Sigma SD14 Dissatisfaction: Finally Believe Me, Foveon Fanboys?

Dear Richard,
No, I did not. It's possible that some of them did not survive the EDN website hosting, blog tool, etc transition that accompanied the magazine's publisher transition from Reed Business Information to Canon Communications.

Hey Brian, did you just delete all that lovely posts nailing you ? Strange eh… There were much more replies than now !

Got a SD15 and it's damn cool ! The images are simply fantastic !!! Good job Sigma.

I disagree about Sigma equipment considered to be bad ones. I use Sigma branded lenses for ages, here in Alaska and owned perhaps 20 of them. True, I had some damaged, but after drops over rocks or into the water. The EX series are very rugged and survived -40F temperatures, high humidity and wide temperature changes. So how the hell someone caims that they are bad ? The EX optics are very sharp, specially the prime lenses. By the way, where can I buy some of those $350 SD-14, new ? Last week I saw just one on ebay, used by $499. I have a DP1 camera and believe me, the picture quality is awesome in all aspects ! The only complain is the low battery life, I have to carry 6 of them, but Alaska is not exactly a warm place you know. The funny thing is that JustMe is the only guy here agreeing with the author. The vast majority thinks exactly the opposite and I suppose that this means something, no ? And just to add, film is still better than digital at any ISO below 400. No matter of what camera.

"There's also nothing wrong with zooms. Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 is better than any fixed focal length lens in that range that Nikon ever made (multiple independent lens tests). It's an amazing lens." Oh yes. better than the 50/1.4. No way on earth. You gotta be kidding. That proves people statements above. You're just a paper/review compiler. About the film vs. digital quality, you're sistorting what was said. Nobody said ANYTHING about 1600 and 3200 ISO films. They of course meant regular, used by common people 100-400 film. Quoting: "Ignacio Bolla says not to trust reviews. Why not? Just because the reviews of Sigma cameras are universally bad? If reviews were mixed, that's one thing but when ALL of them say pretty much the same thing, there is little doubt that they're correct. He also says never trust datasheets. Since Sigma authors those datasheets, he's basically saying don't trust Sigma. So why buy their camera?" When Mr. Bolla said that he don't trust Sigma ? He uses Sigma equipment independent of what papers said. You really like to distort things. I must now agree with them, specially Mr. Baker. And I may add that you're probably a friend of the author, if not him in person. You're pathetic.

Ignacio Bolla says not to trust reviews. Why not? Just because the reviews of Sigma cameras are universally bad? If reviews were mixed, that's one thing but when ALL of them say pretty much the same thing, there is little doubt that they're correct. He also says never trust datasheets. Since Sigma authors those datasheets, he's basically saying don't trust Sigma. So why buy their camera? Why should anyone trust what Ignacio writes? It is unsubstantiated and flies in the face of reality. SD-14 rugged and reliable? You've got to be kidding me. There are countless threads on dpreview about the SD14 locking up, not working at all, the dust protector breaking, lousy battery life (one person carries over a dozen batteries because he only gets about 200 photos per charge), abnormal color casts and more. The camera is not weather sealed (nor are the lenses), so it's one of the worst choices for any photographer to use in a swamp. Even the DP1 and DP2 have problems, usually the lens mechanism fails causing the lens to not extend or retract. When people send the cameras back to Sigma for repairs, it takes months and often they come back untouched, 'within spec.' Mike Chaney (who is a Foveon fan) said that the SD14 is the buggiest camera he's ever used and he had to have his replaced at least once (I think twice). He ditched it and now shoots Nikon. Lensrentals dot com has written quite a bit about how the lenses that fail the most are Sigma, many of which are broken out of the box before even being sent to a customer. When there's another alternative (such as a Nikon or Canon 70-200 versus the Sigma version), they won't touch Sigma. And as for the image quality, any DSLR today can beat the SD14. Do you really expect people to believe that a 4.6 megapixel camera is going to outperform an 18 megapixel Canon 7D? Although megapixels aren't the only factor in image quality, having more of them DOES make a difference. There's also nothing wrong with zooms. Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 is better than any fixed focal length lens in that range that Nikon ever made (multiple independent lens tests). It's an amazing lens. The funny thing is, everyone who claims the Sigma photos are amazing and sharp doesn't realize that the Sigma software sharpens a whole lot more than other software. Bump up the sharpening in Nikon or Canon's software and you'll get just as sharp results (if not better), for a whole lot less money and hassle.

OMFG! - How do people similar to Bernie Bicoy - who is a twice convicted child molestor make bail? This homosexual community spokesman lied and faked himself as a lawyer and Venture Capital - VC Research Expert with a slippery tongue to win trust of adolescents. Out of all people, the system lets him home? It's sad but the neighborhoods of Lake Forest are now dangerous. How can I petition?

I have had a DP2 for about a year now, and have had many cameras, SLR and otherwise, before the DP2. The picture quality of the DP2 is simply astonishing, far better than the output of any other camera system I have every owned, in every way. The pixel count is completely immaterial to me. The Foveon pixel debate is analogous to what has happened with computer processors. GHz just doesn't mean what it used to because the technology has evolved. I actually find understanding the technical reasons for this interesting. However, it is at the same time, for me, pointless. I don't care how many pixels my sensor has, nor do I care how the sensor is marketed or what the actual definition of a pixel is (although how one cannot see that there is the same amount of information being captured by the Foven as a Bayer with 3 times the number of "pixels", I do not understand). I only care about the images it produces. I wish more people would objectively try one of the Sigma cameras (with a good sharp lens), look at the pictures, maybe also look at the same pictures at 100% to see the sharpness, detail, lack of noise and artefacts, etc. (it can really be quite amazing), and compare to an excellent Bayer camera without doing all the scientific tests. It is not a small difference. If after doing so someone still prefers to try to overcome the inherent limitations of the Bayer idea with many, many extra pixels, by all means go for it. Don't let me stop you trying to fix the problem by hitting it with a sledgehammer (what must be done to overcome all the artefacts associated with Bayer reminds me of Microsoft trying to fix Windows). All I care is that enough people have their wits about them to keep Sigma in business (although I would much rather all camera makers be able to use Foveon sensors, and that they would choose to do so). But it would be a real shame if the Foveon idea ends up being mothballed because the mainstream cannot see the obviousness that this is an evolution in sensor technology. Would there even be a debate if the Foveon sensors had as many "pixels" as conventional Bayer sensors? It makes me sad when people suffer unnecessarily and go to such lengths to defend the source of their suffering.

good daypeople this is a great forum hope im welcome :)

I think the spin works both ways, bayer color interpolation is a lie as well. Its just the lemmings are used to it now.... the point one needs to make with Foveon is in the images. Oh my, the images.......yes. They are very good indeed, very good.

I really feel that landscape shots are the hardest for digital cameras. They alway leave me feeling that they look somehow fake....Granted the higher the resolution of the sensor the more realistic landscape shots become. Still, nothing beats the look of 4x5 film. Check out this shot with 4x5 film. www.widerange.org/photo/emerald-green/?gallery=favorites By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet. These links must be cut and pasted into your address bar of the browser to get them to work. I am really not pleased with any low end digital cameras for landscapes. The better light scanning backs are awesom in result and price. No moving objects allowed. But back to the Foveon sensors, they are very good indeed. I cannot wait for a higher resolution sensor in the Sigmas... F

Here is a couple of other DP2 shots from the same day...post processed SPP. All shots on tripod. www.flickr.com/photos/foveonic/4042942792/sizes/o/in/photostream/ www.flickr.com/photos/foveonic/4079441550/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Personally, for a $650 camera I couldn't be more pleased.

Lol, JustMe is still amazing me: "Panatomic X is just one film out of dozens. Claiming that film is better than digital because one film MIGHT be better in one particular circumstance is silly. Not to mention that shooting slow films limits what you can shoot. That's why the vast majority of people shot ISO 100-400 films, not slow film. Even Kodachrome went from ISO 25 to 64 to 200." Kodak didn't stop to make Kodachrome 64 when they started to make 200. You missed the point here and you said that digital has better quality than film. It's a huge mistake. Again, drum scan any sub ISo 400 film and no digital camera up to 20MP even get close n terms of dynamic range, noise and tonal/color smoothness. "It's impossible for the SD14 to match the dynamic range of the 5D2 because the sensor in the 5D2 has a dynamic range that exceeds it's own 14 bit A/D converter (at nearly 15 stops), whereas the SD14 has a sensor that has a dynamic range limited to 10 bits (approximately 10 stops). See Roger Clark's analysis of Canon equipment, the actual spec sheet of the Foveon sensor and Imaging Resource's dynamic range tests for further information (I'd provide a link but I can't)." Neither the SD14 nor the 5d2 can handle 10 or even 15 f stops. Having a 14 bit ADC, doesn't means that it can handle 14 f-stops. It's a conceptual mistake from your part. To be honest, I doubt that ANY sensor, and by sensor I mean from photodiodes to CCDs can handle this. " Based on his measurements, the sensor in the 5D II has a photon well capacity of about 66k electrons and a read noise of about of 2.5 electrons, which is 14.7 stops of dynamic range (Table 2). You won't actually get that in a photo because the 14 bit A/D converter limits it to 14 stops and other factors reduce it even further. What that means is that the electronics in the 5D II is the limiting factor, not the sensor. Figure 4 shows how it compares with sensors in other cameras, and where the limit of the 12 and 14 bit A/D converters is." I read a lot of papers from Roger Clark, inlcuding the one you've mentioned. I'm afraid that you understood the mathematics, but you missed its meaning. Read again, maybe 2, 3, 4 more times. Then, maybe you will have a click and understand him. "Roger has done an extensive quantitative analysis of a number of sensors by measuring the photon well capacity and read noise of the sensor itself (which is how you measure dynamic range of the sensor). This is different than evaluating photos because it completely eliminates all of the effects of raw processing, tone curves, gamma, display or print limitations and the biggie, human judgement and bias." So, you buy a camera, just do some DR measurements, count electrons, plot graphics and you don't have to examine the photos anymore. This was the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Now you're saying to put the human judgement away.

I gotta say, I love my DP2. However, I really wish Sigma would produce as soon as possible sensors with more individual photosites. While the DP2 is amazing, I would love to see a larger sensor with more photosites. If they produce larger sensors(full-frame) with more photo sites and put it in a camera that has some of the more modern performance specifications they will stand the DSLR world on its proverbial head. They are so sloooowwwwwww!!!!!! I still however really appreciate the IQ that I get with this remarkable camera. FF

amazing that this thread is still alive & kicking..the sd14 isn't obtainable now @ $350 & the sd15 is still not released.. 2 weeks ago, with photo projects on a dwindle I was about to let my sleeping SD9 go & was thinking of the C 7D (for its video) when a photo-stills project came along & thought of comparing it with my son's Oly e-510, the product is colorful ice-cream (& sundries)-after just the 1st set( of shooting & eating)it's a re-revelation (I knew this 7 yrs ago) and although I can see (a tiny) bit more detail with the e-510, the colors- in film parlance on a light-table,is like looking at (old)ektachrome 100 & velvia 50...my mint sd9 (actually my 1st DSLR!) with all its quirks & foibles is a keeper after all at least for table-top product shots (& to think it almost got sold for $150!)

The November Shutterbug review for Sigma's DP2 ended with this little story. In covering a recent photo trek at Arches National Park in Moab, Utah, that was mentored by four remarkably adept high-end professional photographers, we concluded the event by projecting all our best images on the big screen. Just for fun I submitted half a dozen pictures I?d shot with the DP2, putting them up against superb-quality images taken with the likes of the Nikon D700, D3X, and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. To say that the DP2 images held their own is an understatement?a couple of the pros even asked me what lens I?d used and were astounded when I showed them the camera. Ya know, thats a helluva claim. If true, it really shows some of what some individuals are trying to tell the Bayer sensor neo-phytes. I mean give the Foveons their due. Why freak out about something that is photographically good for all of us. IE MORE CHOICE! FF

I am amazed at this Forensic approach to photography. Thank God that the viewers of images don't require the background knowledge of the sensor manufacturer to enjoy the results they produce. I am an OCD of the nth magnatude. It is a fruitless pursuit to debate taste. So, I have to agree with you. Make the images you enjoy. I think that Foveon is in an infant state backed by and inept camera manufacturer. I still maintain that the images from these sensors have a unique look. If I were the only one saying this I would have to doubt myself. I am not.....I am hoping that this approach will develop (no pun intended) into something great. Best Wishes All FF

Oh and "Just Me" just shot all day with a 5dMkii and the DP2. Image for image I gotta say that the Dynamic range and the Photo quality were and exact tie at images output at 12x18 inches. Epson 3800, premium luster. Now this is happening for 650$ in a camrea that really can fit in a pocket. The 5dMkii owner was a little long in the face when the printing was all done. The 5DMkii of course outclassed the DP2 in every other department as expected. But read the Nov Shutterbug review of the DP2. Read the nice little story (the last paragraph) of the review. The reviewer slipped photos from the DP2 in with the likes of the 5dMkii and Nikons D3 series cameras. The reviewer stated outright that the DP2 did more than hold its own with these highend icons. This is happening with a fairly underdeveloped sensor technology. 4.7 million photosites only vs. 21 million photosites. It does seem to make the Foveon sensors somewhat remarkable. IMHO..... FF

Hahaha ! This Mr. Just Me did everything, no matter on what kind of subject ! It's strange, coz 99% of people here have the clear opinion and preference for the Foveon based cameras. Maybe just him is right and all the other people here are stupid. Talking seriously now: get real, stats are well against you. Maybe you're a friend of Mr. Dipert , trying to save his reputation =) Just kidding, no offense. I had some good laughs when he said that just Sigma gave gifts to the public at PMA and Photokina. I got T-Shirts and hats form Canon, Leica, Nikon, Sony... !!!

"Its true, that straight out of the DP2 output is rather sharp. Dymamic range is very good and the pictures pop. Really, I mean really they pop." Sigma Photo Pro gives a contrast boost and sharpens images, even when set to zero. Do the same in Nikon/Canon software or Photoshop and you can get a lot of 'pop' too. "The 5dmkii can have almost this kind of look, but at a much higher price." Any camera can and often at a lower price, without any lockups or other problems. There's even a dpreview thread going on right now about opening up the SD14 and soldering wires inside it to fix the lockups! "I have been shooting the DP2 for awhile now. Gawd, I love the images from this camera." Liking the results is all that matters. That doesn't mean the sensor is some gift from the heavens. "Color separation, dynamic range and 3deeish output is not a myth. Shoot the damn sensor and see for yourself." It is a myth. Delta-E (color errors) on the Foveon sensor is measurably worse than on Bayer (about 2-3 times as high) and it also suffers from metamerism. Dynamic range is also worse, measured at about 10 stops, compared to 12+ for the likes of a Canon 5D II or Nikon D700. The '3D effect' can happen with any camera, digital or film, and even with paintings. And I have shot with Foveon, thanks for asking.

Wow, what's next? DPreview isn't exactly inpartial. To quote DPreview is something like to quote Wikipedia !

"try to do an astrophoto with a bayer sensor and see by yourself. Star colors will be changed, blur, missing stars and all sort of problems will appear. Even with a 500MP sensor." Where do people come up with this crazy stuff? Star colors will be changed? From what color to what color? Missing stars? What other problems? Got an actual example? Didn't think so. And where is this mythical 500 megapixel sensor? Who makes it? It doesn't exist, does it? But let's assume it does. Are you actually saying that a 4.7 megapixel Foveon sensor is going to do better than a sensor with more than 100 times as many pixels??? Do you realize how absurd that is?

Xin-Huan - "upsampling with the right algorithm, Lanczos for example, can lend to a much more realistic image, due the simple fact of all the needed information is already in the original image. Downsampling is much more complicated, and a decent color interpolation if even more difficult" Upsampling can't add information that isn't there. An upsampled image can never be as good as an image that starts off with higher resolution and that doesn't need to be upsampled. Color interpolation doesn't matter that much because the human eye doesn't resolve color as well as luminance. You don't need fancy algorithms, so it's much easier. "Well, I think that you are trying to be a smartass here, sorry. Those guys surely meant about a Foven vs. 10-12 MP Bayer sensors." That's not what was written. I've seen plenty of people claim that Foveon will always be better than any Bayer camera ever made because of the way it works and that looked like yet another such claim. "It WILL depend on some very well known factors, like the lens quality and sensor size. Do you believe that an 8MP Sony cellphone can produce better images than my old Olympus C5050 5MP camera ? Not even in your dreams. Yes. It CAN outresolve in some circunstances." If you use a lower quality lens or a smaller sensor, the difference will be due to the lens or sensor size, not the sensor type. Did you have a point here? Bob- "For me, you , like the author, have a highly biased opinion and never tried a Foveon based camera. And if you did, you must be a pretty bad photographer." Resorting to personal attacks means you don't have any argument. "Want definition ? Use FILM and a drum scanner. Want a tip ? Kodak Lumiere in 6x9 INCHES size. Maybe in the next 20 years we will see a digicam capable to face this. " We've had cameras that can surpass film cameras for years. Try a Better Light scanning back on that large format camera of yours, and being a scanning back, there is no Bayer interpolation either. The Canon 1Ds III or Nikon D3x produce better results than any 35mm film camera and comparable to medium format film cameras. Even a lowly 40D or D90 outperforms 35mm film cameras.

About "Just Me" post: I don't agree about what you said concerning Mr. Fernando Soares post. He said: "- Any kind of interpolation will insert artifacts NO MATTER of what kind of algorithm - Spatial upsampling is far more easy to do rather than color interpolation. It will still introduce some artifacts but they will be much less annoying than color artifacts. I agree about the Lanczos 8x8. - Bayer process CUTS information and adds "presumed" information. " You replied: "Fernando Soares - since the Sigma image has fewer pixels than other cameras, it must be interpolated more to obtain the same size final result, be it a print or on screen. Therefore, by your own analysis, you don't want Foveon. Also, spatial upsampling is not easier than color interpolation, nor is it less noticeable - it's actually much more noticeable. Your eye can't resolve color as well as it does luminance. That's why Bayer works so well, it's based on how human eyes work. " Mr. Soares said a completely different thing ! "By your own analysis, you don't want Foveon" you said ? Mr. Soares statements are 100% accurate, sorry. For me, you , like the author, have a highly biased opinion and never tried a Foveon based camera. And if you did, you must be a pretty bad photographer. Enough about his thread... Want definition ? Use FILM and a drum scanner. Want a tip ? Kodak Lumiere in 6x9 INCHES size. Maybe in the next 20 years we will see a digicam capable to face this.

Just adding: "Claiming that a camera that has 2640 x 1760 pixels can outresolve one which has 3872 x 2592 is hilarious" Also not true. It WILL depend on some very well known factors, like the lens quality and sensor size. Do you believe that an 8MP Sony cellphone can produce better images than my old Olympus C5050 5MP camera ? Not even in your dreams. Yes. It CAN outresolve in some circunstances.

"And I love statements like 'a Foveon sensor has much more detail than Bayer sensors.' Really? All Bayer sensors?? Every single one? More detail than on a 60 megapixel Hasselblad? More detail than a 24 megapixel Nikon D3x? Get real. " Well, I think that you are trying to be a smartass here, sorry. Those guys surely meant about a Foven vs. 10-12 MP Bayer sensors. " Also, spatial upsampling is not easier than color interpolation, nor is it less noticeable - it's actually much more noticeable" Not true. I work with signal processing for the last 10 years and also a D.Sc. in this discipline. Not a matter of being easier, but what they meant was: "upsampling with the right algorithm, Lanczos for example, can lend to a much more realistic image, due the simple fact of all the needed information is already in the original image. Downsampling is much more complicated, and a decent color interpolation if even more difficult" Have you EVER tried to make any implementation of the mentioned algorithms ?

Strange, I posted a comment here and I can't see it. Just after "Just Me"

There's a number of misunderstandings about Foveon in the comments. First of all, Foveon does not record primary colors on each layer. Read the patents, people. What it records must be converted to RGB and this is a messy mathematical transform that's a lot more complex than Bayer is. That's also partly why it doesn't handle high ISO that well (the transform itself adds noise). Ever wonder why Sigma's own software is so slow? Or why the first two Sigma cameras never did JPEG in camera? There's a lot of computation going on. Bayer is comparatively easy to process and far more accurate than the fanbois want to believe. It's also hard to get exactly correct which is why every Sigma camera has a slightly different 'look'. As for images that pop, keep in mind that the Sigma software boosts contrast and sharpening even when set to zero. Other cameras generally don't do that, so the Sigma images are going to 'pop' but it has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor and everything to do with the processing. Crank up the contrast and sharpness on a Bayer camera and it too will pop. Alan Rockwood - a 10 MP bayer sensor is a 10 MP sensor. It doesn't matter that it has 2.5 MP of red and blue and 5 MP of green. The demosaic process (of which there are many many variants) uses every pixel. In short, 10 million input, 10 million output. Nor is Nyquist measured in megapixels, but cycles per pixel or lines per picture height/width. A 10 MP Bayer sensor does not have '5 MP of resolution' (a meaningless statement). What Nyquist measures is the ability to resolve lines of detail, and in the case of a 10 MP sensor (3872 x 2592 for a Nikon D80), an absolute maximum of 3872 lines per picture width or 2592 lines per picture height. It can never be higher. The fact that some pixels are red or green is irrelevant. Seriously, go read a couple of papers on Bayer algorithms. Claiming that a camera that has 2640 x 1760 pixels can outresolve one which has 3872 x 2592 is hilarious. In the real world (not the fantasy land of some of these commenters), any system will resolve about 70-80% of Nyquist before aliasing becomes a big problem, no matter what the sensor type is, or whether it's audio or video. Sigma can get away without an anti-alias filter because the artifacts aren't as ugly as on Bayer. Unfortunately, aliasing is false detail, not real detail. Those amazing details in Foveon images are mainly alias artifacts and not in the original subject. Basic signal theory here. That's why on a resolution chart, you get the 9 versus 5 lines - classic aliasing. Fernando Soares - since the Sigma image has fewer pixels than other cameras, it must be interpolated more to obtain the same size final result, be it a print or on screen. Therefore, by your own analysis, you don't want Foveon. Also, spatial upsampling is not easier than color interpolation, nor is it less noticeable - it's actually much more noticeable. Your eye can't resolve color as well as it does luminance. That's why Bayer works so well, it's based on how human eyes work. Inquisitor & joejoe - why black and white charts? Ask your eye doctor why his charts are b/w. The only time an eye doctor uses color charts is for color blindness, not testing how well you can see detail. There's a really good reason for that, and it's because humans don't see color that well. Check any book on human vision. And I love statements like 'a Foveon sensor has much more detail than Bayer sensors.' Really? All Bayer sensors?? Every single one? More detail than on a 60 megapixel Hasselblad? More detail than a 24 megapixel Nikon D3x? Get real.

Ford v. Chevy v. Dodge (got Hemi?) My camera can pee farther than urs (in a headwind). Thought digital would take much longer to rival film than it did. Fuji Velvia 50 was my favorite film for its super saturation and contrast. Couldn't afford to make pictures as a hobby so I put the cameras away and balked at the $5k digital cameras that made flat looking pictures and were worth 1/2 as much 6 months later. How much for that Kodak DCS today? Got change for a $50? Trade you straight across for my vintage Pentax K1000, the meter still works, even. TTL, yeah! Decided one day that DSLRs were cheap enough to not cry about and started looking at offerings from Chevy and Ford, uh I mean Nikon and Canon. Years of 35mm taught me you can't go wrong with either brand. Had heard of the foveon sensor years and years back and somehow stumbled across some pictures made by Sigma's(?!) SD14. "Isn't that the cheapie lens mfr?" I'm a glass snob. Thanks, Dad. Nikkor, Canon or Schneider FTW. My reaction to those pictures was something along the lines of "WTF?!" Not many days thereafter followed by the UPS guy dropping off my Sigma after some ebay bargain hunting. Hey, cool! They gave me a camera bag an extra battery too! Am I a Sigma fan? The camera is buggy, tempermental and slow. The JPEGS are all the wrong color so I have to shoot RAW and process one by one. But hey still faster than the 1 hour fotomat and way faster and cleaner than the bathroom developer, stopper and fixer setup. But the images... POP. At the end of the day, it's what makes your client or beholder of your work say "wow!" Canon make a camera that makes pictures pop like this and I will buy it, Nikon make a camera that makes pictures pop like this and I will buy it. Heck Chevy, make a camera that makes pictures pop like this and I will drive it. -fin.

Man I almost had an hearth attack when I read the Author's replies. at 7/16/2007 5:31:09 PM, Brian Dipert said: Dear Christian, I'll requote from Popular Photography's writeup... at 7/15/2007 3:06:03 PM, Brian Dipert said: Dear Laurence Matson, peruse (for example) the Wikipedia definition of 'pixel' Quoting Wikipedia ? ROFL !!!! Popular Photography ? Wow, what a serious pubrication eh ! What's next ? A MS Windows arcticle based on MS papers ?

Lol.. I loved the "drank the anti-Foveon Kool-Aid"... We should give him a break, otherwise his sponsors won't give him other cameras to play =) That's exactly what I meant when I said he has a biased review... This review was made just to expose a very tendencious point of view. He's a theoretical photographer who shoots targets and garage doors for tests. Again, show us pictures from real world and real situations. After this we can talk. Want some nice ones? 1) any kind of mesh (tissues , fishing nets) 2) forest scenes with leaves against sky, grass 3) bright cumulus clouds over a deep blue sky 4) flower/insect macros with fine veins 5) The best one: astrophotography ! take a wide field picture, with a 40mm lens in your BEST non Foveon SLR, attached to a tracking mount and repeat the test with a Foveon based camera. Set both to the same ISO setting and do exposures from 5s to 1 minute at f=2.8 ; You will be surprised when you see that the Bayer sensor picture shows LESS stars. Think Why as an excercice =) That's why astrophotographers uses monochromatic sensors with RGB filters over. Well... better stop here.

Mr Rockwood is pretty right. You commited a HUGE mistake and lost your path and any sense about the bayer vs foveon sensor. It's just about mathematics and physics, and I now know that your knowledge is pretty limited in this area. Sorry. Really. The post from Mr. AFS put all this stuff in a somewhat harsh, but direct way. I must also agree with Mr. Soares statement. Mr. Dipert, nice try, but you said a lot of biased (to the wrong diresction) information and surely you don't have any mathematical background in this area. Again, sorry for being so direct. 1) If you want to compare IMAGES, you need to do a test in controlled conditions, in real world. Yes, I know that you know how to use target charts... =) 2) You need to use equivalent lenses, if the same model doesn't exists for both cameras. Again, not smart (or maybe just too smart) to compare images from a sigma kit lens with a Pro Nikkor or something in this sense. 3) Light conditions MUST be the same, because the sensor signal/noise ratio may have a noticeable contribution. 4) And for God's sake... Please don't insist about that black and white s**t. Who the hell on earth shoots 100% BW in a digital camera ? And WHY,WHY,WHY someone would let the camera itself do the BW processing insteas of using a good dedicated software ? Gimme a break... 5) Shoot in REAL world, with performace compatible optics and compare REAL pictures. Best: Show them to us.

It's very interesting to see that some people are no so blind and trust in every crap some "experts" write all over the internet. The posts from joejoe, Antonio, AFS and guardian proves my point. Those guys knows what they are saying. - Any kind of interpolation will insert artifacts NO MATTER of what kind of algorithm - Spatial upsampling is far more easy to do rather than color interpolation. It will still introduce some artifacts but they will be much less annoying than color artifacts. I agree about the Lanczos 8x8. - Bayer process CUTS information and adds "presumed" information. I agree with the "fishy" opinion. Funny term.

It's much easyer to upsample a 4.7 MP image to 2x larger rather than doing a really good color interpolation. Supersamples images from a Foveon *may* have more detail than from conventional Bayer type sensors, in terms of pure mathemathics. It's just a matter of choosing a better algorithm than bilinear, bicubic and splines. I agree about the Lanczos, but you may also try the Mitchell algorithm. You're all talking too much. Now show your pictures and tests, specifying the test conditins and equipment and maybe I'll consider something more than people just trying to say beautiful words here. I have a Sigma SD-14 and a Sony A900. Believe me, the Sigma camera really rocks in terms of sharpness. And like Mr. AFS stated, are you comparing lenses of the same class ? Not fair to compare a pro Nikkor against the SD-14 kit lens. LOL. Funny. I don't believe in magazine reviews. I believe just in my eyes.

Well, I'm a professional photographer and I have used lots of cameras like the Fuji Finepix S5Pro , Nikon D100 and Canon EOS 5D, among many other ornes. I can tell you all that the Foveon X3 sensor from the Sigma DP2 really rocks, delivering extremely crisp and detail rich images. You are all just talking too much. Try it and see by yourselves. By the way I'm an engineer and I worked for a long long time with signal processing. Bayer type sensors have a big problem, called color interpolation. A pixel can have UP TO 1/3 of the color RGB value, maximum. The other 2/3 need to be estimated by interpolation. This will ALWAYS introduce color artifacts, detail loss and other nasty things. You you are getting inferior pictures from a Foveon, you're doing something wrong, like comparing an EOS 5d-II with a pro S-series lens against a Sigma SD-14 with an amateur lens. Be serious ! Second thing: Foveons are to be used ONLY in raw mode. If you need a larger image interpolate to 2x using Lanczos 8x8. C'mon, IMHO the author has a biased opinion and looks like trying to sell his fish.

Brian, sorry it didn't seem to come out the way I intended. My complaint was the opposite of saying that you 'drank Foveon's Kool-Aid'. From there, I went into some problems with Foveon that I don't think get enough emphasis. But back to the issue of how "Bayer pattern sensors (are forced to) use low-pass filters" and how this degrades their claimed resolution. It is fair for you to say that Foveon doesn't give their claimed resolution. But neither does Bayer. All in all, I think the most accurate true Bayer resolution is 50% of their sensor sites. So a so-called 10 megapixel sensor is really 5 megapixel. Put it another way, you acknowledge that Bayer requires low pass filters and we all know that means a loss of resolution. Well, I see that I'm just repeating Alan Rockwood so I'll just say I agree with everything he said.

I despise the SD14's flash, the Sigma Pro Photo software, and the painfully long file writing. I love the SD14's images (particularly when using some of my classic M42 lenses) and it's gimmick-free layout. Canons, Nikons, and Pentaxes are far more low-maintenance cameras than the SD14, and probably better cameras for the vast majority of users. But for image purists like me, be it a macro shot of a flower or a candid shot of my daughter (or a landscape shot of the mountains, or a still-life of my desk, or a sunrise shot on the Puget Sound), the SD14 gets my vote hands down. Pixel-schmixel. Let's compare pictures and then we'll talk.

Big lens, hackable, cases exist where it is not hated; better to squeeze the technology hard to make those claims come in, as is done with digital film cameras, and then report on how blasted contrived those cases were to come by. That or buy the Twitter card for the camera. It has that slot, right?

Dear craigi, and as I just Tweeted (www.twitter.com/brianzbrain/statuses/1485283581), the Sigma DP1 is down to $399 today only at Amazon...

At $350 currently, the SD14 is quite a deal BUT ONLY IF it fits the need. In my case, it didn''t. It is for people who know what they are doing and are willing to do post processing on every photo. Still, that one out of ten photos that I took which were somewhat right - are definitely a step up in detail from any camera in that discounted price range. Especially stuff like the patterns on a high end rug, or the fur on an animal, etc..... I think either Sigma or someone else will eventually get it right, but for now these products should be considered "beta" and for those who go in with their eyes open (know that they want - meaning generally well lit still photography.

I do not care about the technical specifications. I do care about the image produced. I find that with the SD14 I get more "pop" out of my images with little or no time in image editing. It produces great prints as well. When I use my Canon 40d I also get great images but it requires much more effort in the editing room. The SD14 is great tool for producing great images. I was skeptical of the SD14 until I got one and began using it. It is my first choice for well lit non-sports photography. The big drawback is noise at the higher iso settings. Canon is king in the noise/low light arena. I have used Canon for the past 12 years and will say that the Sigma is much more fun to shoot with. I do not know why this is, maybe it is because it just acts differently than the big guns in the camera market. I guess that people should not rely on specs and numbers to make their decisions for them.

Even later to the party but I just can''t resist pointing out a few things: 1) That the SD14 is not a 14 MP camera is hardly news. Of course it''s not. 2) This statement "So, in real-world shooting -- where it''s hard to find finely detailed red-and-blue subjects or scenes that have little green or b&w detail" is entirely subjective and is best disregarded, perhaps with the rest of the article. What is "Real world shooting", and for WHO? How much is "little" detail? If you shoot sports and I shoot orchids, our "Real world shooting" will be quite different. 3) What''s the point in rubbishing a technology that is attempting to improve on the current norm? That''s my three cents.

Excellent discussion .. from a broadcast video background and working very much in HD at present .. it seems that the main area ignored is that the lens puts down image detail accurately on to a sensor surface that is - in the case of Foveon - doing what film does and producing single location colour accurate results .. whereas Bayer sensors are location shifting the optical image colour information .. so will produce output that is more 'testing' of the lens capability, especially as we approach higher pixel counts on finite area surfaces of sensor. We also have to take into account the 'post processing' that is essential to bring correlation of the colour information on Bayer sensors. Pixel shifting works on video cameras.. but leaves a less than satisfactory impression of 'resolution lost' along the line somewhere. I think the marketing 'hype' regarding pixel 'resolution is something that it is good to see challenged .. but commonsense tells us it's only a matter of time before the sensors exceed the resolution of 70mm film .. and then we all relax? In the meantime ... a '14' MP Foveon sensor working in 'native' mode produces a much smaller file than a 14MP Bayer sensor yet only a fraction less resolution ..according to the tests ... surely this should be the correct comparison to look at?

Dear Mr. Expert, "Sigma SD14 Dissatisfaction: Finally Believe Me, Foveon Fanboys?" Why should I believe you? There are other like Mr. Mike Chaney, also an expert who might differ. Me thinks thou protest too much! Isn''t that a bit Cavalier to the point of self-appointed "guru-dom?" Yours truly, Mr. Fanboy

Some like Ectachrome, some Kodachrome. I always liked Agfachrome 50. I developed my Tri-X in D76 or Acufine and printed "down with contrast," grain and all. I like the results of the SD14 and there are some wonderful programs like PhotoZoom for enlargements. Frankly, I think too many of you out there are "spoiled rotten." Compared to what we had even as little as 30 years ago, we are in the midst of a technical revolution that has rocked such giants as Kodak. The SD14 provides results that are, INM?H?O vastly superior to film, especially in the light of softwear like PhotoShop, DXO and PTGui. Just think of it, we can now buy software that makes our electronically rendered photo look like, you guessed it, Tri-X, Velvia, Sepia or Kodachrome. Some of the best photos were made with Brownies So let us (notice, I include myself) stop whining and start making Photgraphs!

I''m not convinced that Sigma is right to use these pixel counts - but they aren''t the ones who started mis-leading the public - and their action is certainly as fair as those of the Bayer crowd. In *any* other application, like an LCD screen for example, a pixel is made up of red, green, and blue elements. You don''t call your 1024x768 LCD panel 3072x768 or 1024X768x3 - though any current camera company would - the first is what Bayer cameras do, and the second what Sigma is doing. That''s right. Bayer MegaPixels are just wrong. 2/3rds of the information in every output pixels is an interpolated guess. This is where Moire comes in, and the reason you have to sharpen Bayer images, either in camera or in development - your "native" resolution is substantially interpolated to begin with. The fact that sharpness varies in a natural, optical fashion creates the "3D" look of the sigma, which Bayers can only achieve by downsizing. So Sigma gave an honest 3.4 megapixels to the SD9 - and the world ignored it because the Bayer crowd was providing a dishonest 6-8 MP and the same time. (which the SD9 generally out resolved.) In choosing to call the SD10 "10 megapixel," they only committed the same deception that all other digital cameras have except for the few monochrome models out there. I don''t generally consider myself a "Sigma Fanboy," but the answer to your question is no, I''m not at all convinced. The Sigma rating is at least as accurate as that of competing Bayer Cameras, and test pictures from a dozen sources show it matching resolution with Canon''s magnificent 5D on even terms. (Note, pictures, in the real world, not B&W test charts that favor the asymmetric color resolution of a Bayer sensor.) Walter

BTW, if you really don't think Bayer CFA sensors guess, then I have just one word for you... MOIRE.

How can a Bayer CFA sensor calculate the color on the area of a single photosite, when that single photosite has a color filter that blocks two of the three primary colors? By looking at adjacent photosite data, and GUESSING that, based upon a very complicated algorithm, given a certain data value at this and adjacent photosites an assumption can be made that the color at this particular photosite is "X". Any change in color that is too small to hit at least three adjacent photosites is subject to miscalculation, i.e., a bad guess. The Foveon approach, on the other hand, has three separate color-sensitive photodetectors in the same area (because they're vertically stacked). Therefore, changes in color that hit a single photosite are detectable... unlike with a Bayer sensor. Want proof? Take a 50mm M42 lens with an EOS adapter, put it on a Canon 5D, and take a picture. Put the same lens, with an SA adapter, on an SD10. A 2268x1512 center crop out of the 5D's image will be identical to the image from the SD10 in terms of image coverage because the photodetector (pixel to you non-technical types) size is almost identical. You will notice that fine detail which cannot be seen on the 5D image is clearly visible on the SD10 image. Why? Because the 5D's image processing algorithm guessed wrong, and because the SD10's image processing algorithm didn't have to guess.

The pixel count problem arose due to the fact that the conventional way of sizing sensors does not take into account the vertical stacking (VFA) Foveon used. Initially Foveon tried to indicate the difference my simply adding X3 (time 3), but people started classifying the SD9 as just a 3.4mp camera, so Foveon did the multiplying and called the SD10 a 10.2mp camera and the SD14 a 14mp camera. Given the fact that a case can be made that the CFA (aka Bayer) is not truly an Xmp camera, we really do need a common designation everyone can agree to. This will be hard enough from a technical point of view, and once the marketeers get involved almost impossible The more general problem is trying to come up with a fair way of comparing the Foveon/Sigma cameras with the CFA (aka Bayer) cameras given just how different these two approaches are. Take resolution (only one element of IQ), for example. The conventional B&W resolution charts do not work well, and the various attempts to come up with alternatives have not yet gotten to the point where everyone agrees. Furthermore there are other factors in IQ resolution does not address. Which leaves us with the ?subjective? reaction to the images themselves. I personally find the Foveon images captivating in a way the CFA images are not and have taken part in some of the discussions trying to find out why. There are a number of factors that have been suggested, some of which are not just ?subjective,? but again, we are not yet at a point where everyone agrees. At the same time I have never suggested the best CFA images are not very good indeed. I am less interested in the ?which is best? debates since they often raise the number of variables to the point where the whole debate becomes a set of crossed monologues. To the degree they explore new ways of making comparisons they have some value, however. BTW, ad hominem does not help much either. I am a fan of IQ, but at the age of 68 I am no longer a boy, and if Fan Boy is meant to suggest I am uncritical, that too is inaccurate. Given the hope that we are all interested in the furthering of ?the catching of light,? as some called photography, lets keep the debates focused, please.

Brian: As the author of the report (s) in Popular Photography and Imaging, I''m of course pleased to find someone who agrees with my findings. I''d only add that I think both Foveon and Sigma did themselves a dis-service by hyping the pixel counts as they have for both generations of X3 sensors. The fact is that for a 4.7MP layered-sensor the current one in the SD14 resolves at the equivalent level of an 8-9MP Bayer-pattern sensor, and it records some color details better (but not all). Why couldn''t Foveon just promote that fact and not try to "rewrite history"? By the way, Foveon attempts to rewrite history again on its web site with the following quote: "For over 100 years, color film has traditionally been held as the gold standard for photography. It produces rich, warm tones and incredible color detail that consumers around the world have become accustomed to. Film has achieved this by using three layers of emulsion to capture full color at every point in the image." WIthout even checking my Focal Encyclopedia of Photography I can tell you that color film hasn''t been around for 100 years. But that encyclopedia gives credit to Kodak in 1935 for the intro of Kodachrome as the first commercially viable color film. Prior to that, color photography and printing relied on screening and filter techniques that recorded separate color data on panchromatic film and required precise registration in both capture and printing. That is actually a process that it closer to mimicking the Bayer Pattern! My test of the SD14 also pointed out the failings of this camera and sensor at higher ISO''s (above 400) just as my tests on the original SD9 pointed out its failings in exposure latitude compared to typical CCD and CMOS sensors. For the price of the camera, these performance problems made it non-competitive with other cameras such as the Nikon D200 or Canon EOS 30D.

Dear Christian, I'll requote from Popular Photography's writeup, which echoes comments I've made several times in the past: "Foveon and Sigma are right in saying that color moiré in very fine detail was a problem in early digital cameras using Bayer pattern sensors. However, most manufacturers now use low-pass filters and image processing to minimize or eliminate moiré. The loss in resolution goes unnoticed because of higher pixel counts." Now granted, if you do a wall-sized enlargement of a tiny portion of the original image, you might still see a per-pixel color accuracy difference with a Foveon sensor-based camera versus a Bayer pattern alternative....but then again, I'd argue you'd be much less likely to do such a thing with a Foveon-based camera because of its inherently lower pixel count! And I agree with your fundamental distaste of interpolation, by the way....I've never been a fan of 'digital zoom' (as my writeups have, I think, made clear).

I would not use Wikipedia as a technical reference. And the definition ''''the smallest complete sample of an image'''' has no meaning. It may get one in a different form like ''''the smallest complete independent sample of an image''''. Independent is the key here. This is why interpolation is not accepted as a method to increase the real resolution. Because pixels would be no longer independent. But then not even the professional cameras deliver fully independent pixels there is always some blurring. And now the big question: how much cross-correlation is acceptable between adjacent pixels?

Dear Laurence Matson, peruse (for example) the Wikipedia definition of 'pixel'. Both in the image capture and image display realms, common and longstanding industry convention refers a pixel as 'the smallest complete sample of an image'. The word 'complete' is key here, as is another portion of the Wikipedia essay; 'in color systems, each pixel has typically three or four dimensions of variability such as red, green, and blue, or cyan, magenta, yellow, and black.' Now look at the X3 Technology overview writeups on Foveon's website. Foveon has long attempted to redefine 'pixel' to mean an image capture element, convenient because in doing so it enables them to effectively triple their sensors' claimed pixel counts (i.e. their 'resolution', again referencing common and longstanding industry convention reference of the term). I'll directly quote one example of Foveon's attempt to rewrite history for you (reference: www.foveon.com/article.php?a=68): 'A pixel on the image sensor of a digital camera is a light absorbing element (photodetector) that converts light (photons) into electrons. A pixel is also referred to as a pixel sensor when there is a need to distinguish the pixel from its location. A pixel location is the X,Y coordinate on the two-dimensional grid of an image sensor at which the pixel is located.' This is absolute rubbish. We don't refer to the red, green and blue sub-elements within each LCD pixel as 'pixels', we refer to them as sub-pixels. Similarly, it makes no sense to refer to the red-, green- and blue-tuned photodiodes within each Foveon sensor pixel as pixels in and of themselves....call them subpixels, if you wish, but NOT pixels. I've never disputed the fact that Foveon's approach MAY provide more accurate color than a Bayer patterned-sensor of equivalent pixel resolution. But is Foveon's latest X3 sensor '14.1 Mpixel' (reference: www.foveon.com/article.php?a=222)? No, I've consistently said. And Popular Photography has just confirmed my stance. End of story.

You state: ". . . that simply by embedding discrete red, green and blue spectrum-optimized photodiodes within each photosite (pixel), Foveon can''''t claim that they''''ve tripled the sensor''''s resolution." Could you please cite one piece of literature from Foveon claiming that they have "tripled the sensor''''s resolution."? Remember, resolution is the operative word in the above. And while you are at it, please explain how spatial locations are related to resolution. (That might be easier.) Finally, since you are a big reporter at PMA, you obviously missed the amazing video presentation by Foveon at PMA 2005!