DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

comparisons of a Contax ND Raw file and a Sigma Foveon X3 file

T

thril

Anyone here seen any side by side comparisons of a raw ND file and a Foveon X3 file from the Sigma camera? I'm hearing that the little 3MP Foveon chip is blowing away the 6MP cameras on the market in terms of resolution...

will
 
Will,

> I'm hearing that the little 3MP > Foveon chip is blowing away the 6MP cameras on the market in terms of > resolution...

Where are you "hearing" this? Specifically. Do you have a URL or a magazine reference?

I've done a bit of evaluating of the 3M Foveon sensor, and no, it does not "blow away" any of the 6M SLR cameras in terms of resolution...so I can't imagine where you get this from.

Austin
 
John,

Could be (midroll rewind). Have never used an APS camera so I don't know anything about them (other than APS itself has been less than a stellar success).

Gary
 
>Hey Austin, I've got a friend in Houston and another in NYC who've just gotten the cameras and been doing some testing with them. They also referred me to the following url which also shows images and tests proclaiming the Foveon's superior resolution... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/ Granted my "blown away" statement is a bit much, but still it's pretty impressive for a little 3MP chip...

Re:> Where are you "hearing" this? Specifically. Do you have a URL or a > magazine reference? > > I've done a bit of evaluating of the 3M Foveon sensor, and no, it does > not "blow away" any of the 6M SLR cameras in terms of resolution...so > I can't imagine where you get this from. > > Austin
 
> Posted by Will Taylor on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:55 pm: > > >Hey Austin, I've got a friend in Houston and another in NYC who've > just gotten the cameras and been doing some testing with them. They > also referred me to the following url which also shows images and > tests proclaiming the Foveon's superior resolution... > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/ Granted my "blown away" > statement is a bit much, but still it's pretty impressive for a little > 3MP chip... > > Re:> Where are you "hearing" this? Specifically. Do you have a URL or > a > magazine reference? > > I've done a bit of evaluating of the 3M > Foveon sensor, and no, it does > not "blow away" any of the 6M SLR > cameras in terms of resolution...so > I can't imagine where you get > this from. > > Austin

I've read the DPReview stuff. What, exactly, there are you referring to?

Keep one thing in mind when looking at digital images. Sharpness can be attained by processing any image, and sharpness doesn't mean reality either. We don't know what processing the SD9 is doing, so it's quite hard to tell really make a claim of anything without actually knowing what processing (sharpening or whatever) was done with what images (both in-camera and out of camera, and don't be fooled into believing raw images aren't processed, they very may well be). There are aftermarket Bayer pattern processing programs that do a better job than the in-camera processing.

What you are comparing is the results from the camera, not from the sensors, so making any claims based on the sensors is erroneous, at best.

In looking at the resolution chart tests, I'm not seeing it "blow" the D-60 away at all. Can you point me to the two images that show it even to be better? In fact, I find the D60 image:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/s&les/rescharts/canon_eosd60.jpg

to show the D60 has better resolution than the SD9:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/orig.asp?/reviews/s&les/rescharts/sigma_sd 9.jpg

Keep in mind, that lenses are important as well...and though I'm sure they mention it somewhere, I didn't see what lense they used for the D-60.

The Foveon sensor suffers from some serious artifacting anyway, which, for the most part, render it useless in low light, and bright light situations, as well has horrid color fidelity.

Austin
 
Will,

You need to be wary of these comparisons in DPReview. For ex&le, in the Sigma vs, EOS-D60 detail comparisons, the EOS image is very visibly larger than the Sigma image, as it ought to be as it's twice the megapixels. If viewed at their relative natural size, as is obviously done here, that in and on itself, all else equal, will make the Sigma image appear sharper being smaller.

Also look at the JPEG sizes. At twice the megapixels, the EOS image is about the same file size as the Sigma. Can you say "JPEG compression factor difference" 10 times real fast?

Now I'm not implying these are deliberate, only that you need to take into consideration all the aspects of the apples you're comparing ...

DJ
 
Dear all,

I believe we ought to be very careful about the digicam reviews on the web. I bought Canon S30 last year to shoot underwater photos (I bet there will never be a underwater housing for Contax^^). Though the photos were nice, I cannot stand its images above sea level. The images simply look unreal.

However, almost everyone, or at least every single online digital photography reviewing site praises that kind of image. Every single camera Canon produced, from low end to high end, received the finest marks on image quality. I talked this issue quite a bit to a friend of mine, who has a PhD in computer sciences, has 15+ years of photography and also a fan of Zeiss. Here is what he said:

"I do not care about whatever Steve's website says. Most of his tests were not done right and flawed. DP review's tests are much better. The common problem among those websites is that they all do not have enough photography experiences, especially with films. They only talk about digital photos in the digital way. They review digicams much like the way other people test computers. What would you expect from this kind of reviews?

The real issue here is that digicam designs are very complex. There are lots of component, signal processing, and image processing issues behind them. You need to have a deep understanding about all of the design trade-offs and component selections to do a test right. A good test should give readers more education instead of reporting superficial numbers. Otherwise it will be like a computer test which blantly tells you a 2GHz P4 CPU is faster than a 1.3GHz P3 CPU simply because the clock is faster!

For instance, to measure the digicam's resolution, a true test should be done at least with a MTF test. The line chart thing can give you false reading because the image processing brain in a digicam has been tuned to recognize the line chart to give you a good number. If the input is a sine wave then you will see how poorly the digitcam will perform."

After seeing the s&le images he bought a TVS-digital rather than the Canon S50.

By the way, you're all more than welcome to my on-line album, www.pbase.com/shuhsien. Most of the photos are shot with G2.

Best,

Shu-Hsien
 
The tests between the Sigma 9 and Canon D-60 at all mute points. The D60 was replaced by the D10 which at $1,500. is $700 less than the D-60 and $300. less than the Sigma.

A photojournalist friend brought his D-60 to my studio to compare it to my new D-10. The D-10
images were clearly superior to those of the D-60 using the same settings, same L lens and same strobe lighting. Canon said it was, and they weren't lying. My friend traded his D-60 for a D-10 the next day.

When I say we both saw the difference, it was clearly superior in every way. I've now seen D-60s selling for $800-$1,000. Sigma was a day late and a dollar short....all wrapped in a plastic body, where the new D-10 is metal.
 
I saw a 11x14" print from Sigma SD9, and nobody in the world will convince me that it looks like it should. It was screaming "DIGITAL", even though it was made by a pretty skillful professional photographer. Although I do not dismiss a possibility that someone is looking just for that
happy.gif
 
Hey Austin, Re: your comments, > I've read the Austin stuff. What, exactly, there are you referring > to? > > Keep one thing in mind when looking at digital images. Sharpness can > be attained by processing any image, and sharpness doesn't mean > reality either. We don't know what processing the SD9 is doing, so > it's quite hard to tell really make a claim of anything without > actually knowing what processing (sharpening or whatever) was done > with what images (both in-camera and out of camera, and don't be > fooled into believing raw images aren't processed, they very may well > be). There are aftermarket Bayer pattern processing programs that do a > better job than the in-camera processing. > > What you are comparing is the results from the camera, not from the > sensors, so making any claims based on the sensors is erroneous, at > best.

I feel your comments about some of the images from DPReview showing the D60 actually beating out, or at least being comparable to, the X3. That's why I came here. There are so many factors to consider, as you say. My impressions from their review are that there was no post processing sharpening done to either of the test images from either camera, so I was impressed that such a small chip was getting as close it did to a sensor double the size. I guess the main reason I'm asking is I'm still on the fence about which digi setup to buy (if I can even find an ND these days...). The lower price point of the Sigma is attractive, but like you said, there are the lenses to consider, and since I've owned and shot with the C 645 and the N1 for years now and know about their insane color fidelity and sharpness, I'm very leery of jumping into another system such as Sigma...yuck! But money is an issue... Also, as you say, the halo problem around the highlights on the Sigma is definitely a problem. Still the Foveon technology is looking promising. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens with them... You mentioned in an earlier post that you've done some testing yourself with the Sigma and I imagine you have the ND. Do you have any definitive results that you've come up with one way or the other? And one more question...I'm wondering if you (or anyone else out there) have ever tried to blow a shot from the ND up to a full 13x19 Epson print size? Or what's the largest you feel comfortable printing from the ND? Thanks a million for all your input...

will
 
Back
Top