Foveon to rock the DSLR world again, with 16.8MP sensor.

"Mick Sterbs" wrote in message ...
"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
m...
Foveon Pro 10M (that is, it shoots dead center glass ON TOP of the
huge advantages above).

Think.

Same old spin from Preddy. Or do you prefer sg10.3?

I prefer Samuel T. Jenkins. But how is a simple number spin, again?

The Canon 1Ds has 2.76M RGB triplets, period, so that is all it can
ever see, period. There is no question about it, anyone who says
there are more is simply irrationally disregarding a phenomenon known
as counting.

Shooting center glass is also indisputable optically superior to
shooting full frame glass, therefore any camera that shoots center
glass with the same or more MPs and the same or higher pixel pitch is
indisputably optically superior in that respect than one that shoots
full frame. Outer frame glass is very, very poor in the 35mm format.
Again, anyone who disagrees is simply irrationally disregarding the
facts in a futile attempt to self-justify their own ignorance with
respect simplest concepts in camera optics.

The SD9 totally dominates the Canon 1Ds in all of those respects:

1. The SD9 has 28% more complete RGB triplets (full color MPs).
2. The SD9 has larger pixel/sensor pitch.
3. On top of those, the SD9 shoots center glass.

The 1Ds is uncompetive with the two Sigma giants by any objective
optical measure. Is it a good camera? Sure it is, but given its
extrememly dated operation and lack of most features that are
considered bare bones today, on top of the 3 optical points above,
today's advanced digital environment puts in firmly in the $500 to
$700 range for a fair deal.

Mike Kohary wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:

Mike Kohary wrote:


If that's the case, then why isn't Sigma dominant in the
professional market over Canon and Nikon, the two widely
acknowledged leaders in the field?

It's obvious why Sigma isn't, and it is because Sigma isn't that
Foveon isn't...


Talking in circles isn't a very good start to your argument.


if Foveon's sensor had been found in a Nikon or Canon
attitudes would be a little different. The quality of the images has
nothing at all to do with the Sigma involvement.


Non-responsive. My question stands.


And as for the status quo...


I understand that you feel that this is the way things are (though I happen
to think you're quite misguided in your assessment). But again, my
question: WHY is this the way things are, if Sigma/Foveon technology is so
superior?



You might as well ask why the world continued, mainly, to use Leica when
the Contax was clearly superior. Leica was there first. Same goes for
'why did the 42mm screw mount last so long?' when there were many
excellent bayonet systems which it outlasted. Same goes for 'why did the
24 x 32mm Wrayflex and Rectaflex format fail to replace the 24 x 36mm
double cine frame shape?'.

When there are established, successful, good systems already occupying
prime market positions and still being actively improved and developed,
and marketed, you don't expect a competitor like Sigma to make any
significant inroad.

To repeat - had any of the major makers taken on the Foveon sensor, the
story would be different. Minolta was the last maker to turn the sensor
before the deal with Sigma deal was struck, and Canon had already been
offered it and said no.

A better modern comparison would be the Copal Square shutter. A
vertically run laminar blade design, was initially rejected by possible
users and ended up first appearing in cameras from Chinon, Ricoh and
Cosina. At first the big makers gave many reasons why these shutters
were not suitable, and why the roller-blind cloth shutters they used
were always going to be superior. Seiko came up with electronically
governed vertical laminar-blade shutters, Minolta developed their own by
working with Copal and Leitz (the Copal-Leitz Shutter, or CLS) (XE-1,
Leica R3); Canon resisted until the bitter end - Nikon bowed eventually
with the Nikkormat range but still only saw this type of shutter as an
amateur-market thing until fairly recent models (AF professional models).

It is this type of shutter, and not the roller-blind focal plane
shutter, which went on to be developered (eventually by all the makers)
to provide speeds up to 1/16,000th and flash synch to 1/300th.

Now Foveon's sensor may prove to be a laminar-blade shutter equivalent,
or it may prove to be a vertical slat-blind equivalent - the excellent
in theory but disastrous in practice Contax shutter, which in a larger
form proved equally excellent but unreliable in the Hasselblad 1000F and
1600F.

The reason Foveon's X3 sensor isn't going EVER to dominate the market or
replace Bayer is because only one maker, with a very limited user base
and no real chance of penetrating the mainstream market, is currently
using it. It that situation changes, so might its development, and
attitudes to it.

David
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/

Alan D-W wrote:

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...

I don't personally know any pros who use Sigma anything either. And
I've seen enough of their products through the years to know what
they're about - crap.

Most DSLR-using pros I know have one or more Sigma lenses, usually the


I wonder which pro world you are associated with? In what context do you use
the abbreviation 'pro'?
If it's supposed to be an abbreviation for 'professional' then I'm wondering
about which dictionary you used for the definition of the word 'most'?


I'm associated with what's normally called the GP studio world - owners
of studios sited either in High Street shop-type premises, small
industrial units, or sometimes working from home (increasingly, for
wedding photographers in particular). Typically members of BIPP, MPA,
SWPP, IPPA etc and not of AoP, NUJ, BPA - not generally blue-chip
accounts, and not generally working for the media. But plenty of them
have large below-the-line client bases, handling the routine stuff like
catalogue illustrations, PR events, exhibition stands, sales
presentation shots, etc.

I've been a part of this world myself, owning or being a partner in
various studios, but mainly as editor of the magazine twice for the BIPP
(1976-7 and again 1990-94) and the MPA (1984-88 and again 1996 to the
present day). I know maybe two or three hundred UK professionals by
sight and name, and by their work quite often, and overall I probably
have met a couple of thousand.

Although I was originally a newspaper journalist, and became briefly a
freelance working with a camera for the British Sundays and 'heavies' in
my early 20s, I have never really been much involved with 'press'
photography or the usual sports, wilderness, action etc stuff which
interests most photographers. I am more into people, arts, environment,
landscape, science and technology, business, annual reports,
architecture etc. Consequently it tends to be that sort of photographer
- outside the GP category - I am most likely to encounter in the media
world.

David

Georgette Preddy wrote:
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message link.net...

David Kilpatrick wrote in message
...


Steven M. Scharf wrote:



The disastrous Sigma digital SLRs didn't do anything to

inspire confidence in Foveon. Even though it wasn't just the sensor that

was

the cause of all the problems, the sensor justifiably got a lot of the
blame.



Steven, the SD10 is not 'disastrous' - it's really very good - and if


there are problems with the sensor for sports and action, or low light news,
etc, then the shortcomings of the SD9/10 body are quite well matched to
avoiding those users.


The SD10's servo focus mode is infinitely better than the 10D's, which
has a virtual 100% AF miss rate. FPS (which is about the same as the
SD10 at only 6MP interpolated) is useless without an AF system that
works. As a result the 10D is the worst possible DSLR choice for
action, and the SD10 is one of the very best due to its truly superb
sharpness compared to any Bayer.

The SD10 body is also the best in the world ergonomically (nothin
remotely close--with Canon being total junk) and near the best in the
world in terms of ruggedness, if not the best. That is exactly why
Kodak chose Sigma to produce their highest end DSLR's body.

I am glad you mentioned that Georgette, Orville, or whoever you are
masquerading as today. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Strange you neglected to mention that Kodak did NOT use the highly
vaunted Foveon piece of junk, or the Sigma lens mount!

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:29:50 GMT, Tivrod wrote:

The SD10 body is also the best in the world ergonomically (nothin
remotely close--with Canon being total junk) and near the best in the
world in terms of ruggedness, if not the best. That is exactly why
Kodak chose Sigma to produce their highest end DSLR's body.

I am glad you mentioned that Georgette, Orville, or whoever you are
masquerading as today. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Strange you neglected to mention that Kodak did NOT use the highly
vaunted Foveon piece of junk, or the Sigma lens mount!

Kodak chose Sigma only because everyone else is selling the cameras
they can make.
Sigma, OTOH, has excess production capacity because they can't sell
their cameras fast enough.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:29:50 GMT, Tivrod wrote:


The SD10 body is also the best in the world ergonomically (nothin
remotely close--with Canon being total junk) and near the best in the
world in terms of ruggedness, if not the best. That is exactly why
Kodak chose Sigma to produce their highest end DSLR's body.

I am glad you mentioned that Georgette, Orville, or whoever you are
masquerading as today. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Strange you neglected to mention that Kodak did NOT use the highly
vaunted Foveon piece of junk, or the Sigma lens mount!


Kodak chose Sigma only because everyone else is selling the cameras
they can make.
Sigma, OTOH, has excess production capacity because they can't sell
their cameras fast enough.


More dissing. I've just been shooting tonight using mirror-lock up and
some extreme macro on SD10. It would have been improved by the wireless
remote control for the camera which allows mirror-lock up and release to
be controlled entirely from the hand-control unit.

George/tte does no one any favours with mounds of steaming bull****, but
the Sigma body is a well designed SLR with some good features Kodak has
kept. These include the entire mirror-up, remote control etc system and
actually make the Canon mount version better speced than the Nikon mount
camera based on a Nikon body.

I did ask Kodak's UK head honcho why they did not use Chinon - which
they own - to make the body and the answer appeared to indicate that
Sigma have been responsible for Kodak conversion of Nikon and Canon
bodies for several years. They did not build them in Rochester. You can
even spot some clues in the SLR/n body. Here they are asking the press
please not to mention the connection.

David

On 24 Jun 2004 13:42:35 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

"Mick Sterbs" wrote in message ...
"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
m...
Foveon Pro 10M (that is, it shoots dead center glass ON TOP of the
huge advantages above).

Think.

Same old spin from Preddy. Or do you prefer sg10.3?

I prefer Samuel T. Jenkins. But how is a simple number spin, again?

The Canon 1Ds has 2.76M RGB triplets, period, so that is all it can
ever see, period. There is no question about it, anyone who says
there are more is simply irrationally disregarding a phenomenon known
as counting.

Shooting center glass is also indisputable optically superior to
shooting full frame glass, therefore any camera that shoots center
glass with the same or more MPs and the same or higher pixel pitch is
indisputably optically superior in that respect than one that shoots
full frame. Outer frame glass is very, very poor in the 35mm format.
Again, anyone who disagrees is simply irrationally disregarding the
facts in a futile attempt to self-justify their own ignorance with
respect simplest concepts in camera optics.

The SD9 totally dominates the Canon 1Ds in all of those respects:

1. The SD9 has 28% more complete RGB triplets (full color MPs).
2. The SD9 has larger pixel/sensor pitch.
3. On top of those, the SD9 shoots center glass.

The 1Ds is uncompetive with the two Sigma giants by any objective
optical measure. Is it a good camera? Sure it is, but given its
extrememly dated operation and lack of most features that are
considered bare bones today, on top of the 3 optical points above,
today's advanced digital environment puts in firmly in the $500 to
$700 range for a fair deal.
Still no pics gp

"David Kilpatrick" posted:
"...
Here they are asking the press please not to mention the connection.
...."

HeHeHeHeHe ...

WONDER why ?!?!

HeHeHeHeHe ...

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...

If that's the case, then why isn't Sigma dominant in the professional
market
over Canon and Nikon, the two widely acknowledged leaders in the field?

In terms of camera bodies, no professional would use Sigma because there are
no professional level Sigma lenses. Simple as that. The EX lenses are best
described as "Prosumer lenses, certainly a big step down from Nikon and
Canon pro lenses (though much cheaper as well). Sigma doesn't even produce
its entire line of lenses with the SA mount. This isn't a put down of Sigma,
they simply have no interest in going after the professional market.

In terms of the SD9/SD10, there are a number of issues that a professional
would never put up with. Contrary to what some people believe, professionals
often use auto-focus, but the SD9/SD10 autofocus is primitive compared to
what Nikon and Canon are offering. This has been an issue with Sigma back to
the days of the SA film cameras.

Ergonomically, Canon's bodies are generations ahead of Sigma. Canon has
invested heavily in ergonomics, everyone agrees that Canon bodies are the
best, by far, ergonomically, though Nikon has made great strides as well.

Sigma has a good business as the largest, independent, after-market lens
manufacturer. They are third in terms of total lens production (after Nikon
and Canon). OTOH, a professional will occasionally buy a Sigma lens if it's
a little used lens and they can't justify the expense of a professional lens
from Canon or Nikon.

As to why no one else but Sigma went the Foveon route, it's due to both the
lack of an available high resolution Foveon sensor (3.4 megapixels is two
generations behind), as well as the other technical issues, that David has
mentioned (at that can be viewed on the web site).

Foveon needs at least a 10 megapixel lens to compete, because they've
already missed the next SLR design cycle, which will be 8 megapixel sensors.
Yet according to rumors we've seen posted, their next sensor is only 5.6
megapixels. And they've got to reduce that crop factor if they hope to get
into any first or second tier cameras. They obviously can't survive selling
just to Sigma. Still, if the new sensor corrects the color issues, ISO
issues, etc., then they may get a couple of designs from the second tier
manufacturers.

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Mike Kohary wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:

Mike Kohary wrote:

If that's the case, then why isn't Sigma dominant in the
professional market over Canon and Nikon, the two widely
acknowledged leaders in the field?

It's obvious why Sigma isn't, and it is because Sigma isn't that
Foveon isn't...

Talking in circles isn't a very good start to your argument.

if Foveon's sensor had been found in a Nikon or Canon
attitudes would be a little different. The quality of the images has
nothing at all to do with the Sigma involvement.

Non-responsive. My question stands.

And as for the status quo...

I understand that you feel that this is the way things are (though I
happen to think you're quite misguided in your assessment). But
again, my question: WHY is this the way things are, if Sigma/Foveon
technology is so superior?

You might as well ask why the world continued, mainly, to use Leica
when the Contax was clearly superior. Leica was there first. Same
goes for 'why did the 42mm screw mount last so long?' when there were
many excellent bayonet systems which it outlasted. Same goes for 'why
did the 24 x 32mm Wrayflex and Rectaflex format fail to replace the
24 x 36mm double cine frame shape?'.

You're still not answering the question.

When there are established, successful, good systems already occupying
prime market positions and still being actively improved and
developed, and marketed, you don't expect a competitor like Sigma to
make any significant inroad.

This is a valid point, but I don't buy it as the main reason. That's just a
symptom. The main reasons were outlined very nicely in Steven Scharf's post
in this same thread in response to my question, so in the interest of not
being redundant, I refer you to his post. In a nutshell - no pro lenses,
poor AF, non-trivial sensor quality issues, and ergonomics.

Your point is a good one to add to the list. However, I would point out
that if Sigma came up to speed technologically, I believe they would have a
chance at becoming an upstart to Nikon's and Canon's dominance of the pro
market.

The reason Foveon's X3 sensor isn't going EVER to dominate the market
or replace Bayer is because only one maker, with a very limited user
base and no real chance of penetrating the mainstream market, is
currently using it. It that situation changes, so might its
development, and attitudes to it.

Note that I was talking about Sigma cameras, not the Foveon sensor in
particular. However, I again feel that you make a good point, but it still
avoids the main issue for the sensor, which is that it's technologically a
generation or two behind the Nikon and Canon sensors. One is a cause and
the other is a symptom of that cause. If Foveon/Sigma want to make inroads,
they'll have to address the causes of their problems.

Mike