extremely high-end and extremely highly- respected cameras). But this is a different foray for them.

When a company this size looks to make their first introductory product, they will go with someone who is large enough to command respect (Sigma), but not so large to eat them up (Nikon, Canon, Sony... in ascending order up the food chain).

What they've done is nearly perfect for the size of their outfit and their intended staged/gradual release of their technology.

hesitant at putting out $3k+ for a camera with brand new technology
from a camera company that had never sold a single digital camera
before.

I think we're all right to hesitate a little. Nevertheless, for Phil and others who have actually see the technology at work to state that this could be the one to produce the nearest thing to film or even replace film is a very, very bold statement.

Remember, Phil is not one given to hyperbole. Not at all! And he's already shot umpteen shots with the technology. He's impressed with it.

But as I've been saying from the first day of its announcement, this will only have relevance if they bring it into consumer-level cameras soon. The companies they choose to do this with will mirror their decision to go with a second-tier company like Sigma (so don't expect Nikon, Canon or Sony to be among the adopters... but expect others a little farther down the consumer chain to check it out).

-- Ulysses