Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Foveon technology

Reply
Thread Tools

Foveon technology

 
 
John McGraw
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Hi All
First, disclaimers:
#1.) I really don't want to start a flame war, but I have little idea
how or where else to ask this.
#2.) Please, please ignore that poor kid, mental case's posts. The one
who takes famous aviators names. Really the only sensible thing is to
ignore him. He deserves help, but this is not the forum for it.

I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
& design problems w/ those two.
Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.
Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
wouldn't base my decision on that part alone. What is that thing
called? Focal plane? Light sensors... the pixelator in the back. I've
been pixilated in the back of some bars in Alaska a few times, but
that's a different story. Seriously though folks, what is a good, up
to date digital photography dictionary or computer dictionary that
covers photo.? I need help in more ways than one.

Thank You Very Much, John
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
> Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
> over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
> housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
> use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
> after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
> 5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
> & design problems w/ those two.


Nikon is normally pretty good with quality, and if not quality, customer
service. I wouldn't worry too much. People can bitch too much.

> Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
> claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
> insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
> sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
> customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
> problem.


http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/

In my opinion, the Foveon sensor looks good on paper, but it doesn't
deliver enough for the bux. If you're looking to spend money on a dSLR,
a Canon dRebel or Nikon D70 will do you just fine. Heck, a lot of 4-5
megapixel point and shoots can outdo the Foveon in the SD10.

In case you haven't found it yet:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Great site for comparative reviews, sample shots and more.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
John McGraw wrote:
[]
> I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
> Liked it's 28 to ~80mm


Go for it! An excellent camera particularly if the wide-angle end is your
preference. The 5400 is a more modern alternative. You will learn a lot,
and then have a better base from which to make any further decisions.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (John McGraw) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:

> Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
> claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
> insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
> sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
> customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
> problem.


There are two good reviews at www.dpreview.com of SD9 and SD10.
As with any serious review you can read whatever you like, so
.... be prepared to see both sides using those reviews in their
arguments

> Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
> just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
> that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
> wouldn't base my decision on that part alone.


Yepp ... this is very important to understand. If the Sigma camera
contained a normal Bayer sensor, there is nothing that recommends it.
It is more expensive (than Canon 300D and Nikon D70), it has a smaller
sensor with fewer pixels and you can only use Sigma lenses.

So ... if you shall buy the Sigma, it is *only* the sensor technology
that is the reason for doing so. So, if you want to buy a Sigma, make
sure you like the output from the camera first.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven M. Scharf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004

"John McGraw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...

> Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
> claiming that it is truly a significant advancement.


Just read the reviews on the two consumer cameras that use a Foveon sensor.

The idea of three photodetectors per pixel is not new. Foveon's first
attempt was a good try, but as the reviews show, it still lags the more
widely used Bayer approach. Actually, Foveon's first attempt was using three
separate sensors and using a prism to separate colors; this worked pretty
well.

The Foveon sensor does work well at lower ISOs, and with very good lighting
conditions.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Georgette Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (John McGraw) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> Can anyone direct me to unbiased
> sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
> customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
> problem.



Here they are. Note, there are no such thing as hexagonal pixels, and
the SD9 outputs 14MP pics straight out of camera with far less
interpolation (and zero color interpolation) than the S2 uses at 12MP.
More pixels is bad, bad, bad, not good, unless optical resolution is
higher and the S2 has about half the SD9's optical resolution accross
the board (SD9 has 3.43M RGB triplets vs only 1.5M for the S2 Pro).
Any image can be upscaled to any number of pixels.


The best camera I ever used! Period!, December 7, 2003
Reviewer: Boris Vinnik - See all my reviews


Well, this camera is something special and I have been compelled write
this review because of couple of reasons. For the first, here the
reasons. I read many bad , negative reviews of this camera and in the
same time all those people who actually used it told how much they
have being amazed by the picture quality it produces. So I've decided
to try. The camera's images are not amazed they are stunned. The image
quality is so high that it left me speechless for the first.
I'm just wandering about those who left negative reviews about it? The
CNET review, that named it "mediocre SLR camera" is just a plain lie.
In my opinion they giving point for those who gives more money, it's
it. Another interesting "review", I read from Ken Rockwell (really
gifted photo artist!, no questions!), who reviewed this camera without
even try it!
So let start. First of all, it is NOT 3.5M camera. It is AT LEAST 10M
camera, but megapixels in the traditional meaning just are not
applicable here. This camera produces NEGATIVES. This negative is
result of 10M photo elements. In the same time any of 6M cameras has
HALF OF THEM GREEN and ONLY 25% red and another 25% blue. If we speak
about "image quality" using this kind of "resolution" , this camera
produces 14M images. In the same time the "real" resolution of those
"6M" cameras stand about 1.5M, the everything else is a pure deceiving
interpolation. I see that Cannon and NIkon, aren't happy to see this
Sigma on the market, since it MUCH SUPERIOR to any camera they make
they started to discredit it.
I do not say it is an ideal, but it close. Much closer than everything
else that feels like SLR.
This Sigma produces PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES. I mean it. There's full range
of amazing continuos beautiful halftones as you can see on the best
reversible films. The pictures are spectacular.
Since it is real photographic tool, you come back to the true that
photography and it is about light. Your raw pictures will normally
produce 3000 by 4500 huge images that is not interpolating, they just
"enlargements" from digital negative. It reviles as many details that
ANY other camera can't produce. There are 14M cameras on the market,
but they DO NOT MUCH this SIgma in the meaning of photography. I can
blow my raw image 4 times more and it still looking better than those
from 14M Canon. By the way, those image from Cannon show horrible
color reproduction, especially in the red. For example two closely
colored redish colors coming out the same!
This Sigma saves colors! It saves the real colors, not the
estimations, not the interpolations but the real thing. Camera has
just the everything that it has to have, including the high speed
synchronization up to 1/6000 !!!
The lens from Sigma just as good(or better) as any other lenses from
Nikon , Cannon or Minolta. Even cheap $100 tag slow glass is of very
good optical quality. Yes/ for $100 you're getting slow lenses, but it
almost distortion free and high contrast! But fro $300 you can get
perfectly fast, noticeably bright zoom that at least as good as any
lens from "leading companies".
Camera is very well constructed, it handles as it should be, the
focusing system is fast, the screen is bright and clear, all controls
location are very clever and logical. I like this camera and you're
going to like it too. No boundaries anymore. You can print image as
large as you need, no questions. In two, three years Foveon will
overcome. I



Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)



4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

The best image quality currently available at any price, July 12,
2003
Reviewer: An electronics fan

Given reasonable light, this DSLR bests all others in overall image
quality with its 10.2M sensors and astounding sharpness. The best
digital portrait camera in existence.

Don't be fooled by the camera's 3.5MP rating--that is
non-interpolated--all other digital camera manufactures, including all
DSLRs, list only interpolated resolutions as their MP rating. This
inflates other cameras' MP rating by a factor of 3 times relative to
the SD-9, since they count each Red, Green, and Blue sensor as a sigle
"pixel." The SD-9 counts a full set of three sensors, one Red, one
Green, and one Blue, as a single "pixel." Foveon.com claims the SD-9's
image quality bests film for any given capture area, and approaches
medium format film quality for enlargements up to 40 inches. Some
report that sharp enlargements up to 8 feet on the long side are
possible from the SD-9's interpolated 14MP output files. The camera's
software is the best available. The SD-9 always works losslessly, so
be sure to compare only RAW mode specs when comparing to other DSLR's
operating speed and convenience of workflow.

Price is amazingly low for a DSLR with so many sensors, now below
[$$$]...Hopefully Amazon.com will match them soon.

Not the best DSLR for low light--low light noise is a weakness. Still,
can produce very fine low light/night pics with experience.



Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)



14 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

Great pictures, hefty price, May 9, 2003
Reviewer: An electronics fan (Edmond, Oklahoma)

I'm basically a point and shoot kinda guy. Before this I owned a run
of the mill Olympus D-490.
Wow, what a difference. I've been snapping away for over 2 weeks with
this little gem and am shocked at the picture quality. It's amazing
what a little jump in technology can do. This X3 chip produces great
color, fantastic detail and it's easy enough to have running in
minutes, providing you have all the batteries, and it takes alot.

The downsides are that it's heavy, like a couple of pounds w/ the lens
and flash (sold separately). It's expensive, try shelling out 1.5k USD
and telling your wife it's for a camera. Ouch.
It requires Sigma software - I think if your going to charge an arm
and a leg for a camera, it should take images in a standardized
format. I appreciate the fact that the images in "sigma" format are
infinitely manipulatable, but geesh. At least give us a choice if we
want all that control in every shot.
The pics cant be blown up very much. Now as an aside, I'm no master
with the software yet, but on Hi quality with autofocus on the darn
thing makes great pics, but viewing at anything over 2:1 magnification
in Paint Shop produces pixelated images. It's a quirk, but it matters
to me.

Other than that, like I said, images are great. It's fun to run
because it's so much like a pro-shot camera, but still easy enough for
the average PHD to run it. (PHD= Push Here Dummy

This camera is great.., December 27, 2002
Reviewer: "webcamdotcom" (Irvine, CA USA) - See all my reviews
I got mine last week, and it's image quality is the best of any
digital camera.
My only complaint is that for the price they skimped on the little
things... Specifically one of the battery doors is poorly made (I
broke it after inserting the batteries )

But after shooting pictures almost continuously over the holidays, I
have to say that the Sony 717 doesn't compare.

Lance

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)





35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

the future of digital, November 22, 2002
Reviewer: "shentzu" (AZ) - See all my reviews
unlike some reviewers, i have actually seen and held this camera.
while i only took 3 pictures, simply loading them and having a look is
shocking. this camera and the underlying X3 chip blow away everything
in digital photography today. getting all three colors (rather than
one like all other digital cameras) in each pixel gives you images you
can easily enlarge without loss and artifacts. this camera easily
blows away cameras costing many times more.
this isn't a true 3 MP camera. it is more like a 9 MP. but better....
there is no longer a reason to not go digital.

getting 3 colors per pixel means no interpolation. that in turn means
sharper, truer color, photos without artifacts. in short, digital
photos without the digital look. some of the photos taken with this
camera are as good as medium format film images.

digital is not as good as film, it is now better.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)





11 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

has anyone tried this camera?, November 11, 2002
Reviewer: A customer
My star rating doesn't count because I have not tried the product.
Seattle customer, is it correct to infer that your opinion is not
based on actually trying the camera? As I understand it, the Foveon
image sensor in the SD9 is different from the sensors in the 6
megapixel cameras you refer to in that each pixel in the SD9 is
capable of sensing either red, blue, or green light, whereas in the
conventional sensors any given pixel can only sense one color. That
means it takes three pixels in a conventional sensor to provide the
true color data provided by one pixel in the Foveon sensor. There may
be more pixels in an image from a 6 mp sensor, but many of those
pixels are artificially created by computer interpolation rather than
being based on direct sensing of incoming light. Also this means the
conventional camera must take more time to process the image in
camera.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)





28 of 102 people found the following review helpful:

Good start by Sigma, but probably better to wait, April 26, 2002
Reviewer: "alan_james" (Wickwar, South Glos England) - See all my
reviews
The Sigma uses a new kind of light collecting chip which senses R,B,G
colours at each of the 3.4 million pixels on its chip. The more common
chip used by all other cameras senses only one colour at each pixel.
So the Sigma should win hands down! Not necessarily. 3.4Mp isn't many
pixels. Sony, Nikon et al. have 6Mp cameras using the standard type
sensor. At the end of the day, more pixels give better resolution. So
a 6Mp sensor does as well as the Sigma 3Mp sensor for colour and
resolution.
Fuji has tweaked the standard sensor format to use hexagonal pixels
and get better resolution out of their 6Mp sensor chip. In August 2002
the Fuji S2 pro is due out, and its 6Mp chip will produce 12Mp photos.
That's 12 million pixels of info to make a photo. They do this by
analysing the data from the 6Mp and modifying it to "fill in" extra
detail and colour. The result to Joe bloggs on the street will be
photos pretty close to ordinary 35mm quality.

If Sigma produce a camera using their new technology chip but with
6Mp, then it will be a force to reckon with.

Slight problems with Sigma are you have to use their lenses. The Fuji
is made to use Nikon lenses. Canon and Nikon have their own
equivalents to the Fuji.

Personally I'm waiting for the Fuji S2 Pro as I already have a Nikor
AF auto-focus lens which I'm not ready to pass up. The Fuji is going
to cost less than its Canon/Nikon counterparts...

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randall Ainsworth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
Yawn...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Georgette Preddy) writes:

>Here they are. Note, there are no such thing as hexagonal pixels, and
>the SD9 outputs 14MP pics straight out of camera with far less
>interpolation (and zero color interpolation) than the S2 uses at 12MP.
> More pixels is bad, bad, bad, not good, unless optical resolution is
>higher and the S2 has about half the SD9's optical resolution accross
>the board (SD9 has 3.43M RGB triplets vs only 1.5M for the S2 Pro).
>Any image can be upscaled to any number of pixels.


An amazing number of misleading statements for one paragraph. In actual
fact:

The SD9/SD10 have 3.4 million sensor pixels, lower than any other
current DSLR. Each pixel has 3 colour sensors, for a total of 10.2
million photosensors (a number you'll also see in reviews), but there
are only 3.4 million spatially-separate sensing locations and that's
what determines the ability to resolve fine detail. Competing DSLRs
have 6 million or more measuring locations. The Sigma raw processing
software can produce 14 MP images using interpolation, but this process
adds no useful detail at all.

Other cameras use Bayer sensors that measure only one colour per pixel
but despite that yield the same resolution as a Foveon or B&W sensor
with the same pixel count. Georgette's references to counting 4 pixels
as "RGB triplets" or dividing pixel count by 4 to get "optical
resolution" are complete fabrications, with no basis.

Standard resolution tests show that the Sigma cameras have lower
resolution than any of the other current DSLRs. This is true measured
"optical resolution", not what Georgette uses the same term for.

The Sigma cameras do not use an anti-aliasing filter in the camera.
This gives images that *look* sharper than other 3.4 MP cameras, but at
the expense of inaccurate rendering of diagonal edges and thin lines,
and sometimes moire effects. Some people like the effect, some do not.

The one advantage that the Sigma cameras *should* get from measuring 3
colours at every pixel is higher-resolution colour than a Bayer sensor.
However in practice the technology so far has a reputation for
inaccurate and blotchy colour rendition with some subjects.

Now, there *are* people who like the Sigma cameras for the sort of
subjects they shoot. If you search the archives for this group in
Google, you'll find them. Just don't believe anything
"George/Georgette" writes. This person has been demonstrated to
misrepresent the results of tests, edit the text of other people he's
quoting to apparently support his position when they do not, and make up
explanations out of thin air.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, John
McGraw <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Hi All
>First, disclaimers:
>#1.) I really don't want to start a flame war, but I have little idea
>how or where else to ask this.
>#2.) Please, please ignore that poor kid, mental case's posts. The one
>who takes famous aviators names. Really the only sensible thing is to
>ignore him. He deserves help, but this is not the forum for it.
>
>I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
>Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
>over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
>housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
>use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
>after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
>5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
>& design problems w/ those two.
>Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
>claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
>insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
>sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
>customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
>problem.
>Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
>just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
>that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
>wouldn't base my decision on that part alone. What is that thing
>called? Focal plane? Light sensors... the pixelator in the back. I've
>been pixilated in the back of some bars in Alaska a few times, but
>that's a different story. Seriously though folks, what is a good, up
>to date digital photography dictionary or computer dictionary that
>covers photo.? I need help in more ways than one.
>
>Thank You Very Much, John


I agree with the commonly held view that you should ignore anything that
Preddy-Stupid says; the man has a screw loose.

However, it is fair to point out that some well-respected commentators
have had good things to say about the Sigma DSLRs. You could try looking
(on Google) for a couple of posts by David Kilpatrick. David is a
magazine publisher in the UK, and from my knowledge of him (I have been
a subscriber for many years) he has a lot of experience and gives a good
balanced opinion.

I personally would not, despite his view, buy a Sigma camera. They have
dented any faith I may have had by a couple of bad experiences with
their lenses, and the negative factors do seem too much to overcome.
Besides, I already had a fortune invested in Canon lenses, and the Sigma
bodies only take Sigma lenses.

The Coolpix series seems pretty good to me - I have a 995, which I use
mainly for photomicroscopy (for which it is ideal). The lens has a touch
of barrel distortion IIRC. I regret the change in form-factor Nikon made
after the 4500 - but that is because the swivel body is ideal for my
specialist use; I'm sure it is relatively unimportant for normal use.
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch Alsup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Georgette Preddy) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> (E-Mail Removed) (John McGraw) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...


> So let start. First of all, it is NOT 3.5M camera. It is AT LEAST 10M
> camera, but megapixels in the traditional meaning just are not
> applicable here. This camera produces NEGATIVES. This negative is
> result of 10M photo elements. In the same time any of 6M cameras has
> HALF OF THEM GREEN and ONLY 25% red and another 25% blue. If we speak
> about "image quality" using this kind of "resolution" , this camera
> produces 14M images. In the same time the "real" resolution of those
> "6M" cameras stand about 1.5M, the everything else is a pure deceiving
> interpolation.


No, not quite. You see, most of the resolution 'information' in a picture
is carried in the luminance channel. And a 6MP bayer sensor can resolve
6MPs of luminance information. In mathematical terms, if you have a sensor
with 3002 horizontal and 2002 vertical sensors, you can derive 3000*2000
{(h-2)*(v-2)} = 6MP of luminance information.

The Foveon sensor has only 3 MP of luminance information. Simply because
the pixels are registered in depth at the same location as opposed to
being registered in an array with each pixel at a different location!

Back to bayer: consider the pixels as:
1234567890
1 RGRGRGRGRG
2 GBGBGBGBGB
3 RGRGRGRGRG
4 BGBGBGBGBG

There is an
RGB pixel at {(1,1),(1,2),(2,2)} Locus (1.66,1.5)
another at {(1,3),(1,2),(2,2)} Locus (2.66,1.5)
another at {(1,1),(2,1),(2,2)} Locus (1.5,1.66)

Notice how moving a single R pixel from (1,1) to (1,3) give a new luminance
pixel even while the G and B pixels remain the same! This is why the bayer
sensor structure does not compress to 1.5M pixels of R or B. Because you
extract information from all compositions of all the tripple RGB sensors.

Now let us take a look at color. Taking pixel in pairs allows the matrix
algorythm to extract yellows (RG) purples (RB) and Aquas (GB). In effect
the bayer matrix solution can extract lots of information from the sensors
and then composit this information back into RGB or CYMK formats that
gets stored on the CF.

Therefore: a bayer sensor array has {(h-2)*(v-2)} actual pixels of
'information' from and array of {h,v} sensors.

While a foveon array only has the number of sensor locations it actually
has (not 3X) of information.

Mitch
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Superior Technology: Foveon X3 Gary Digital Photography 43 05-02-2006 03:41 AM
"L" lens technology or "DO" technology?? ..Jan Plexy.. Digital Photography 4 10-04-2005 12:52 PM
Is technology making mankind a threatened species? Thoughts on technology, the future, and somwhere, ethics. Waylon Kenning NZ Computing 31 10-17-2004 09:44 AM
Foveon: the sensor technology chosen by God Paul H. Digital Photography 346 01-28-2004 11:02 AM
Sigma FOVEON technology YoYo Digital Photography 1 01-23-2004 02:58 AM



Advertisments