«

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html

"Guido Vollbeding" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Tomash Bednarz wrote:
> >
> > http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html
>
> Another obsolete product with a Bayer sensor which produces
> only artificial digital images. Don't buy!
>
> Regards
> Guido

Guido=Idiot

Film photos are artificial images rendered via chemical reaction.
Music CDs are artificial representations of instrument vibrations.
Etc etc...

Mark M wrote:
>
> Film photos are artificial images rendered via chemical reaction.
> Music CDs are artificial representations of instrument vibrations.
> Etc etc...

But not all digital image sensors drop two thirds of the native
picture information like Canon's.

Regards
Guido

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:08:24 +0200, Guido Vollbeding wrote:

> Mark M wrote:
>>
>> Film photos are artificial images rendered via chemical reaction. Music
>> CDs are artificial representations of instrument vibrations. Etc etc...
>
> But not all digital image sensors drop two thirds of the native picture
> information like Canon's.

Ah, so we should all buy Sigma SD-9's eh? SLR systems are about more than
just the body. The Foveon sensor, while a promising technology is crippled
by being available only in a Sigma body, limited to Sigma lenses, and
limited to a 3 megapixel image. It also suffers from significantly higher
noise than Canon's CMOS sensors, due to the layer stacking.

Mike.

Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>
> The Foveon sensor, while a promising technology is crippled
> by being available only in a Sigma body, limited to Sigma lenses,
> and limited to a 3 megapixel image.

The Foveon image is a *complete picture* image, while the Canon
is *one third* picture, *regardless* of the Megapixel count!

> It also suffers from significantly higher
> noise than Canon's CMOS sensors, due to the layer stacking.

The Canon image has only one third measured picture data of the
Foveon image, thus one third of noise.
Less data - less noise; more data - more noise. That's logical.

Regards
Guido

youre a ****ing dipshit.


"Guido Vollbeding" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> >
> > The Foveon sensor, while a promising technology is crippled
> > by being available only in a Sigma body, limited to Sigma lenses,
> > and limited to a 3 megapixel image.
>
> The Foveon image is a *complete picture* image, while the Canon
> is *one third* picture, *regardless* of the Megapixel count!
>
> > It also suffers from significantly higher
> > noise than Canon's CMOS sensors, due to the layer stacking.
>
> The Canon image has only one third measured picture data of the
> Foveon image, thus one third of noise.
> Less data - less noise; more data - more noise. That's logical.
>
> Regards
> Guido

"reg-john" <> wrote:

>youre a ****ing dipshit.

No need to resort to that kind on language. It's enough that he's
*wrong*.


>"Guido Vollbeding" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>> >
>> > The Foveon sensor, while a promising technology is crippled
>> > by being available only in a Sigma body, limited to Sigma lenses,
>> > and limited to a 3 megapixel image.
>>
>> The Foveon image is a *complete picture* image, while the Canon
>> is *one third* picture, *regardless* of the Megapixel count!
>>
>> > It also suffers from significantly higher
>> > noise than Canon's CMOS sensors, due to the layer stacking.
>>
>> The Canon image has only one third measured picture data of the
>> Foveon image, thus one third of noise.
>> Less data - less noise; more data - more noise. That's logical.
>>
>> Regards
>> Guido
>

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

"Guido Vollbeding" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> >
> > The Foveon sensor, while a promising technology is crippled
> > by being available only in a Sigma body, limited to Sigma lenses,
> > and limited to a 3 megapixel image.
>
> The Foveon image is a *complete picture* image, while the Canon
> is *one third* picture, *regardless* of the Megapixel count!

It's a completely garbage image. There's no way to get a correct signal from
any discrete sampling system without an antialiasing filter, and the Sigma
leaves that filter out.

> > It also suffers from significantly higher
> > noise than Canon's CMOS sensors, due to the layer stacking.
>
> The Canon image has only one third measured picture data of the
> Foveon image, thus one third of noise.
> Less data - less noise; more data - more noise. That's logical.

Since the technologies are different, there's no way to compare without
looking at the actual performance. The Sigma doesn quite well at ISO 100,
but is somewhat problematic at ISO 200 and 400. And doesn't do ISO 800 and
1600, where the 10D performs amazingly well.

All in all, the SD9 is a disaster of a camera. You'd be better off with a
consumer digital.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

MarkH wrote:
>
> Foveon = 3mpix x 3colour per pixel.
> Canon = 6mpix x 1 colour per pixel.
>
> Most of us can see that the Canon sensor delivers two thirds the data of
> the Foveon, not one third.

That's one argument.
But my argument was another:
From the same *picture frame* (image scene), the Canon sensor uses only
one third of the native light information for building its image, while
discarding two thirds.

> But because the Foveon is mounted in a Sigma, I bought the Canon instead
> (And I’m very happy with the images from my 10D).

Some years ago I was happy with such images, too.
But today they suck.

Regards
Guido

Guido Vollbeding <> wrote:
:
: But not all digital image sensors drop two thirds of the native
: picture information like Canon's.

It's funny that a guy with an email address that has the word "JPEG" in it
is complaining about dropping information. Have you looked into the JPEG
specs lately and figured out just how much "unnecessary" information is
dropped when compressing an image into JPEG format?

Dodo.

-Charles

--
Charles Robinson
Eagan, MN

http://www.visi.com/~charlesr