Polaroid x530 w/Foveon sensor will ship - finally.

[True211]

Remember this little "work of art"?

Foveon technology in a compact point & shoot body.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022202polaroidx530_avail.asp

[Woodchuck Bill]

"True211" > wrote:

> Remember this little "work of art"?
>
> Foveon technology in a compact point & shoot body.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022202polaroidx530_avail.asp

$398.46 at Walmart, for what is essentially a 1.5 megapixel camera?
I'll pass.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3340264

--

Bill

[Randall Ainsworth]

In article >, True211
> wrote:


Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

[ittsy]

Randall Ainsworth > wrote:

> Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

Rose Parchen

[Steven M. Scharf]

"True211" > wrote in message
...
> Remember this little "work of art"?
>
> Foveon technology in a compact point & shoot body.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022202polaroidx530_avail.asp

It'll be interesting to see the "Bayer equivalency" for the x530. Reviews of
the 3.4 Megapixel Sigma SD10 state that it compares to a 6 megapixel Bayer
based D-SLR, in terms of resolution.

[Randall Ainsworth]

In article >, ittsy
> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
>
> > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
>
> It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

[The PhAnToM]

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article >, ittsy
> > wrote:
>
> > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> >
> > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> >
> > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
>
> If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"The PhAnToM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article >, ittsy
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
>> >
>> > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
>>
>> If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
>> technology...really...who cares at this point?
>
> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

Those of us who use Foveon sensor cameras quite like them. There's honest
criticism of the sensor and then there's dishonest crtiticism from the likes
of Randall and Steven Scharf who never used the camera. Sort of like
telling someone how a steak tastes without ever tasting one for themselves.
It's best to discount what they say and stick to the posts from those who
are more objective even if they don't like the Foveon sensor.

[Larry]

In article . com>,
says...
>
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article >, ittsy
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> > >
> > > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
> >
> > If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> > technology...really...who cares at this point?
>
> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
>
>

I wouldn't call it hatred, just a lack of repect for a good idea that didn't
work, but still gets promoted and sold as if it did work.

The photos from that sensor are pretty bad.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

[[email protected]]

"The PhAnToM" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
Thanks.

There is no hatred.

There was a lot of disappointment when the Sigma D-SLRs, produced
relatively mediocre results compared to all other digital SLRs (and
compared to many compact digital cameras for that matter). This has
translated into healthy skepticism that the 1.5 megapixel sensor in the
Polaroid x530 will produce good results (this camera is nearly a year
late, with no explanation ever provided for the delay, making many
people very nervous about it, but who knows, it could be a sleeper).

What upset a lot of people about Foveon was how the 3.4 megapixel X10
sensor somehow morphed into a 10.2 megapixel sensor. This stemmed from
an attempt to re-define a pixel from a spatial input element into a
photo-detector. Terms such as "pixel sensor" were invented, in an
attempt to confuse the consumer. Foveon decided not to adhere to the
JCIA GLA03 standard regarding the definition of a pixel, claiming that
the standard did not adequately address X3 technology (it actually
does). Fujitsu, who has a non-standard sensor design, takes great pains
to be accurate in terms of the JCIA GLA03 standard, even noting the
standard in their specifications (i.e. see
"http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/f810/performance.html").

Now we have the 1.5 megapixel Polaroid x530 being marketed as a 4.5
megapixel camera. But what can WWL do, since if they tried marketing it
as a 1.5 megapixel camera it would surely fail. This camera will likely
be about as good as a current 3 megapixel compact camera, but it isn't
3 megapixels either, it's a 1.5 megapixel, 4.5 megasensor camera. The
problem is that many consumers look only at megapixels, just as when
buying computers many look only at megahertz; this is unfortunate, but
it requires education of the consumer into accepting a different
standard for product selection (can you imagine if a company tried to
redefine megahertz?!).

Some ill will may have been created by a few people, posting under many
aliases, on rec.photo.digital, who promulgated a tremendous amount of
mis-information about Foveon and Sigma. But most people realized that
these individuals were not speaking on behalf of Sigma or Foveon, so
their actions didn't have a lot of effect (and of course, in the big
scheme of things, Usenet means nothing). These people were basically
trying to justify their purchase of a specific product, and got
extremely upset whenever anyone pointed out any flaws (I'll never
understand this attitude, yet it certainly is not limited to digital
cameras). They've disappeared from Usenet for the most part, and we all
want to believe that they didn't represent the majority of Sigma camera
owners!

Personally, I have many excellent photographs in my home that were
taken with Foveon technology, and they are indistinguishable from 35mm
(at least to me). But these were all taken with the Foveon studio
camera, which is a very different animal (and in most cases I don't
know how much time the photographer spent on post-processing).

So "hatred" is definitely not the right word. Disappointment that what
appeared to be a great concept hasn't worken out commercially, at least
on the high end, is more like it. (you'll probably soon see Foveon
sensors in a lot of new applications, since they do have some inherent
advantages).

[Randall Ainsworth]

In article . com>, The
PhAnToM > wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article >, ittsy
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> > >
> > > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
> >
> > If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> > technology...really...who cares at this point?
>
> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

Because it's crappy technology?

[Randall Ainsworth]

In article >, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> wrote:

> "The PhAnToM" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> >> In article >, ittsy
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> >> >
> >> > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
> >>
> >> If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> >> technology...really...who cares at this point?
> >
> > Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
>
> Those of us who use Foveon sensor cameras quite like them. There's honest
> criticism of the sensor and then there's dishonest crtiticism from the likes
> of Randall and Steven Scharf who never used the camera. Sort of like
> telling someone how a steak tastes without ever tasting one for themselves.
> It's best to discount what they say and stick to the posts from those who
> are more objective even if they don't like the Foveon sensor.

I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know it's something I
don't want to do. I guess the Foveon is OK if you like 3.42MP cameras
with Homer Simpson skin tones.

[The PhAnToM]

wrote:
> "The PhAnToM" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
> Thanks.
>
> There is no hatred.
>
> There was a lot of disappointment when the Sigma D-SLRs, produced
> relatively mediocre results compared to all other digital SLRs (and
> compared to many compact digital cameras for that matter). This has
> translated into healthy skepticism that the 1.5 megapixel sensor in
the
> Polaroid x530 will produce good results (this camera is nearly a year
> late, with no explanation ever provided for the delay, making many
> people very nervous about it, but who knows, it could be a sleeper).

<snip>

Thanks, Steve. That is a reasonable answer. When I first came across
the technology, it seemed like the next big thing. I did not, however,
follow it from the consumer side, other than to see a whole lot of
Foveon bashing here in the past. It got to be too much for me to filter
out the noise to come up with a reasonable conclusion. So here we go
again... maybe.

[David J Taylor]

The PhAnToM wrote:
[]
> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
> Thanks.

Perhaps because there was once a guy called Steve who's answer for
everything was "Sigma/Foveon DSLRs"..... The poor resolution and colour
rendering didn't help.

David

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"Randall Ainsworth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> > wrote:
>
>> "The PhAnToM" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> >> In article >, ittsy
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
>> >> >
>> >> > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
>> >>
>> >> If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
>> >> technology...really...who cares at this point?
>> >
>> > Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
>>
>> Those of us who use Foveon sensor cameras quite like them. There's
>> honest
>> criticism of the sensor and then there's dishonest crtiticism from the
>> likes
>> of Randall and Steven Scharf who never used the camera. Sort of like
>> telling someone how a steak tastes without ever tasting one for
>> themselves.
>> It's best to discount what they say and stick to the posts from those who
>> are more objective even if they don't like the Foveon sensor.
>
> I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know it's something I
> don't want to do. I guess the Foveon is OK if you like 3.42MP cameras
> with Homer Simpson skin tones.

Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
in your mouth.

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"Larry" > wrote in message
T...
> In article . com>,
> says...
>>
>> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> > In article >, ittsy
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
>> > >
>> > > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
>> >
>> > If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
>> > technology...really...who cares at this point?
>>
>> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> I wouldn't call it hatred, just a lack of repect for a good idea that
> didn't
> work, but still gets promoted and sold as if it did work.
>
> The photos from that sensor are pretty bad.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

[[email protected]]

In message >,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote:

>You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

Every image I've seen from a Sigma DSLR that I've liked has been due to
the composition, not the technology.

The green/blue discrimination is poor and hue-noisy , and there is too
much aliasing when sharp optics are used.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy >
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

[Larry]

In article >, says...
> "Larry" > wrote in message
> T...
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> >>
> >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> >> > In article >, ittsy
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> >> > >
> >> > > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
> >> >
> >> > If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> >> > technology...really...who cares at this point?
> >>
> >> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I wouldn't call it hatred, just a lack of repect for a good idea that
> > didn't
> > work, but still gets promoted and sold as if it did work.
> >
> > The photos from that sensor are pretty bad.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Larry Lynch
> > Mystic, Ct.
>
> You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.
>
>
>
Wrong on BOTH counts, I have used BOTH SD9 and SD10, and though some of the
shots were quite nice, the flesh tones were unusable in all but the most
perfect lighting conditions.

My opinions are MY opinions.

In my opinion the Foveon Sensor is LOUSY at color rendition, and especially
lousy at skin tones.

But then, Ive only been taking pictures on a daily basis since 1959, so what
the hell is my opinion worth... Not one whit more (or less) than yours.

The OP asked a question, I answered with my opinion, would you rather I
answered with someone elses opinion??? I'm sure you would rather I answered
with your opinion, but it doesn't work that way.






--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

[Randall Ainsworth]

In article >, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> wrote:

> Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
> in your mouth.

Instead of bashing me, how about defending this mediocre technology
you're so hot on. No, I've never touched a Sigma camera. But I have
seen them and seen the images that come out of them. Spin it any way
you will, but they're still 3.42MP with downright crappy color
rendition. And, they're outrageously priced for what they are. I'm sory
that you can't see reality.

[Brian C. Baird]

In article >, says...
> You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"Brian C. Baird" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
>> You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the
>> photos.
>
> That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Please Brian, you can do better than that.

[Brian C. Baird]

In article >, says...
> > That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
> Please Brian, you can do better than that.

You're right. I'm firing my team of writers right now.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"Brian C. Baird" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
>> > That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
>> > --
>> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>>
>> Please Brian, you can do better than that.
>
> You're right. I'm firing my team of writers right now.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

LOL!

[Roland Karlsson]

The PhAnToM wrote:
> Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
> Thanks.

There is not hatered for Foveon IMHO.
Just sound technical criticism. The
Fovoen based cameras do not deliver
what they promise. The competition
is much better.

This is a pity really. We need competing
technologies toget rapid advancemants.


/Roland

[Steven M. Scharf]

"Randall Ainsworth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Peter A. Stavrakoglou

<snip>

>And, they're outrageously priced for what they are.

I came across an eBay listing for an SD10. It's been re-listed twice after
the original listing, and g-d knows why he didn't take the $1000 offer, in
the first listing, and run, since he didn't even get as high an offer in the
second listing as he did in the first.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3873164808
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3875133617
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3876716626

B&H's used department would likely offer about $650 for the lot, and sell it
for around $1300, with some sort of a guarantee, so $900-1000 would be a
fair eBay price. I hope that his reserve price isn't the same as the "Buy
It Now" price! Used equipment of any genre doesn't fetch much more than 60%
of the new price, usually closer to 50%. People look at what they paid for
something, and figure that they are entitled to get 75% of what they paid
back when they sell it used.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Steven M. Scharf > wrote:

> Used equipment of any genre doesn't fetch much more than 60%
> of the new price, usually closer to 50%. People look at what they paid for
> something, and figure that they are entitled to get 75% of what they paid
> back when they sell it used.

You'll probably find that ('any genre') to be untrue in a couple
of cases:
- items old enough to have quite some historical value
- collectors' items no longer freely available
- well-treated, undamaged items of high quality workmanship ---
while you probably won't make any money, you can get much closer
to a break even. I hear-tell Canon L lenses are in that class.

-Wolfgang

[Steven M. Scharf]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" > wrote in message
...
> Steven M. Scharf > wrote:
>
> > Used equipment of any genre doesn't fetch much more than 60%
> > of the new price, usually closer to 50%. People look at what they paid
for
> > something, and figure that they are entitled to get 75% of what they
paid
> > back when they sell it used.
>
> You'll probably find that ('any genre') to be untrue in a couple
> of cases:
> - items old enough to have quite some historical value
> - collectors' items no longer freely available
> - well-treated, undamaged items of high quality workmanship ---
> while you probably won't make any money, you can get much closer
> to a break even. I hear-tell Canon L lenses are in that class.

Yes, you're right, I should have noted that. I was thinking about rare items
being an exception when I wrote that post, but I didn't include it. I didn't
know that about Canon L lenses, but it makes sense.

[Ron Krebs]

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
...
> "Brian C. Baird" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >, says...
> >> You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the
> >> photos.
> >
> > That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
> Please Brian, you can do better than that.
>
>

Ahhh yes, George/Georgette. The sexually ambiguous Foveon flag-waver. Now.
I remember that name. Couldn't find it because it was in my killfile. Oh
well, I guess there's another name to add now.

Ron

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

"Ron Krebs" > wrote in message
news:Lo2Vd.66806$8a6.59012@trndny09...
>
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Brian C. Baird" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > In article >, says...
>> >> You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the
>> >> photos.
>> >
>> > That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
>> > --
>> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>>
>> Please Brian, you can do better than that.
>>
>>
>
> Ahhh yes, George/Georgette. The sexually ambiguous Foveon flag-waver.
> Now.
> I remember that name. Couldn't find it because it was in my killfile. Oh
> well, I guess there's another name to add now.
>
> Ron

Please add me to your kill file list if you want. There's no need to read
my posts if you choose not to.

[ittsy]

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article >, ittsy
> > wrote:
>
> > Randall Ainsworth > wrote:
> >
> > > Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
> >
> > It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.
>
> If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
> technology...really...who cares at this point?

Obviously a number of people, including Phil of DP Review. That doesn't
mean that we are interested in buying it though.

Rose Parchen