new 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tomash Bednarz, Aug 20, 2003.

    1. Advertising

  1. Tomash Bednarz

    Mark M Guest

    "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, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Aug 20, 2003
    #3
  3. 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, Aug 20, 2003
    #4
  4. 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
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Aug 20, 2003
    #5
  5. Tomash Bednarz

    reg-john Guest

    youre a fucking 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, Aug 20, 2003
    #6
  6. Tomash Bednarz

    Mark Roberts Guest

    "reg-john" <> wrote:

    >youre a fucking 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
     
    Mark Roberts, Aug 20, 2003
    #7
  7. "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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 20, 2003
    #8
  8. 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, Aug 20, 2003
    #9
  9. 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
     
    Charles Robinson, Aug 20, 2003
    #10
  10. Tomash Bednarz

    ralford Guest

    Haven't you figured out how to put guido in the killfile/bozobin? I confess
    my kill file is growing daily with this group - now if everyone would stop
    extending the threads, e.g. B&H, Christians etc. Wonder what the limit is
    in MSOE? Oops, please don't let this initiate a M$ or OE rant :)

    Cheers,

    rma


    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:Z1H0b.11165$nf3.9514@fed1read07...
    >
    > "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...
    >
    >
     
    ralford, Aug 20, 2003
    #11
  11. Tomash Bednarz

    BG250 Guest

    Looks interesting! It might be my path into digital SLR photography. I'm
    going wait for reviews for both this and Pentax's D-SLR. The Pentax uses a
    CCD and not a CMOS, so it is worth looking at. The Pentax shots I saw looked
    gorgeous color and exposure wise, but were sampled down and post processed
    for the web.

    bg


    "Tomash Bednarz" <> wrote in message
    news:bhv1u3$riq$...
    > http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html
    >
    >
     
    BG250, Aug 20, 2003
    #12
  12. Charles Robinson wrote:
    >
    > 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?


    Look into the JPEG spec and you will see that JPEG *requires*
    a *true-color* picture as a source for optimal compression and
    image quality!
    If you drop two thirds of *native picture information* from the
    *origin*, then JPEG can't operate with optimal quality/compression.
    That's why I, as a JPEG specialist, complain so much about that
    kinky Bayer principle which only generates artificial images
    with inferior quality and compression.
    From a data compression standpoint, the Bayer reduction is one
    of the worst methods imaginable, while JPEG is one of the best.

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Aug 20, 2003
    #13
  13. On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:31:29 +0200, Guido Vollbeding wrote:

    > 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.


    That's entirely untrue. It discards 2/3 of the chrominance information
    from a 6 megapixel image, but luminance is recorded at every photosite.
    The quality of the iamge before it goes through the ADC also has a lot to
    do with the lens, and the lens lineup is one of the problems with the SD-9.

    From the digital side, however you look at it the 6mp Canon sensor
    delivers a processed image containing 6.3 million 12bit samples, and the
    Foveon delivers 3 million 36 bit samples. The SD-9 has a noise level that
    is significantly inferior to the D60 at all ISO speeds. The 10D is
    superior to the D60, particularly at ISO 800 up. The SD-9 doesn't even do
    anything over ISO 400.

    >> 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.


    Most others disagree with you. Foveon is a great idea, but you can't judge
    a camera purely on the sensor technology. The SD-9 is just not up to the
    quality of the Canon offerings, with the restricted lens range, low ISO,
    colour-clipping, chromatic aberration sensitivity, and softness problems
    at higher ISO. Buying a DSLR is buying into a camera system, and Canon
    offers a (IMO) clearly superior system to Sigma.

    Foveon has the potential to be the best imaging sensor technology on the
    market, and I'd love to see a Canon camera with a 6 Mp foveon sensor.
    However, it's been over 18 months since the SD-9 came out, and Foveon has
    gone very quiet, with the sensor used in the SD-9 remaining their top of
    line product. 2 years ago, I was hoping that many cameras on the market
    now would be using Foveon sensors, but at this stage there seems a very
    real possibility that Foveon could just fade away, and never make it into
    any other DSLR. It would be sad, but it seems all too likely.

    Mike.
     
    Mike Brodbelt, Aug 20, 2003
    #14
  14. Tomash Bednarz

    Alan F Cross Guest

    In message <>, Guido Vollbeding
    <> writes
    >Charles Robinson wrote:
    >>
    >> 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?

    >
    >Look into the JPEG spec and you will see that JPEG *requires*
    >a *true-color* picture as a source for optimal compression and
    >image quality!
    >If you drop two thirds of *native picture information* from the
    >*origin*, then JPEG can't operate with optimal quality/compression.
    >That's why I, as a JPEG specialist, complain so much about that
    >kinky Bayer principle which only generates artificial images
    >with inferior quality and compression.
    >From a data compression standpoint, the Bayer reduction is one
    >of the worst methods imaginable, while JPEG is one of the best.
    >
    >Regards
    >Guido


    Bayer reduction through a colour matrix filter is no worse that the
    process (in reverse) by which you are viewing the image on your computer
    screen. The effectiveness of the process is all down to resolution and
    perception. And it works, perceptually, so stuff theory!
    --
    Alan F Cross
     
    Alan F Cross, Aug 20, 2003
    #15
  15. Mike Brodbelt wrote:
    >
    > That's entirely untrue. It discards 2/3 of the chrominance information
    > from a 6 megapixel image, but luminance is recorded at every photosite.


    Wrong. It records one of RGB and discards the other two at every photosite.
    Luminance is *not* recorded at every photosite! That would be nice for the
    B&W photographers, but unfortunately it is not the case.

    > The SD-9 has a noise level that
    > is significantly inferior to the D60 at all ISO speeds. The 10D is
    > superior to the D60, particularly at ISO 800 up. The SD-9 doesn't even do
    > anything over ISO 400.


    The SD9 has a noise level that corresponds to *real* measured data,
    *not* to artificial calculated data in the case of Canon.
    Have you ever seen noise in a computer graphic? So you see less
    noise in the Canon because it is a largely computer-generated image,
    other than the real measured image with the Foveon.

    > Buying a DSLR is buying into a camera system, and Canon
    > offers a (IMO) clearly superior system to Sigma.


    But the "clearly superior" system doesn't make superior images, so what?

    > Foveon has the potential to be the best imaging sensor technology on the
    > market, and I'd love to see a Canon camera with a 6 Mp foveon sensor.
    > However, it's been over 18 months since the SD-9 came out, and Foveon has
    > gone very quiet, with the sensor used in the SD-9 remaining their top of
    > line product. 2 years ago, I was hoping that many cameras on the market
    > now would be using Foveon sensors, but at this stage there seems a very
    > real possibility that Foveon could just fade away, and never make it into
    > any other DSLR. It would be sad, but it seems all too likely.


    But why should Canon (and Sony, btw) go quality (Foveon like) if
    they can sell their rubbish to the dumb masses which accept the
    inferior quality?

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Aug 20, 2003
    #16
  16. Guido Vollbeding <> wrote in news:3F433230.4CBB094
    @jpegclub.org:

    > Another obsolete product with a Bayer sensor which produces
    > only artificial digital images. Don't buy!
    >


    Hahahaha ... what would the world be without you Guido?
    Much, much, much less interesting. Don't give up! Fight
    for your cause - ridding the world of this evil Bayer
    technology. We all sinners that use it art doomed!


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 20, 2003
    #17
  17. Tomash Bednarz

    Guest Guest

    Hi,

    You can find all of the Canon EOS 300D news, press releases, product images
    and an interview with the head of Canon Europe Marketing on my blog:

    http://www.photographyblog.com

    Mark

    "BG250" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Looks interesting! It might be my path into digital SLR photography. I'm
    > going wait for reviews for both this and Pentax's D-SLR. The Pentax uses a
    > CCD and not a CMOS, so it is worth looking at. The Pentax shots I saw

    looked
    > gorgeous color and exposure wise, but were sampled down and post processed
    > for the web.
    >
    > bg
    >
    >
    > "Tomash Bednarz" <> wrote in message
    > news:bhv1u3$riq$...
    > > http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Guest, Aug 20, 2003
    #18
  18. Tomash Bednarz

    dslr Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > You can find all of the Canon EOS 300D news, press releases, product images
    > and an interview with the head of Canon Europe Marketing on my blog:
    >


    Isn't it amazing what copy-and-paste can do for producing repetitive
    unoriginal posts - luckily it works quite well in adding to my kill
    file.
    PLONK!

    --
    regards,
    dslr
     
    dslr, Aug 20, 2003
    #19
  19. Tomash Bednarz

    Mark M Guest

    > That's why I, as a JPEG specialist, complain so much about that
    > kinky Bayer principle which only generates artificial images
    > with inferior quality and compression.
    > Regards
    > Guido


    Tell me, Guidolt...
    ....How much Sigma Foveon stock do you hold?

    You're an idiot, and...the newest member of my round-file club.
    Bye bye.
     
    Mark M, Aug 20, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jriegle

    New Canon 300D vs. Pentax *ist-D

    jriegle, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    471
    Chris Brown
    Aug 22, 2003
  2. Darius Alexander

    BRAND NEW DIGITAL REBEL 300D FOR $789

    Darius Alexander, Sep 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    741
    Dan R
    Sep 27, 2003
  3. jahg
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    382
    Jim Townsend
    Sep 25, 2003
  4. Hans Joergensen

    Hong Kong prices on 300D, Canon S40+S45 + equipment for the 300D

    Hans Joergensen, Jan 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,534
    =?Big5-HKSCS?B?uXG4o6RwpGw=?=
    Jan 26, 2004
  5. fatboybrando

    EOS 300D & EOS 300D Rebel

    fatboybrando, Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    555
    fatboybrando
    Mar 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page