Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Sigma SD1
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:07 pm    Post subject: Sigma SD1 Reply with quote
No more words.
Opinions?

Last edited by a20010494 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you mean SD1,

Then WOW, hopefully it will be a game changer for a lot of people.

I have been saving to buy a secondhand 1DSIII so i would have another body to compliment mySD14's. If the SD1 price of US$1,500 is close to being accurate, i think it will join my current Foveons.

I hope the viewfinder is much brighter, there has been little talk as to the quality of this.

Unfortunately as usual the discussions have been derailed by the resolution argument. If the sigma isn't 46MP, then Bayer sensors are also not accurate in their MP specs. I am calling it a 15MP sensor as it isn't worth getting into a circular debate about this.

I hope it is released Q1, 2011 or close to that date.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah it was a typo. It's been said it'll cost around the 7d's price, 1500-2000. I'm too happy for sigma.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rpo83 wrote:

Unfortunately as usual the discussions have been derailed by the resolution argument. If the sigma isn't 46MP, then Bayer sensors are also not accurate in their MP specs. I am calling it a 15MP sensor as it isn't worth getting into a circular debate about this.


Either one accepts the standard defination what a pixel is, or one makes one's own defination. The Sigma has 46M photosites, compared to for example my Bayer cameras 14 or 15M photosites. They both have about the same amount of pixels. Not accepting the standard definition of of what a pixel is, is like not accepting what the standard definition of a metre is, and shows insecurity of a person.

Having three photosites per pixel is an advantage vis-a-vis resolution. If one wants emphasize this fact, one should talk about resolution with proper terms and units, instead of redifining standard definitions to suit ones own agenda.

Nothinc circular about this.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
Having three photosites per pixel is an advantage vis-a-vis resolution. If one wants emphasize this fact, one should talk about resolution with proper terms and units, instead of redifining standard definitions to suit ones own agenda

on paper 3 photosites is an advantage but I am not sure how it translate in practice
lock for example this thread with a 10Mpix sensor, I had to view at 300% to find differences at pixel levels
some secutity bars are missed for some lenses
I cannot be sure if the Bayer had missed pixels and if a foveon sensor would have give more consistent results
in test, a b&w card can trig any color Bayer sensor pixel but what if the chart would have another color
if Bayer have more pixels but miss some, maybe foveon pixels worth for more
http://forum.mflenses.com/medium-teles-infinity-tested-zeiss-voigtlaender-nikkor-t25912.html


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Anu,

i don't know what your problem with Foveon is, but you need to relax... Shocked

I'm not interested in discussing what the definition of a pixel is with you, your mind is made up and that is OK, as i said, i define it as a 15MP because i'm not interested in the debate.

There are people far smarter than me and you who debate this endlessly, good on them.

I like the images the foveon gives me, maybe it is like how some people like Zeiss or Leica. What really matters is that we all enjoy photography.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Poilu,

here is some discussion on the topic you may find interesting.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/

As far as i'm concerned, the Foveon has qualities that endear itself to me and so do bayer sensors. One is not infinitely superior to the other, they simply have different engineering principles.

Enjoy them both and whatever the future holds....


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I'll get one, whenever they turn up in the shops. Presumably it will be as easy to change the mount on the SD1 as previous versions?
The SD14 has been fine with OM glass as a portrait set up... I don't print larger than A3+ and see no resolution issues. It's just the 'look' that attracts me. That said I still want the new camera... Confused


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rpo83 wrote:
Hi Anu,

i don't know what your problem with Foveon is, but you need to relax... Shocked

I'm not interested in discussing what the definition of a pixel is with you, your mind is made up and that is OK, as i said, i define it as a 15MP because
i'm not interested in the debate.

No, you don't define it as 15Mp sensor, but you may call it such Wink . It is defined as a 15Mp sensor by the definition of the word pixel and by the design of the sensor. Calling it a sensor of some other pixel count is simply not correct.

I do not have a problem with Foveon as you imply. I just try to bring reason into the world. Unfortunately there are believers out there, who refuse reality, but instead prefer fantasies. I'd have nothing against that either, but when the believers start spreading the word it is a problem.

Quote:

There are people far smarter than me and you who debate this endlessly, good on them.

Considering how the word pixel is defined, and how the Foveon sensors are designed and implemented, there is no real room for debating on the pixel count. Either one agrees with the accepted standard definitions, or one is a fanboygirl Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Anu wrote:
Having three photosites per pixel is an advantage vis-a-vis resolution. If one wants emphasize this fact, one should talk about resolution with proper terms and units, instead of redifining standard definitions to suit ones own agenda

on paper 3 photosites is an advantage but I am not sure how it translate in practice
lock for example this thread with a 10Mpix sensor, I had to view at 300% to find differences at pixel levels


You missed the point. I did not mean to say that resolution X Foveon delivers higher resolution than resolution Y Bayer. Instead, if two sensors have the same pixel count, the sensor with three photosites per pixel will deliver higher resolution than the sensor with only one photosite per pixel (assuming the latter is Bayer).

This wasn't relevant in the past, but since the future Foveon based Sigma will have a comparablle pixel count to it's contemporaties, unless it will be fashionably late in it's delivery of course...Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let's not discuss the pixel stuff, i'll just quote what a guy said in the dpreview forum:
It's 3 BW sensors stacked in one. It's another point of view, right?

Anyway, thoughts about the camera, not about the marketing?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

You missed the point. I did not mean to say that resolution X Foveon delivers higher resolution than resolution Y Bayer. Instead, if two sensors have the same pixel count, the sensor with three photosites per pixel will deliver higher resolution than the sensor with only one photosite per pixel (assuming the latter is Bayer).


Colour resolution, I understand. But luminance resolution?
In my logical thought I would say 'no'.
But I'm ready to accept a different explanation.
Note that it's the luminance resolution the one that is used to calculate resolution in all lab tests like modulation transfer frequency (MTF)


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio: Luminance resolution can be better, too. But not as much as color resolution. First reason is lack of low-pass filter. The second reason is, that for e.g. a red pixel the green value and blue value (which are necessary even in b/w photography) are calculated by interpolation of surrounding pixels. That softens the image.

quoting dpreview results:

Nikon D100 (3008*2000, 6MP, bayer)
Sigma DP2 (2640*1760, 4.6MP, foveon)

black & white chart, absolute resolution
Code:
            6MP bayer      4.6MP foveon
horizontal  1600           1500
vertical    1300           1400


black & white chart, ext. resolution
Code:
            6MP bayer      4.6MP foveon
horizontal  1850           2600
vertical    1700           2550


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a great example of what we (foveon shooters) talk about in regards to color detail.

This is the color studio performance of these four cameras:

# Sigma DP1 (Foveon X3 Sensor, 4.7 MP)
# Nikon D40 (Bayer sensor, 6 MP)
# Nikon D60 (Bayer sensor, 10 MP)
# Leica M8 (Bayer sensor, 10 MP)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp

It is the first time i have seen dpreview use a color resolution chart.... Smile

Hopefully these tests will start to get discussions turning back to image quality not specification wars, which don't provide much real benefit to end users. This website is great testament to this ideal, where the individual nature of each lens imposes it's own character on an image. The holy grail is not technically perfect shots, it is images that speak to people.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rpo83: Unfortunately, it was also the last time they used it. DP2 review lacks it... One could speculate about why they refuse to publish the tests, which shows the biggest advantage of full-color sensor approach.

It's also likely, that the resolution with DP2 would be higher, because its lens (if I'm not mistaken) has better resolving power than the DP1's (DP2's lens, which is 24/2.8, is sharper, than my Distagon T* 25/2.8 ZS...)


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
rpo83: Unfortunately, it was also the last time they used it. DP2 review lacks it... One could speculate about why they refuse to publish the tests, which shows the biggest advantage of full-color sensor approach.

It's also likely, that the resolution with DP2 would be higher, because its lens (if I'm not mistaken) has better resolving power than the DP1's (DP2's lens, which is 24/2.8, is sharper, than my Distagon T* 25/2.8 ZS...)


That is very interesting, i wonder why the shift in attitude? I had never seen this test on dpreview before, it seems like a very worthwhile test in regards to image fidelity. Maybe some of the big boys were upset...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1