Should Sigma make a 30 MP per layer full-frame Foveon instead of 20 MP per layer?

[DavidMillier]

+1 ... a splendid rebuttal, Dave!

In spite of my technical rants, I am painfully aware of my inability to 'see' and frame good content and thanks for rubbing it in ... ;-)

Find someone else's photography you like and copy it! I found I have a bit of a fetish for door knockers (probably not a lot of those around your way). European cities seem to have a wide range of door knockers on offer. There's only so many ways you can portray them, so you can get to be quite the specialist in short order

Yes, all I have around here is rural Texas woodland and I don't travel at all these days.

Must find someone else's woodland shots ...

I did start shooting old tools with the G9 but still tend to lack "composition".

Blowlamp:



Saw Tooth Setter:

They are beautiful subjects and beautifully photographed in a product catalogue kind of way. I find that style a bit too literal though, for my taste. But if you can do them like this, it's not a big step to making a more moody or romantic style. They just need a bit of context eg an old blurry workshop background, some mysterious shadows. Not such a big leap IMO.

One of my favourite demo sets of the perfectly mundane:

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/elegance/bicycle/

Really not very far away from what you are doing and doesn't require some kind of massive leap in creativity, just some careful study of what the photographer did to move a shot from good to exhibition standard.

Have a look at this, you might find something useful, the ideal kind of thing if you are shooting mainly from around a rural home:

https://www.lenswork.com/monographs/lwm-001.html

I think occasionally inspiration enlightens photography but most of the time it is more about deciding on a style you like and getting really competent at it. If someone else likes it, that's a bonus

So many people think they lack some kind of artistic vision when what they really lack is a well worked out style and technique. If you search the almost infinite number of photos posted on the web you can find loads of jaw dropping brilliant shots. But many of them are one-offs. You tend not to find photographers who can consistently put together jaw dropping portfolios that suggest they can do this over and over. And those that do tend to be very good as things that are recognised as their style but you don't get to see all the other stuff they keep out of view. Mike Johnston said he has looked at Cartier-bresson's contact sheets and he sure missed he decisive moment most of the time!

--
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2018 - website revived!)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? There is a lot more to such a photo than just the overall composition and lighting.

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Not all photos or paintings have any details, and it isn't always appropriate, especially for portraits. But many pictures of landscapes or architecture, general street views with a crowd of people, and so on, do; and they reward close examination.

The Sigma cameras are particularly suited to taking detailed photos.

Obviously most non photographers are interested only in the general subject: they want to know who it's a picture of, and have no interest in lighting, composition, white balance, or resolution -- and certainly not in bokeh.

Read the article. Keith's point is that people who actually buy photographs aren't bothered by the technicalities. The people who do care about the technicalities are other photographers and they don't buy pictures.

Quite so and my photographs are for me, not for sale. So perhaps a factor is 'limits'.

My limit is my 24" 2.3MP monitor viewed from about 45cm. Therefore, my SD9's 3.4MP is more than enough.

OTOH, Scott likes to print large e.g. 40x60". And he has been known to examine at closer that "proper" viewing distance. Is there some MP for Scott beyond which no further improvement can be seen, other than in his mind?

I couldn't say. The problem is if you get used to super sharp small pictures but want to print bigger and you want the big prints to exactly as sharp as the small pics at extremely close viewing. For a 60" print, you are going to need something like 60*240 pixels wide. 150MP should do it maybe 200MP if you want more than 240ppi.

It's possible but there can't be many people in the world producing this kind of output because it's not really necessary. But if that is what he wants...

 

[Jeffry7]

+1 ... a splendid rebuttal, Dave!

In spite of my technical rants, I am painfully aware of my inability to 'see' and frame good content and thanks for rubbing it in ... ;-)

Find someone else's photography you like and copy it! I found I have a bit of a fetish for door knockers (probably not a lot of those around your way). European cities seem to have a wide range of door knockers on offer. There's only so many ways you can portray them, so you can get to be quite the specialist in short order

Yes, all I have around here is rural Texas woodland and I don't travel at all these days.

Must find someone else's woodland shots ...

I did start shooting old tools with the G9 but still tend to lack "composition".

Blowlamp:



Saw Tooth Setter:

I like these Ted. I like the idea of using standard product photography methods on items that show real wear and patina.

I think the torch might look well with a low key product shot. Particularly if it still works safely and were lit.

 

[xpatUSA]

+1 ... a splendid rebuttal, Dave!

In spite of my technical rants, I am painfully aware of my inability to 'see' and frame good content and thanks for rubbing it in ... ;-)

Find someone else's photography you like and copy it! I found I have a bit of a fetish for door knockers (probably not a lot of those around your way). European cities seem to have a wide range of door knockers on offer. There's only so many ways you can portray them, so you can get to be quite the specialist in short order

Yes, all I have around here is rural Texas woodland and I don't travel at all these days.

Must find someone else's woodland shots ...

I did start shooting old tools with the G9 but still tend to lack "composition".

Blowlamp:



Saw Tooth Setter:

They are beautiful subjects and beautifully photographed in a product catalogue kind of way. I find that style a bit too literal though, for my taste. But if you can do them like this, it's not a big step to making a more moody or romantic style. They just need a bit of context eg an old blurry workshop background, some mysterious shadows. Not such a big leap IMO.

One of my favourite demo sets of the perfectly mundane:

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/elegance/bicycle/

Really not very far away from what you are doing and doesn't require some kind of massive leap in creativity, just some careful study of what the photographer did to move a shot from good to exhibition standard.

Have a look at this, you might find something useful, the ideal kind of thing if you are shooting mainly from around a rural home:

https://www.lenswork.com/monographs/lwm-001.html

I think occasionally inspiration enlightens photography but most of the time it is more about deciding on a style you like and getting really competent at it. If someone else likes it, that's a bonus

So many people think they lack some kind of artistic vision when what they really lack is a well worked out style and technique. If you search the almost infinite number of photos posted on the web you can find loads of jaw dropping brilliant shots. But many of them are one-offs. You tend not to find photographers who can consistently put together jaw dropping portfolios that suggest they can do this over and over. And those that do tend to be very good as things that are recognised as their style but you don't get to see all the other stuff they keep out of view. Mike Johnston said he has looked at Cartier-bresson's contact sheets and he sure missed he decisive moment most of the time!

Thanks for the well-received advice, Dave.

Loved the bicycle reference and also the monograph is most instructiv ...

--
WYSINWIG: what you see is not what I got.

 

[xpatUSA]

I did start shooting old tools with the G9 but still tend to lack "composition".

Blowlamp:



Saw Tooth Setter:

I like these Ted. I like the idea of using standard product photography methods on items that show real wear and patina.

Thank you, Jeff.

I think the torch might look well with a low key product shot. Particularly if it still works safely and were lit.

I've never used it. Bought it out of nostalgia because I owned and used one for household plumbing back in England. It ran on paraffin and was pre-heated with methylated spirits. Back then one could prickers to clean the nozzle with ...



--
WYSINWIG: what you see is not what I got.

 

[furtle]

I did start shooting old tools with the G9 but still tend to lack "composition".

Blowlamp:



Saw Tooth Setter:

I like these Ted. I like the idea of using standard product photography methods on items that show real wear and patina.

Thank you, Jeff.

I think the torch might look well with a low key product shot. Particularly if it still works safely and were lit.

I've never used it. Bought it out of nostalgia because I owned and used one for household plumbing back in England. It ran on paraffin and was pre-heated with methylated spirits. Back then one could prickers to clean the nozzle with ...

I know a couple of dodgy plumbers who could use a lesson in working that blow torch. My folks got rid of the last of their lead pipe work in their house around ten years ago. The last of it was in the down stairs dunny. A lot of English plumbing is still much to be desired. I know because every house I’ve owned is no younger than 180 years old and all had dreadful plumbing. Thomas Crapper would be spinning in his grave.


I like the pics, Ted. In the old days when we could venture out, I used to visit antique fairs and junk shops to buy old woodworking hand tools. Old chisels and planes are top notch steel and I use them today. Good idea to photo them. I’m in the middle of building an 18’ x 10’ wooden, twin span glass house that is against an 8’ garden wall. those tools have been invaluable. About to start the glazing. A Covid lock down project that is stop start in between work interruptions!

--
Best, Steve

 

[richard stone]

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Indeed - decreasing S/N = more noise = more smoothing during conversion = less "3D look".

Keeping them the same size as in the Merrill should give about 24 Mpix, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

36mm x 24mm /(5um squared) = about 35MP.

Ted...

If your math is correct, which I figure it is, then I would vote for an "improved" 35MP FF Merrill...maybe with a Q (x4) top layer. But the most used setting for me would be something like a FF Merrill. But for better Dynamic Range ("DR") I would be willing to go to something like 20M.

Would I buy or use such a camera? I really think that the Q and Q(H) variants already have plenty of MP. The key is holding the camera still. The main issue is minimal Foveon "DR" which makes the camera work like it is loaded with (ISO 100) slide film. It is usually a great look. Usually.

As for images, the point is that Anything you want to make an image of is fair game. Maybe no one else wants to see it? Too bad for them. The trick is, or seems to be, to make an image you like that also appeals to others. Some people are really good at that that. Others not so much.

But in the end what matters is your own personal satisfaction, or pleasure. Sometimes it is just fun to try out new cameras and see how they work. Assuming no one is going to complain too much about your camera purchases and expenses, then why not try out new cameras? About all we can do is enjoy our lives.

But from what I have read, we are getting near, or may have already passed diminishing returns in terms of MP: 24MP on a FF is plenty. Sure, more is more, and more can be better, but is 50MP really twice as good as 24? I kind of doubt that it is.

 

[SigmaChrome]

No.

 

[Scottelly]

No, Sigma should not.

They should make that 20 MP FFF sensor with a good iso 1600, in a good smallish camera body with good AF, and low light AF, a good viewfinder, a bit like that Lumix S5. Sigma can not compete on detail, Sigma should make the best IQ they can, better then their Merrill.

IF they can make that FFF, and where do you get that knowledge that a higher res sensor takes only a few months to develop?

I asked if people would want Sigma to switch from 20 MP per layer to 30 MP per layer, even if it takes a few more months to release the camera. I see how you could think that implies it would take a few months to develop a new sensor, and maybe a few months is an underestimation, but if people wouldn't want it if they have to wait a few more months, then the question is moot anyway, but if people would want it, I guess we'd have to determine whether they'd be willing to wait a whole year more, because the sensor development might take more than just a few more months. I would guess 20 MP per layer will probably be a bit easier and faster than 30 MP per layer, so it would likely take a few months less to develop a 20 MP per layer sensor than a 30 MP per layer sensor. At this point, it might be that the 20 MP per layer sensor has been mostly designed already though, so it would take a whole year or more extra to design a "new" 30 MP per layer sensor, so I get what you're saying.

61 days to develop a new sensor?

Where did you get the idea that I said "61 days to develop a new sensor?"

You are dreaming again ...

Of course I'm dreaming again. LOL

Regards,

Jozef.

 

[Scottelly]

In a recent thread I wrote, "Today I would make a full-frame sensor that captures 30 MP per layer, to compete with the 60 MP images from the latest high-resolution Sony camera. I think Sigma should still do this, though that would no doubt delay the new sensor a few months."

Someone replied, "There is very little real world difference between 40, 50, 60MP. The occasions when you could actually put those pixel count differences onto paper in a way that was unambiguously visible to most viewers must be very rare indeed."

It is true that there is very little difference between 40 MP and 50 MP, and even less difference between 50 MP and 60 MP, but the difference between 40 MP and 60 MP is significant, in my opinion. That is a 50 % step up, like going from 16 MP to 24 MP, and when I stepped up from my 16 MP Sony A55 to my 24 MP Sony A65 it was quite a visible and meaningful difference to me. Sure, in prints at or smaller than 24" x 36" there might be no visible difference from 40 MP to 60 MP, and there might be no visible difference from an SD1 Merrill to an SD Quattro H with the same size prints . . . but I plan to make much bigger prints, and while most people might not see a significant difference, I will see it, and a few affictionados will see it too, I'm sure.

One of the things we do, when we strive for excellence, is we push our limits, whether it be by staying a few minutes longer, just to see what happend in the sky, as we shoot the sunset, or by purchasing the best equipment we can for the job we think we're going to be doing. I recently bought a couple of Art lenses. I didn't do that because I'm the type of person to say, "Oh, the lenses I've got are good enough." I want more. I see something really good that someone else did/made, and I want to do better myself. I shoot a photo that I think is good, and I either wish I had shot it with a better lens or camera, or I am satisfied, because I shot it with the best I could afford at the time. Eventually I do believe we will hit a point of diminishing returns. We may be there now. Maybe I just don't need a 60 MP camera or even a 50 MP camera.

Maybe I don't need anything better than my Nikon D810, and I should just sell everything I have that doesn't work with that camera, because I know I can get a replacement for that camera for about the same price I can get a replacement for my Sigma SD Quattro H . . . but my Nikon is more versatile, faster, and has longer battery life (much longer). I can get lots of excellent, weather sealed lenses for the Nikon. I can get lots of accessories made to work with Nikons, and I know other photographers with Nikons, who I can work and travel with, so we can share equipment (i.e. lenses, such as a telephoto, macro, or super-wide, or batteries). Me having the same camera as a photographer who I get paid to assist from time to time helps to make me someone she likes to have around. The more Nikon equipment I have, the more that helps me with photographers who shoot with Nikon equipment. Having Sigma equipment doesn't help me in the same way.

But I don't think I want to use another Nikon as much as I want to shoot with my SD Quattro H. It would be cheaper for me to just get my SD Quattro H fixed or buy another one. Maybe that's what I'll do.

Anyway, as far as resolution goes, I think a bit more is always better than a bit less. I always think of having more, when I shoot with my SD Quattro H, rather than my SD1 Merrill. I wish I had a Nikon D850 or Z7, rather than my D810, because the D850 and Z7 both capture 9 MP more than my D810 . . . but for other reasons too, of course (i.e. speed of shooting, the tilt screens on those newer cameras, etc.).

So I think the 30 MP per layer idea is important, and I think there are a lot of other people out there who agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 20 MP per layer is plenty, but I think it's be significantly better to have 30 MP per layer, producing a 30 MP jpeg (and native TIFF and jpeg images from the raw files) - not only from the standpoint that it would be a step up from my 25.5 MP jpegs from my SD Quattro H, but because I think it would be seen by most people out there as a more TODAY camera, rather than a camera of the past. I know it seems like the megapixel race is over, and I know there are new cameras out with 20 MP full-frame sensors (i.e. both Canon's and Nikon's newest and most expensive flagship cameras), but so many people think of 20 MP as a spec. for an old camera. It brings to mind the SD15. I remember thinking Sigma was crazy to put that "old" sensor in that camera in a time when 12 MP and 15 MP and even 16 MP were the norm. I thought at that time that Sigma should have stepped up to a 10 MP sensor, cutting the area of their photo-sites in half, or maybe stepping up to a larger, 1.5x crop factor sensor. Little did I know what was on the drawing board, and probably taking longer than expected to make (the sensor that eventually ended up in the Merrill cameras). I imagine Sigma was probably intending to put that true APS-C size sensor in the SD15, but eventually realized it would not be ready in time, and just put the sensor from the SD14 into the SD15 instead.

What do you think? Would it be worthwhile for Sigma to redesign their full-frame sensor to be 30 MP per layer, rather than 20 MP per layer, even if it means another few months in development? Do you think 20 MP per layer is enough today? What about next year, when entry level cameras in the 30 MP and even 40 MP range are commonplace? Today I can buy a Sony A7r II, with a 42 MP full-frame sensor in it, for less than $1,500. Would you pay $500 more for a camera with no tilt screen, slower focusing and operation, a lower resolution screen, less battery life, and a smaller raw shooting buffer, even though that camera makes 20 MP native photos? (though they are the best 20 MP photos, by far, of any camera out there)

Certainly Sigma may be wanting people to see the improvement from the 20 MP photos from their SD Quattro to the 20 MP photos from their full-frame camera, and it may make sense to keep the camera at 20 MP for people to see that difference (or lack of difference), but is this just an experimental camera, or is it a camera Sigma wants to make for a lot of people to use? I guess if Sigma really is just making the cameras with the Foveon sensors as experiments, it probably makes sense to make a 20 MP per layer camera first, followed by a 30 MP per layer full-frame camera one or two years later, possibly followed by a 48 MP top layer Quattro full-frame camera (which might be accepted by people, if the 20 MP full-frame camera makes images very similar to what today's Quattro cameras make).

You're getting hung up on resolution. I have worked scanners with much lower resolution yet capture more real detail than their high-mp brethren. Why? Because their noise ceiling is much higher. Noise obstructs a lot of the image. You're not noticing it but the software is doing heavy processing to eliminate it, and it is still there, visible. Mitigate that problem and you'll have very happy users. The difference between 20 and 30 isn't that great. Instead of 7000 pixels horizontal, the image might be a whopping 8300 pixels across. WOW!

Plus, for many users, those files would slow down nearly every 3-5yr old machine to a painful 15 second wait to do anything. The average user's computer isn't up to the task.

The medium format Fuji has 400MP mode. If you need it, buy that. Or start scanning fine grain film. It has high resolution with added bonus, no digital artifacts.

I personally think the answer might be a 20 or 30 true FF Foveon with a "Q" (4x top layer).

I agree, and I'm hoping Sigma "Quattrifies" the 20 MP per layer sensor eventually to an 80:20:20 Quattro, which produces 80 MP native images and 20 MP per layer images in low-res. That would be spectacular, though maybe a little noisy in standard high-resoluion mode (but maybe not, depending on the manufacturing process, design, etc.). Such a camera could have an S-Hi mode that makes 160 MP jpegs, and those would "blow away" the competition, in my opinion. The camera might even capture more detail than the Fuji GFX100, and THAT would make me a VERY happy camper. I'd buy the camera ASAP.

Even a 20MP actual and properly managed true FF Foveon might be enough, assuming that Sigma/Foveon can get the Foveon "noise" under control.

As a reasonably happy sdQ and SD10 owner I know what a properly managed Foveon sensor can do, and how much more detail can be had from the "Q" sensor. Not everyone wants to do moving images; I know I don't. The trick might be to make sure that the Foveon magic remains. Part of that is to make sure that the lenses to support that kind of resolution exist.

Well certainly the lenses exist to support a 20 MP per layer full-frame Foveon sensor. The Art lenses would support a much higher resolution sensor, with the same density as the sensor in the Merrill cameras and even the density that is in the Quattro cameras (at least in the center of the frame, if nowhere else). I can see jaggies in things near the center of the frame, when shooting with my old 70mm f2.8 EX macro, so a new 135mm f1.8 Art is likely to produce images that show jaggies almost all the way across the image. That's with a Quattro density, which as you know, is higher than the density of the Merrills, and consequently much higher than the density of a 20 MP per layer full-frame Foveon.

 

[Scottelly]

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.<>

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? <>

But where does one stop?

How about those tera-pixel images where one can zoom in fractally just like the movies?

Have to say that, if I'm looking down my street with my eyes, I can't read the street sign at the T-junction. If I shoot an image from the same position, should I expect the sign to be readable in the whole image - even if printed large and walked up to or even when zoomed in on-screen?

I do have a 1930's 5" magnifying glass, a 10X loupe and a Seibert 50X pocket microscope all of which are useful upon occasion.

There is no reason in principle why someone should be required to concentrate on the overall composition, and there is nothing in principle wrong with treating photographs as a data source to explore in detail. If that is your thing, absolutely feel free to do that.

But Keith's point is that most people who are interested in making and selling fine art (like, I presume Scott is) will benefit more on focusing on content than chasing ever more fine detail because the people who buy other people's pictures, do so because they like the picture first and foremost. Technicalities come a distant second. Indeed, if you are a fine detail enthusiast, then a sharp image with no artistic intent would be just as good, so why would you spend hundreds or even thousands in a gallery?

Scott's quest seems unending because he is already using equipment that is an order of magnitude better than a few years ago (which this forum considered pretty fine at the time) and is not remotely satisfied. There is no point in hanging around waiting for better equipment (it'll come at its own pace anyway), work with what you have now.

Now that I have a better camera and excellent lenses, I agree with you, and that is why I went to re-shoot Yellow Branch Falls on my autumn trip this year, and got this photo:


OOC jpeg

Unfortunately there is no more yellow branch there, so I fear that this photo is not as aesthetically pleasing as my original shot here:





No doubt both photos are lacking - the first in content, and the second in detail and light. I can probably enhance one or both, but I doubt I will be happy with either. Unfortunately, I don't have the shot I want of that beautiful waterfall, and I probably never will. I will go back and try again though, no doubt, some day, when I have a better wide-angle lens or a camera to use with my 14-24mm f2.8 Art, and I will hopefully get a photo of that waterfall that satisfies me enough that I will make a huge print of it. For now it will remain to me one of those elusive photographic subjects, like Glade Creek Grist Mill in autumn.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

Big Print Photos - Photography by Scott Barton Kennelly

Landscape and nature photography, photographic prints by Scott Barton Kennelly, an Australian photographer living in south Florida.

www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[Scottelly]

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Indeed - decreasing S/N = more noise = more smoothing during conversion = less "3D look".

Keeping them the same size as in the Merrill should give about 24 Mpix, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

36mm x 24mm /(5um squared) = about 35MP.

Ted...

If your math is correct, which I figure it is, then I would vote for an "improved" 35MP FF Merrill...maybe with a Q (x4) top layer. But the most used setting for me would be something like a FF Merrill. But for better Dynamic Range ("DR") I would be willing to go to something like 20M.

Would I buy or use such a camera? I really think that the Q and Q(H) variants already have plenty of MP. The key is holding the camera still. The main issue is minimal Foveon "DR" which makes the camera work like it is loaded with (ISO 100) slide film. It is usually a great look. Usually.

As for images, the point is that Anything you want to make an image of is fair game. Maybe no one else wants to see it? Too bad for them. The trick is, or seems to be, to make an image you like that also appeals to others. Some people are really good at that that. Others not so much.

But in the end what matters is your own personal satisfaction, or pleasure. Sometimes it is just fun to try out new cameras and see how they work. Assuming no one is going to complain too much about your camera purchases and expenses, then why not try out new cameras? About all we can do is enjoy our lives.

But from what I have read, we are getting near, or may have already passed diminishing returns in terms of MP: 24MP on a FF is plenty. Sure, more is more, and more can be better, but is 50MP really twice as good as 24? I kind of doubt that it is.

I think it is not most of the time, but there can be enough difference to differentiate an image, even though the difference is a small one, just like in the Olympics, where a fraction of the measure counts, whether it be in inches of height, fractions of a second in time, etc. Do people who shoot with medium format cameras really need to do that?

I know a photographer who sells huge prints. He recently upgraded from his 50 MP Canon 5 Dsr and L series lenses to a 100 MP Fuji GFX100 and four new medium format Fuji lenses. It cost him a lot of money, but he is very satisfied, and glad he spent the money. Some of his prints from single shots are as wide as eight feet. He can see a difference in his work, and he also has more dynamic range in his images to work with. He is urging me to get a Fuji too, but I told him I don't want such a heavy, expensive rig, and besides, who has that much money to spend on equipment?!? Maybe I will some day, but for now I'll stick with what I've got, because I agree . . . 50 MP is not really that much better than 24 MP, and we do indeed reach a point of diminishing returns.

Some day I will probably buy a 100 MP camera though, and I still hope for a full-frame Quattro that makes 80 MP native images (because of its 80 MP top layer). I believe Sigma can do that. I believe that a little more density than today's Quattro can be done, and still look good at ISO 100, as long as they tweak the processing a little in SPP.

 

[Scottelly]

For me, Scott, no. My '2K' monitor is good enough at 3.4MP. ;-)

Some numbers 4U:

Pixel size:

20MP: 6.6um. 30MP: 5.4um.

5.4um gets you about 20% more sensor noise ...

Picture lines/height, i.e. max "resolution":

20MP: 4444 lph. 30MP: 3636 lph.

Paraphrasing Don:

There is very little real world difference between 20 and 30MP. The occasions when you could actually put those pixel count differences onto paper in a way that was unambiguously visible to most viewers must be very rare indeed.

Thank you for the numbers Ted.

 

[mike earussi]

In a recent thread I wrote, "Today I would make a full-frame sensor that captures 30 MP per layer, to compete with the 60 MP images from the latest high-resolution Sony camera. I think Sigma should still do this, though that would no doubt delay the new sensor a few months."

Someone replied, "There is very little real world difference between 40, 50, 60MP. The occasions when you could actually put those pixel count differences onto paper in a way that was unambiguously visible to most viewers must be very rare indeed."

It is true that there is very little difference between 40 MP and 50 MP, and even less difference between 50 MP and 60 MP, but the difference between 40 MP and 60 MP is significant, in my opinion. That is a 50 % step up, like going from 16 MP to 24 MP, and when I stepped up from my 16 MP Sony A55 to my 24 MP Sony A65 it was quite a visible and meaningful difference to me. Sure, in prints at or smaller than 24" x 36" there might be no visible difference from 40 MP to 60 MP, and there might be no visible difference from an SD1 Merrill to an SD Quattro H with the same size prints . . . but I plan to make much bigger prints, and while most people might not see a significant difference, I will see it, and a few affictionados will see it too, I'm sure.

One of the things we do, when we strive for excellence, is we push our limits, whether it be by staying a few minutes longer, just to see what happend in the sky, as we shoot the sunset, or by purchasing the best equipment we can for the job we think we're going to be doing. I recently bought a couple of Art lenses. I didn't do that because I'm the type of person to say, "Oh, the lenses I've got are good enough." I want more. I see something really good that someone else did/made, and I want to do better myself. I shoot a photo that I think is good, and I either wish I had shot it with a better lens or camera, or I am satisfied, because I shot it with the best I could afford at the time. Eventually I do believe we will hit a point of diminishing returns. We may be there now. Maybe I just don't need a 60 MP camera or even a 50 MP camera.

Maybe I don't need anything better than my Nikon D810, and I should just sell everything I have that doesn't work with that camera, because I know I can get a replacement for that camera for about the same price I can get a replacement for my Sigma SD Quattro H . . . but my Nikon is more versatile, faster, and has longer battery life (much longer). I can get lots of excellent, weather sealed lenses for the Nikon. I can get lots of accessories made to work with Nikons, and I know other photographers with Nikons, who I can work and travel with, so we can share equipment (i.e. lenses, such as a telephoto, macro, or super-wide, or batteries). Me having the same camera as a photographer who I get paid to assist from time to time helps to make me someone she likes to have around. The more Nikon equipment I have, the more that helps me with photographers who shoot with Nikon equipment. Having Sigma equipment doesn't help me in the same way.

But I don't think I want to use another Nikon as much as I want to shoot with my SD Quattro H. It would be cheaper for me to just get my SD Quattro H fixed or buy another one. Maybe that's what I'll do.

Anyway, as far as resolution goes, I think a bit more is always better than a bit less. I always think of having more, when I shoot with my SD Quattro H, rather than my SD1 Merrill. I wish I had a Nikon D850 or Z7, rather than my D810, because the D850 and Z7 both capture 9 MP more than my D810 . . . but for other reasons too, of course (i.e. speed of shooting, the tilt screens on those newer cameras, etc.).

So I think the 30 MP per layer idea is important, and I think there are a lot of other people out there who agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 20 MP per layer is plenty, but I think it's be significantly better to have 30 MP per layer, producing a 30 MP jpeg (and native TIFF and jpeg images from the raw files) - not only from the standpoint that it would be a step up from my 25.5 MP jpegs from my SD Quattro H, but because I think it would be seen by most people out there as a more TODAY camera, rather than a camera of the past. I know it seems like the megapixel race is over, and I know there are new cameras out with 20 MP full-frame sensors (i.e. both Canon's and Nikon's newest and most expensive flagship cameras), but so many people think of 20 MP as a spec. for an old camera. It brings to mind the SD15. I remember thinking Sigma was crazy to put that "old" sensor in that camera in a time when 12 MP and 15 MP and even 16 MP were the norm. I thought at that time that Sigma should have stepped up to a 10 MP sensor, cutting the area of their photo-sites in half, or maybe stepping up to a larger, 1.5x crop factor sensor. Little did I know what was on the drawing board, and probably taking longer than expected to make (the sensor that eventually ended up in the Merrill cameras). I imagine Sigma was probably intending to put that true APS-C size sensor in the SD15, but eventually realized it would not be ready in time, and just put the sensor from the SD14 into the SD15 instead.

What do you think? Would it be worthwhile for Sigma to redesign their full-frame sensor to be 30 MP per layer, rather than 20 MP per layer, even if it means another few months in development? Do you think 20 MP per layer is enough today? What about next year, when entry level cameras in the 30 MP and even 40 MP range are commonplace? Today I can buy a Sony A7r II, with a 42 MP full-frame sensor in it, for less than $1,500. Would you pay $500 more for a camera with no tilt screen, slower focusing and operation, a lower resolution screen, less battery life, and a smaller raw shooting buffer, even though that camera makes 20 MP native photos? (though they are the best 20 MP photos, by far, of any camera out there)

Certainly Sigma may be wanting people to see the improvement from the 20 MP photos from their SD Quattro to the 20 MP photos from their full-frame camera, and it may make sense to keep the camera at 20 MP for people to see that difference (or lack of difference), but is this just an experimental camera, or is it a camera Sigma wants to make for a lot of people to use? I guess if Sigma really is just making the cameras with the Foveon sensors as experiments, it probably makes sense to make a 20 MP per layer camera first, followed by a 30 MP per layer full-frame camera one or two years later, possibly followed by a 48 MP top layer Quattro full-frame camera (which might be accepted by people, if the 20 MP full-frame camera makes images very similar to what today's Quattro cameras make).

You're getting hung up on resolution. I have worked scanners with much lower resolution yet capture more real detail than their high-mp brethren. Why? Because their noise ceiling is much higher. Noise obstructs a lot of the image. You're not noticing it but the software is doing heavy processing to eliminate it, and it is still there, visible. Mitigate that problem and you'll have very happy users. The difference between 20 and 30 isn't that great. Instead of 7000 pixels horizontal, the image might be a whopping 8300 pixels across. WOW!

Plus, for many users, those files would slow down nearly every 3-5yr old machine to a painful 15 second wait to do anything. The average user's computer isn't up to the task.

The medium format Fuji has 400MP mode. If you need it, buy that. Or start scanning fine grain film. It has high resolution with added bonus, no digital artifacts.

I personally think the answer might be a 20 or 30 true FF Foveon with a "Q" (4x top layer).

I agree, and I'm hoping Sigma "Quattrifies" the 20 MP per layer sensor eventually to an 80:20:20 Quattro, which produces 80 MP native images and 20 MP per layer images in low-res. That would be spectacular, though maybe a little noisy in standard high-resoluion mode (but maybe not, depending on the manufacturing process, design, etc.). Such a camera could have an S-Hi mode that makes 160 MP jpegs, and those would "blow away" the competition, in my opinion. The camera might even capture more detail than the Fuji GFX100, and THAT would make me a VERY happy camper. I'd buy the camera ASAP.

Even a 20MP actual and properly managed true FF Foveon might be enough, assuming that Sigma/Foveon can get the Foveon "noise" under control.

As a reasonably happy sdQ and SD10 owner I know what a properly managed Foveon sensor can do, and how much more detail can be had from the "Q" sensor. Not everyone wants to do moving images; I know I don't. The trick might be to make sure that the Foveon magic remains. Part of that is to make sure that the lenses to support that kind of resolution exist.

Well certainly the lenses exist to support a 20 MP per layer full-frame Foveon sensor. The Art lenses would support a much higher resolution sensor, with the same density as the sensor in the Merrill cameras and even the density that is in the Quattro cameras (at least in the center of the frame, if nowhere else). I can see jaggies in things near the center of the frame, when shooting with my old 70mm f2.8 EX macro, so a new 135mm f1.8 Art is likely to produce images that show jaggies almost all the way across the image. That's with a Quattro density, which as you know, is higher than the density of the Merrills, and consequently much higher than the density of a 20 MP per layer full-frame Foveon.

I don't know if you're familiar with this article, but it points out very well that above a certain pixel density lenses just can't resolve that high:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

The Merrill chip max resolution is 100LPM, but as you can see from the article's test charts few lenses do well at the edges at even that resolution (of course, if you're only concerned about center resolution then a chip resolution of 200LPM+ is useful).

By my calculations a 80mp FF Quattro should have a max resolution of 150LPM and to even achieve that you'd have to shoot at f4 or less, and even that resolution is available only in the center because of lens design limitations.

But for those of us who shoot landscape photography and want center to corner sharpness (referring again the the above article) 100LPM at the edges using the world's best fixed lenses is about max, which again is Merrill resolution.

We're bumping into the same limitations that film photographers did, if you want higher resolutions you need to move up in format. So looks like a MF digital sensor is in your future. Until then (i.e. when the prices drop) you're stuck with pano stitching just like I am. Besides, I don't really expect any camera to give me the resolution I really want as most of my panos exceed 250+mp now with a few up to 1GP. Though who knows, within 10 years maybe we'll see 250mp 6x9 sensors.

 

[D Cox]

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Indeed - decreasing S/N = more noise = more smoothing during conversion = less "3D look".

Keeping them the same size as in the Merrill should give about 24 Mpix, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

36mm x 24mm /(5um squared) = about 35MP.

Ted...

If your math is correct, which I figure it is, then I would vote for an "improved" 35MP FF Merrill...maybe with a Q (x4) top layer. But the most used setting for me would be something like a FF Merrill. But for better Dynamic Range ("DR") I would be willing to go to something like 20M.

Would I buy or use such a camera? I really think that the Q and Q(H) variants already have plenty of MP. The key is holding the camera still. The main issue is minimal Foveon "DR" which makes the camera work like it is loaded with (ISO 100) slide film. It is usually a great look. Usually.

As for images, the point is that Anything you want to make an image of is fair game. Maybe no one else wants to see it? Too bad for them. The trick is, or seems to be, to make an image you like that also appeals to others. Some people are really good at that that. Others not so much.

But in the end what matters is your own personal satisfaction, or pleasure. Sometimes it is just fun to try out new cameras and see how they work. Assuming no one is going to complain too much about your camera purchases and expenses, then why not try out new cameras? About all we can do is enjoy our lives.

But from what I have read, we are getting near, or may have already passed diminishing returns in terms of MP: 24MP on a FF is plenty. Sure, more is more, and more can be better, but is 50MP really twice as good as 24? I kind of doubt that it is.

No, it's root 2 better -- or 41%.

To get twice as good you need 96 Megapixels, which is probably enough to remove almost all aliasing even with the best lenses.

 

[Tom Schum]

Just weighing in here.

I read the posts so far, but I also remember my SD15.

Fewer pixels means better image quality.

Some of these old SD15 images are upsized in legends, and they look great. I don't remember who was the upsizing guru back then.

The problem with Quattro is the noise. And, the pixel density is hardly more than it was in the SD15, in the lower layers.

Turning the sd Quattro down to lo-res doesn't help the image quality. Still too much of something that you just don't have in the SD15.

So, for me, 20mp in a Foveon FF sensor is more than I'd like to see. Not to mention 30mp, and please no Quattro innovation!

Could Sigma take a fp and imbue it with Sigma Foveon color science? If so, it might be a viable successor to Foveon.




SD15



--
Tom Schum
Copper: Mankind's favorite electrical conductor

 

[richard stone]

Just weighing in here.

I read the posts so far, but I also remember my SD15.

Fewer pixels means better image quality.

Some of these old SD15 images are upsized in legends, and they look great. I don't remember who was the upsizing guru back then.

The problem with Quattro is the noise. And, the pixel density is hardly more than it was in the SD15, in the lower layers.

Turning the sd Quattro down to lo-res doesn't help the image quality. Still too much of something that you just don't have in the SD15.

So, for me, 20mp in a Foveon FF sensor is more than I'd like to see. Not to mention 30mp, and please no Quattro innovation!

Could Sigma take a fp and imbue it with Sigma Foveon color science? If so, it might be a viable successor to Foveon.


SD15

I think I understand what you are saying in your post, that the SD15 is as good as it got before, and the best ever, probably, and the Q is trash. Or useless.

I am a relatively happy user of the sdQ. I remember seeing posted images from your sdQ, (or at least I think it was one of your images) particularly one with canoes in the woods, and seriously, the low res image looked indistinguishable from the full/hi res shot, at least at normal size of image. I can only imagine that if one wanted to make a really big image that the high res one would work out slightly better. Is it enough "better" to make it important to shoot everything at high res? For me, maybe not.

And I have seen plenty of my own images from the SD10, and sdQ, both high and low resolution, and the winner is? Well, it kind of depends. The sdQ is a slightly better camera, a slightly better product, in the end. And the "detail" in the images from the cameras is slightly better in the sdQ, at any resolution. Does it even matter? Particularly if you cannot even see the difference?

The question is whether a FF Foveon at 20-30 MP is worth doing. I would say yes, at 20MP or 30MP, and with or without the Qx4 top layer.

The issue for me is that manufacturing and production knowledge and design has changed and improved a lot in the last few years, leading me to figure that an actual 20-30MP FF Foveon camera now should work out reasonably well. Secondly, there is no more big market for the SD15 (size) sensor.

So I have to to take issue with your statement that "Fewer pixels means better image quality."

No, fewer pixels sometimes produces a more appealing, or nicer, image... sometimes, not always. And it's nice to have the choice. Really, a 20 MP FF Foveon ought to compete reasonably well with Bayer FF.

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

 

[Tom Schum]

I think I understand what you are saying in your post, that the SD15 is as good as it got before, and the best ever, probably, and the Q is trash. Or useless.

I am a relatively happy user of the sdQ. I remember seeing posted images from your sdQ, (or at least I think it was one of your images) particularly one with canoes in the woods, and seriously, the low res image looked indistinguishable from the full/hi res shot, at least at normal size of image. I can only imagine that if one wanted to make a really big image that the high res one would work out slightly better. Is it enough "better" to make it important to shoot everything at high res? For me, maybe not.

And I have seen plenty of my own images from the SD10, and sdQ, both high and low resolution, and the winner is? Well, it kind of depends. The sdQ is a slightly better camera, a slightly better product, in the end. And the "detail" in the images from the cameras is slightly better in the sdQ, at any resolution. Does it even matter? Particularly if you cannot even see the difference?

The question is whether a FF Foveon at 20-30 MP is worth doing. I would say yes, at 20MP or 30MP, and with or without the Qx4 top layer.

The issue for me is that manufacturing and production knowledge and design has changed and improved a lot in the last few years, leading me to figure that an actual 20-30MP FF Foveon camera now should work out reasonably well. Secondly, there is no more big market for the SD15 (size) sensor.

So I have to to take issue with your statement that "Fewer pixels means better image quality."

No, fewer pixels sometimes produces a more appealing, or nicer, image... sometimes, not always. And it's nice to have the choice. Really, a 20 MP FF Foveon ought to compete reasonably well with Bayer FF.

I just wish I still had my SD15. Half of my sentiment is simply longing for the taste of those images. And, that taste might have been embellished in my memories.

However, I see SD15 sales occasionally in this forum and have never taken the bait. This ought to tell me something.

The comparisons I did with earlier Foveon sensors are still available in my DPR gallery, and I do remember saying that I could not tell the difference between sd Quattro hi-res and sd Quattro lo-res image quality.

And the differences between sd Quattro lo-res and earlier Foveon images might not be visible either. But there is still a reason why I like the SD15 images best of all; I just can't put it to words. And, for me, this counts for something, too.

I'm glad you agree that 20mp FF Foveon would be OK.

 

[xpatUSA]

I think I understand what you are saying in your post, that the SD15 is as good as it got before, and the best ever, probably, and the Q is trash. Or useless.

I just wish I still had my SD15. Half of my sentiment is simply longing for the taste of those images. And, that taste might have been embellished in my memories.

However, I see SD15 sales occasionally in this forum and have never taken the bait. This ought to tell me something. <>

With my retro-step to the SD9, I occasionally think of selling the SD15 but somehow can not bring myself to do it.

But there is still a reason why I like the SD15 images best of all; I just can't put it to words.

For me, the color rendition is about the best of the SDs with the SD10 a close second. The 460,000 dot LCD aids good composition and the AF and AE (when I use them) are good enough for my purposes.

The much under-rated SD15 is the pinnacle of the SDs IMHO - remember the initial reviews "still doesn't do video" ...

 

[mike earussi]

I think I understand what you are saying in your post, that the SD15 is as good as it got before, and the best ever, probably, and the Q is trash. Or useless.

I just wish I still had my SD15. Half of my sentiment is simply longing for the taste of those images. And, that taste might have been embellished in my memories.

However, I see SD15 sales occasionally in this forum and have never taken the bait. This ought to tell me something. <>

With my retro-step to the SD9, I occasionally think of selling the SD15 but somehow can not bring myself to do it.

But there is still a reason why I like the SD15 images best of all; I just can't put it to words.

For me, the color rendition is about the best of the SDs with the SD10 a close second. The 460,000 dot LCD aids good composition and the AF and AE (when I use them) are good enough for my purposes.

The much under-rated SD15 is the pinnacle of the SDs IMHO - remember the initial reviews "still doesn't do video" ...

The 21 shot buffer and >4 sec processing time are also the best of all the SDs.