Why on earth doesn't Foveon...

[Roland Karlsson]

Sure Foveon has disadvantages, no doubt at all. But not so large as
you are making out and i doubt it is pure physics which is
preventing experimentation and growth in the technology. Economics
and whose bread is buttered make a lot of difference as well. Not
all to the consumers benefit, unfortunately.

How large the differences is we are going to see.

In the previous incarnation (SD10) the competition had problems with ISO 3200. SD10 had problems at 800. Thats two stops. It was two stops even though Bayer throw away 2/3 and had smaller sites. That makes X3 at least 10 (maybe 20) times worse than a monochrome sensor when it comes to sensitivity. I don't think all this is due to economics.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/

 

[John Tracy]

The sensor is good and the Sigma body lenses are decent but no way is it ever going to be any more popular with the general public than it presently is . It will remain a niche / cult player for another iteration at best.

It absolutely needs to match or at least come a lot closer to the competition in each and every requirement of typical modern day dslr, and that includes price.

Even if the new SD14 does indeed match or best detail of the Canon/Nikon 10MP models it just won't be enough. Image quality at 100% full pixels/screen alone isn't what really becomes the deal maker/breaker for the masses. Features such as ergonomics, high ISO capability, and overall operational speed and most importantly price and perceived value are what will sell a good dslr.

Do a side by side comparison with practically any dslr and you can easily see how the Foveon/Sigma comes up short.
John

 

[rick decker]

As far as "wouldn't be surprised by that", it probably has happened once already; there have been comments about that with respect to Nikon. Now that Sony isn a DSLR manufacturer, it will be intersting to see whether Nikon's status and treatment by Sony is affected. If the new Foveon chip is improved enough, it is not inconcevable that Nikon could offer a camera with that chip. A p&s might be a good way to start - or a low-end DSLR.

Purely speculation on my part. I have know knowledge of what is going on inside Nikon or Foveon.

R
--
See Mr. Gecko full size at:
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker/image/61996346

See Sigma Lens Tests At:
http://www.lightreflection.com/sigmalenstests/matrix.htm

Images at:

http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.lightreflection.com



Powered by Sigma......
Empowered by Foveon

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

 

[Jay Turberville]

It makes perfect sense why Sigma went Foveon and why no one else did.

It is unique and it brings attention to Sigma DSLRs that no one
would even mention if they didn't have Foveon.

Yep. Without the Foveon sensor, you have some pretty - well - lackluster cameras. Its the sensor that gets them most of their attention.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your
door. The thing is, Foveon is a different mousetrap, not
necessarily a better (or worse) one.

And besides, the mousetrap thing isn't right anyway. The reality is that if you just build a good moustrap and then market it right, the world will beat a path to your door. That's why Canon has done so well.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Roland Karlsson]

And besides, the mousetrap thing isn't right anyway. The reality
is that if you just build a good moustrap and then market it right,
the world will beat a path to your door. That's why Canon has done
so well.

So - you mean that having zillions of fantastic lenses and other assecories and also having a long tradition of being first class Pro and amateur equipment - that does not count? Its all about correct marketing. Oh - I see

Or - are you talking about Canon mouse traps? Are they doing well?

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

I don't think that qualifies as a conspiracy theory. It's business. When you are #1, the way to remain #1 is to make sure no one comes up to challenge you. The earlier a competitor is neutralized, the better. I am not saying I agree or disagree with this practice, this is simply an observation...

Whether Sony gave them an explicit ultimatum, or they consulted with their lawyers and came up with a way to do this without getting in trouble, (or whether this actually happened) obviously I do not know.

An over-simplified example, "if you make us the exclusive provider of your DSLR sensors, you get each sensor for nice discount of $20 per, or you can get them at the standard price of $60 per". (Prices are random and for entertainment purposes only).

Current lens and camera makers do not want and may be scared by the
Foveon X3 idea/product. They can loose their markets to Sigma.
After all Sigma-Foveon would not forgive them but punish. Only us
watching Sigma with a hope. It may take time. Fuji is also working
in the same direction with an new organic three layers sensor.
Leo

Usually any idea that threatens to change the status quo is seen as
a threat by the status quo, and given the cut-throat nature of
high-tech competition, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony made the
rounds giving unofficial ultimatums to its sensor customers with
regards to Foveon usage.

I would be totally surprised by that.

Sony is the world's biggest sensor manufacturer. I'd guess they
outgun be by at least several hundred to one on expertise in this
field. So they certainly can do all the math required to see that
Foveon is no threat.

1) The degree to which a Foveon sensor's response is colormetric
(capable of seeing color in the same way as the human eye) is
limited by the physics of silicon color separation. There's no such
limit on Bayer or other color filter sensors. So the best of the
current crop Bayer sensors have five times the accuracy of a Foveon.

2) Given an equal amount of data processing and storage capability
(like comparing a 10.2mp Nikon D200 against a 10.2mega sample SD10)
a Bayer sensor outperforms a Foveon in terms of resolution, on an
equal sized print.

3) Because of the numeric noise (large non diagonal terms in a 3x3
matrix, or steep local slopes on a space to space interpolator)
inherent in processing the Foveon sensor output into some semblance
of a colormetric response, it can't match the high ISO performance
of a Bayer sensor.

4) There will come a time (and it won't be that far away, at the
rate megapixel counts are growing) when all sensors, Bayer and
Foveon, outresolve lenses. At that point, the anti-aliasing filters
on Bayer cameras simply go away, and no one will be able to tell
whether an image came from one sort of sensor or the other. With
Sony's knowledge base, they should be better at predicting exactly
when this will happen than anyone else.

So there really are no vast conspiracies. Sony really isn't going
around the world, strong arming every camera company into not using
Foveon products. They didn't force Minolta to change the sensor
used in their DSLR.

The Foveon sensor is a unique product, with some interesting
strengths, but it also has its share of weaknesses. Pound for
pound, it's not "a threat", and it won't "punish" anyone.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

 

[armaco]

I don’t want to sound rough as well but ….

The body is simple and very nice to use … you don’t need one thousand functions to shoot a good photo…. You can use your skill instead.

Did you seen the all new Hasselblad?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Hasselblad/

Only one AF (cross)
Max iso 400
Very slow camera lower than 2 fps ….

Boy, they need to pay attention to other cameras ….
So why they just don’t incorporate more features????

Because ….Real photographers or artists don’t need them.

I’m not going to say that Sigma is same as Hassy but the analogy is the same.

Any photographer wants quality don’t shoot iso 1600, we know that from film days and same applies now.

And for few photos that I probably need 1600iso or more I wont sacrifice my iso100,200 quality for any added function.
If image quality matters to you Sigma sd14 with Foveon is the way to go.

If you need only very fast action with very hi iso you don’t need that quality anyway…

I hope you got my point….

Best,

--
Kostas Sarris

http://www.pbase.com/armaco/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/kostas_sarris

 

[Peter G]

An over-simplified example, "if you make us the exclusive provider
of your DSLR sensors, you get each sensor for nice discount of $20
per, or you can get them at the standard price of $60 per".
(Prices are random and for entertainment purposes only).

This is essentially why AMD has brought intel to court. Because there was the appearance that Dell was getting a special deal for being an Intel only shop. AMD has supeonaed Dell pricing record looking for evidence of special pricing.

Corporations work on a risk/reward. There is practically no reward in doing this IMO. With moderate risk, especially if you try this strong arm with everyone. Someone could easily squawk.

I think it is much more likely is the sensor just didn't meet requirments.

 

[Jay Turberville]

So - you mean that having zillions of fantastic lenses and other
assecories and also having a long tradition of being first class
Pro and amateur equipment - that does not count? Its all about
correct marketing. Oh - I see

Nothing in what I wrote even suggests that it is ALL about marketing.

But it was probably unfair to describe Canon with such a broad brush. They obviously make quite a few products that are excellent and "world class". And they own certain segments of the pro market precisely because they sell the "better" or at least the only mousetrap of cameras with a larger sensor.

But many of their very successful products have no such obvious advantage when compared to the competition. But they outsell the competition and I attribute this to a substantially better marketing effort from Canon, not to fundamentally better (or worse) design. They are good cameras marketed well. Sigma could make a camera that was demonstrably better in every way compared to a Canon for some marketing segment - and I'd bet on the Canon to outsell it.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

An over-simplified example, "if you make us the exclusive provider
of your DSLR sensors, you get each sensor for nice discount of $20
per, or you can get them at the standard price of $60 per".
(Prices are random and for entertainment purposes only).

This is essentially why AMD has brought intel to court. Because
there was the appearance that Dell was getting a special deal for
being an Intel only shop. AMD has supeonaed Dell pricing record
looking for evidence of special pricing.

The camera companies in question are not U.S. Corporations. I don't know what Japanese laws are on this subject. Heck, U.S. law probably isn't as straightforward on this as you'd think.

I think it is much more likely is the sensor just didn't meet
requirments.

That certainly seems very possible.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I think it is much more likely is the sensor just didn't meet
requirments.

That certainly seems very possible.

Or perhaps a Japanese style brush-off. ("We'd like to use your sensor, but it would upset our relationship with Sony. So sorry, not our fault.") Between Nth hand information and the cultural divide, who can say?

--
Erik

 

[Leo]

Jay,

I think that G7 is the best Canon marketing example - divide and rule. Put they better lens and keep RAW from previous G then many Canon DSLRs and possibly some others would be in longer on a store shelves. May be Canon does not believe in the G line success and downgrade it to a good A line camera. However, Panasonic may pick up some crowed that Canon left for behind. Check Panasonic forum activity. It is not a sleepy place anymore.
Leo

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I don’t want to sound rough as well but ….
The body is simple and very nice to use … you don’t need one
thousand functions to shoot a good photo…. You can use your skill
instead.

Did you seen the all new Hasselblad?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Hasselblad/

Only one AF (cross)
Max iso 400
Very slow camera lower than 2 fps ….

Boy, they need to pay attention to other cameras ….

They did. The new Hasselblad has features comparable to other medium format digital cameras.

The Sigma does not have features comparable to other APS sized DSLRs.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

So why they just don’t incorporate more features????

Because ….Real photographers or artists don’t need them.

And "real photographers or artists" are unlikely to choose Sigma lenses.

I’m not going to say that Sigma is same as Hassy but the analogy is
the same.

As I mentioned earlier, the Hasselblad has features comparable to other cameras in its class, the Sigma doesn't.

Any photographer wants quality don’t shoot iso 1600, we know that
from film days and same applies now.

No, "we" do not "know" that. It is purely your opinion. But I would guess that most photographers are aware of a thing called "progress". There was a time, maybe in your lifetime, when 35mm color films were dang near useless past ISO 64, and B&W past 400 was tricky. Times changed.

And for few photos that I probably need 1600iso or more I wont
sacrifice my iso100,200 quality for any added function.

No one is asking you to "sacrifice" anything. Whatever makes a sensor work better at ISO 1600 also helps its ISO 100 and 200 performance. Lower shadow noise, wider dynamic range.

If image quality matters to you Sigma sd14 with Foveon is the way
to go.

Have you seen prints from it yet?

If you need only very fast action with very hi iso you don’t need
that quality anyway…

I hope you got my point….

That you draw really bad analogies?

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Hey Rick.

If you don't quote any text (or even provide a subject), it becomes very difficult to follow what you're replying to.

As far as "wouldn't be surprised by that", it probably has happened
once already; there have been comments about that with respect to
Nikon.

Again, unfounded.

Consider this: because Canon has a reputation for better high ISO performance than Nikon, and a larger assortment of stabilized lenses, they are considered to be the low light champions. Nikon is under considerable pressure to improve high ISO performance.

And Canon also lead on speed. They hit 8 fps in the sports shooter class before Nikon, 5 fps in the intermediate class before Nikon.

The Foveon sensor, at the time of the alleged Sony coercion of Nikon, could not match the low light performance of a Nikon sensor, and it also produced a slower camera for the same printed image quality. Therefore, it was not suitable for a mainstream camera. It was only suitable for niche cameras.

Nikon had enough production trouble trying to keep up with the demand for D70, launch the new LBCAST sensor on D2H, a 6 month late launch on D2X, and even today they have production problems and can't keep up with D200 or D80 demand, and hot lenses liek the 18-200mm VR have a 4 month waiting list. They are in no position to divert any effort from the mainstream lines to produce a niche camera.

Now that Sony isn a DSLR manufacturer, it will be
intersting to see whether Nikon's status and treatment by Sony is
affected.

Nikon, Oly, etc. point and shoots weren't affected by Sony producing point and shoots of their own.

Sony Microelectronics has earned the reputation for treating the external customers fairly and not giving preferential treatment to Sony camera on sensors.

If the new Foveon chip is improved enough, it is not
inconcevable that Nikon could offer a camera with that chip. A p&s
might be a good way to start - or a low-end DSLR.

Agreed.

Purely speculation on my part. I have know knowledge of what is
going on inside Nikon or Foveon.

Right now, probably nothing between Nikon or Foveon. Taken individually, both companies are currently beehives of activity.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[gheil]

Consider this: because Canon has a reputation for better high ISO performance than Nikon, and a larger assortment of stabilized lenses, they are considered to be the low light champions. Nikon is under considerable pressure to improve high ISO performance.

Good to hear you believe they have some interest in lowlight performance. Of course Canon is nowhere near the low light champion. That would be Pentax who can put a f1.2 lens on a K100D body and shoot stabilized. Minolta bodies are almost as good shooting f1.4 lenses. Canon is several stops behind in that competition.

The sensor news has all been poor of late though with everyone (Nikon, Pentax, Sony) adopting the 10MP sensor from Sony. There would not appear to be any significant pressure on anyone to produce a high sensitivity chip. The quote from Chuck Westerfall was quite confused and not therefore really credible. So i would love to hear what you would expect from Canon which will give us handheld low light performance...
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil

 

[Jay Turberville]

Good to hear you believe they have some interest in lowlight
performance. Of course Canon is nowhere near the low light
champion. That would be Pentax who can put a f1.2 lens on a K100D
body and shoot stabilized. Minolta bodies are almost as good
shooting f1.4 lenses. Canon is several stops behind in that
competition.

How sharp are these lenses wide open (serious question - I'm curious) and do these cameras have high precision AF sensors that can provide accurate focus at those large apertures? And of course, how fast are their lens lines in general? Is there a good selection, or just a few?

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Nothing in what I wrote even suggests that it is ALL about marketing.

Oh - I did not imagine that you did But - some here do - and I think their narrow view needed my kind correction

Yes - Canon cameras are easy to sell. And maybe they are over rated. And maybe, if Canon had made the SD14, just like it is today then it would sell 10 times as much; just because it is a Canon. Maybe. Or maybe not. Canon users would probably feel somewhat uncomfortable without all the bling bling they are used to So - it might just flop. Who knows?

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/

 

[Roland Karlsson]

armaco wrote:
They did. The new Hasselblad has features comparable to other
medium format digital cameras.

The Sigma does not have features comparable to other APS sized DSLRs.

Features? Hmmmmm .... yes it is nice with features. There was a discussion elsewhere where SD14 was put down because it was only 150,000 pixels in the LCD. And of course - the competition has 230,000 because that is what is needed today to stay competitive.

But ... a good camera is a good camera. Not all cameras needs all features. The Hassy that is medium format probably don't. And frankly - a DSLR don't either. The D200 has GPS! Most DSLR have not. So - can we only buy D200? Nope.

I am an oldie and I remember the older days when there was a differentiation between mechanical and electronic cameras. OK - electronic cameras had more bling bling - but the mechanical were possible to sell nevertheless - at a lower price!

Maybe thats the problem today - all wants to sell at premium prices. Therefore you don't compete with price. All lower end DSLR cost around $1000. There are no $300 DSLR with much less features - just plain cameras that take just as good pictures

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/

 

[armaco]

I don’t want to sound rough as well but ….
The body is simple and very nice to use … you don’t need one
thousand functions to shoot a good photo…. You can use your skill
instead.

Did you seen the all new Hasselblad?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Hasselblad/

Only one AF (cross)
Max iso 400
Very slow camera lower than 2 fps ….

Boy, they need to pay attention to other cameras ….

They did. The new Hasselblad has features comparable to other
medium format digital cameras.

The Sigma does not have features comparable to other APS sized DSLRs.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

I ‘m not comparing the Hasselblad to sd14 or any other SDLR …

All I’m saying is that most people that care for true quality dint care for extra features but only for true image quality.

Sigma body may not have every new feature that average user thinks he may need but other brands don’t have the Foveon sensor ether.
How you explain that so many N/C users want a foveon camera from their brand?

So why Sigma must put just features and forget true image quality by guessing colors ?

So why they just don’t incorporate more features????

Because ….Real photographers or artists don’t need them.

And "real photographers or artists" are unlikely to choose Sigma
lenses.

About Sigma lenses you probably don’t know that Sigma makes some very well respected lenses as well. Still they have some no so good esp the non-EX line, but new lenses are much better and improved.

And to close that about artist you may think of many artists that worked in the past with much inferior glass and captured wonders…. They worked with their heart and they decided what they want not the camera brainless CPU….

So I think that real photographers and artists may choose that camera and actually I know already some of them.

I’m not going to say that Sigma is same as Hassy but the analogy is
the same.

As I mentioned earlier, the Hasselblad has features comparable to
other cameras in its class, the Sigma doesn't.

Any photographer wants quality don’t shoot iso 1600, we know that
from film days and same applies now.

No, "we" do not "know" that. It is purely your opinion. But I would
guess that most photographers are aware of a thing called
"progress". There was a time, maybe in your lifetime, when 35mm
color films were dang near useless past ISO 64, and B&W past 400
was tricky. Times changed.

Well to be fair sometimes you may need hi iso but this is not the case.

Even modern hi asa film can’t compare with lower asa film. If you don’t know that you better ask someone that uses it.

I still know many professionals that work with iso 64 to get the best detail (not only with small format but bigger also). I don’t think they’re crazy.

And for few photos that I probably need 1600iso or more I wont
sacrifice my iso100,200 quality for any added function.

No one is asking you to "sacrifice" anything. Whatever makes a
sensor work better at ISO 1600 also helps its ISO 100 and 200
performance. Lower shadow noise, wider dynamic range.

Perhaps it helps. I’m not expert to sensor design but if you actually work with a foveon camera you will see that the final result is very good and it’s more film like than anything else.

If image quality matters to you Sigma sd14 with Foveon is the way
to go.

Have you seen prints from it yet?

No I couldn’t go to PK but many people said that the prints where very good to excellent even is a beta camera was used and the time for printing was very tight.

My big prints from Sd10 are also very good and I’m sure we can expect only better things from Sd14.
Sigma will post some RAW files as soon the camera development ends…

If you need only very fast action with very hi iso you don’t need
that quality anyway…

I hope you got my point….

That you draw really bad analogies?

No I don’t think I did ….

--

In any case I think you refuse to look to a very promising technology because you think that the Sigma body will limit you ….

I don’t think it will for most cases … but then you can get another camera….. Sigma is not for you…

Cheers,

 

[cyrano]

Of course Canon is nowhere near the low light
champion. That would be Pentax who can put a f1.2 lens on a K100D
body and shoot stabilized.

For the theatrical work I do, stabilization is useless -- I need shutter speed. So for me, the "low light champion" is whomever gives the highest signal-to-noise for a given ISO sensitivity.