Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sigma dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2006, 5:18 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Frankly speaking, the SIGMA SD14 dSLR has been stealing my sleep since it was officially announced!! :shock::shock:

But what is the prrriceee of this model??? I have been observing thread fulls of arguments concerning the extremely high price of the SIGMA SD14 R.R.P. at dpreview (where nonsense starts :roll.

If I have not mistaken, I think it wasstated tocost around1000+ U.K. dollars at dpreview announcement section!!:?[Sounds like a RIDICULOUS PRICE INFO from DPREVIEW :roll:]

If it is so, then perhaps it is pure foolishness in my opinion; considering how much negatives has already been spoken toward Sigma and the SD 14 at the dpreview forums. (I bet if that deary little Nikon D80 has been stated to cost 1000 UK dollars at launch, it wouldbe justas bad - if not worse) :roll:

To those people, think again.

EDIT: I found that R.R.P. I was talking about>>>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092605sigmasd14.asp

UK: £1099.99 (P.S. it is hard for me to believe that the price was from Sigma)

When I check other sites, they mentioned as "Price to be confirmby Sigma" how come dpreview already have sucha price quote??? (Especially one that must cost non-sensible conflictsin their forums)


I have a good mind to bring dpreview down the ground, if I find that the price of UK: £1099.99 (As stated by them) is false.



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 11:49 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

What is Uk dollar?? never heard of this currency. here in UK we have pound sterling.
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 5:52 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 22
Default

When I first heard about Foveon I thought it was a great advancement, and it still could turn out to be, but then confusion in descriptions and technical arguments started and continued. A pixel is a physical box where light enters and is analyzed, so that a display pixel can later create a color in that same relative pixel space. In most cameras, using their stupid pixels that only see one color at a time (red or green or blue), and where one pixel has to use information from surrounding pixels to figure out what is in it (incredibly stupid technology!), a box is a box, a pixel is a pixel. With Foveon, or let's say, at least at Sigma, apparently the idea of a light box physical pixel has been thrown out andconfusing advertising is the way to go. This new camera by Sigma is indeed using VERY misleading advertising to say it is 14 million pixels. The actual pixel count is just under 5 million maximum:

"The new X3 sensor packs 14.1 million pixels, each 7.8?m in size, into a 3-dimensional array of 2652 x 1768 x 3 pixels "

There is no doubt, a Foveon pixel SHOULD (and actually, in terms of just Foveon, they are) be a far better pixel, contributing to far superior color accuracy and also, therefore, effective resolution, by increasing the accuracy and precision of borders, shade shifts, colors, detail in brightness extremes, contrast range, etc.

However, when that Sigma camera takes a photo, the pixel count of the image created (output pixel count) will be a maximum of 2652 X 1768 pixels, which is just under 5 million pixels, and CLEARLY, nowhere near 14 million pixels in resolution, information or in any other reasonable description related to "pixels" or photo resolution. All the other camera manufacturers are honest when they tell us how many pixels you are getting for OUTPUT images! Using Sigma advertising logic, you could put 14 million layers of receptors in one pixel, and advertise it as a 14-megapixel camera, even though the output image only has one pixel. A tiny dot. A tiny dot withEXCELLENT color rendition!

Someone should be taking Sigma to court over this. I'd like to see the industry totally nail Sigma for this advertising practice. Foveon deserves better! I also hope that Foveon itself is spared the wrath and can be put in other cameras and advertised correctly, and at a good price so that someday I can buy one. Better make bigger sensors, with 10-million pixels measuredby pixel well #'sinheight and width, not by the depth of the light wells used to create the image. OUTPUT, it's all about OUTPUT!

No-one wants to buy a 4+-million pixel camera with Foveon chips in it. The idea is 3-years too late and laughably stupid!
Robert Johnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2006, 2:07 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Robert Johnston wrote:
Quote:
However, when that Sigma camera takes a photo, the pixel count of the image created (output pixel count) will be a maximum of 2652 X 1768 pixels, which is just under 5 million pixels, and CLEARLY, nowhere near 14 million pixels in resolution, information or in any other reasonable description related to "pixels" or photo resolution. All the other camera manufacturers are honest when they tell us how many pixels you are getting for OUTPUT images! Using Sigma advertising logic, you could put 14 million layers of receptors in one pixel, and advertise it as a 14-megapixel camera, even though the output image only has one pixel. A tiny dot. A tiny dot withEXCELLENT color rendition!
The maximum image output from the SD14 is 4608×3072 = 14.16MP.

This is nothing new for Foveon. They used the same JPEG engine in the Polaroid x530 point and shoot. It has a 1.5MP X3 Foveon sensor but it records up to 4.5MP images. The x530's upsized output compares favorably to a Bayer camera with that higher number of MPs. Here is a side-by-side, 100% cropcomparisonfrom sigmadslr.com. Foveonleft; Bayer (Sony) right:











SigmaSD9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2006, 2:13 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Also ofinterest -
  • The x530 has the same drab greens as the Sigma/Foveon DSLRs [/*]
  • The rainbowed roofingon the Bayer side [/*]
  • More jaggies on the Foveon shallow diagonals but higheroverall resolution - strange the two aren't related [/*]
  • Sharper noise in Foveon's shadows- noise is resolved better too [/*]
  • These crops are bothfrom 3.2MP camera-recordedJPEGs - the Sony was a 3.2MP P&S; 3.2MP isone of several JPEG size choices provided by the x530[/*]
  • Both are AWB[/*]
SigmaSD9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2006, 12:05 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 22
Default

Yes, I know, it's always been good to check out image comparisons where consistently, Foveon clearly wins the contest. I love the accuracy of color, the handling of contrasts, detail, edges of color and color gradients. A Foveon pixel is high quality, the best on the market, and the camera software processing churns out superior images since it doesn't have to do any guessing like it does with all other chips.

Now, just sell a camera where the output pixel count is ____ x ____ = 14 million. And no trickery, just real OUTPUT pixel count, as measured by PhotoShop, not a damned marketing rep's misleading mind games.

It would be nice if Foveon waspicked up by a major camera supplier, and then it would have the $$$ to put into larger chips at a reasonable price. Everyoneshould have a Foveon. And apple pie. And Segways. And laser tooth whitening. Well, first things first.



Robert Johnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2006, 2:55 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Robert Johnston wrote:

Quote:
Yes, I know, it's always been good to check out image comparisons where consistently, Foveon clearly wins the contest. I love the accuracy of color, the handling of contrasts, detail, edges of color and color gradients. A Foveon pixel is high quality, the best on the market, and the camera software processing churns out superior images since it doesn't have to do any guessing like it does with all other chips.
I think you may have missed the point. The comparison above isn't just Foveon vs Bayer, or a 1.5MP Foveon vs a 1.5MP Bayer. It is a 1.5MP Foveon sensor recorded using 3.2MPs by Foveon's in-camera JPEG engine, compared to a3.2MP Bayer.

It issomething like comparing a 14MP SD14 camera JPEG to a 14MP Bayer camera JPEG. Not like comparing the SD14 toa 4.7MP Bayer.

Quote:
Now, just sell a camera where the output pixel count is ____ x ____ = 14 million. And no trickery, just real OUTPUT pixel count, as measured by PhotoShop, not a damned marketing rep's misleading mind games
Like I said the SD14's output is 14MP. As measured by photoshop or anyone else who can count to 14 million. If you think the camera is limited to recording 4.7MPs that is not the case. Thatwas never the case with Sigma DSLRs. The SD9 also recorded 14MP images (4536 recorded pixels wide x 3072 recorded pixelstall).

There is no certain pixel countinherent to any RAW file. Canon could write a RAW converter that writes 12MP from a 10D RAW file and thoserenderings would belegitimate Canon 10D originals. Fuji did just that.
SigmaSD9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 4:39 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Robert Johnston wrote:
Quote:
When I first heard about Foveon I thought it was a great advancement, and it still could turn out to be, but then confusion in descriptions and technical arguments started and continued. A pixel is a physical box where light enters and is analyzed, so that a display pixel can later create a color in that same relative pixel space. In most cameras, using their stupid pixels that only see one color at a time (red or green or blue), and where one pixel has to use information from surrounding pixels to figure out what is in it (incredibly stupid technology!), a box is a box, a pixel is a pixel. With Foveon, or let's say, at least at Sigma, apparently the idea of a light box physical pixel has been thrown out andconfusing advertising is the way to go. This new camera by Sigma is indeed using VERY misleading advertising to say it is 14 million pixels. The actual pixel count is just under 5 million maximum:

"The new X3 sensor packs 14.1 million pixels, each 7.8?m in size, into a 3-dimensional array of 2652 x 1768 x 3 pixels "

There is no doubt, a Foveon pixel SHOULD (and actually, in terms of just Foveon, they are) be a far better pixel, contributing to far superior color accuracy and also, therefore, effective resolution, by increasing the accuracy and precision of borders, shade shifts, colors, detail in brightness extremes, contrast range, etc.

However, when that Sigma camera takes a photo, the pixel count of the image created (output pixel count) will be a maximum of 2652 X 1768 pixels, which is just under 5 million pixels, and CLEARLY, nowhere near 14 million pixels in resolution, information or in any other reasonable description related to "pixels" or photo resolution. All the other camera manufacturers are honest when they tell us how many pixels you are getting for OUTPUT images! Using Sigma advertising logic, you could put 14 million layers of receptors in one pixel, and advertise it as a 14-megapixel camera, even though the output image only has one pixel. A tiny dot. A tiny dot withEXCELLENT color rendition!

Someone should be taking Sigma to court over this. I'd like to see the industry totally nail Sigma for this advertising practice. Foveon deserves better! I also hope that Foveon itself is spared the wrath and can be put in other cameras and advertised correctly, and at a good price so that someday I can buy one. Better make bigger sensors, with 10-million pixels measuredby pixel well #'sinheight and width, not by the depth of the light wells used to create the image. OUTPUT, it's all about OUTPUT!

No-one wants to buy a 4+-million pixel camera with Foveon chips in it. The idea is 3-years too late and laughably stupid!
You have some serious misconceptions about the relationship between display pixel count and optical resolution.

First, the SD9/SD10 which has been around for long enough to prove itself has shown dramatically that a 3.4 megapixel (10.3 million photosite) sensor in X3 configuration can surpass 6 megapixel CFA technology in black and white resolution and far exceed 11 megapixel CFA technology in color resolution by PIMA ISO resolution chart measurements.

A 4.7 megapixel Foveon X3 processor is designed to compete with 10 megapixel CFA sensors just as the 3.4 megapixel Foveon X3 processor was designed to compete with 6 megapixel CFA sensors and there is absolutely no reason to think that it will do any less than the earlier models.

These are totally different technologies. How would "you" have Sigma and Foveon represent their sensor? Do you think in a world consisting of multitudes of people like you who mistakenly believe that display pixel count equals "resolution" because of improper marketing they should then market their camera as a 4.7 megapixel model? Obviously you have never attended a PMA or Photokina show and examined 60 inch pints on the wall from the SD9/SD10.

I use multiple dSLR's including the Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II, Nikon D2X, Kodak DCS-760and Sigma SD10. I can tell you from extensive personal experience that your comments are unjustified.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:00 PM.