SD9, is it bulky

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Luca Arnulfo, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Obviously you don't.
    George Preddy, Jan 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. They don't have any more SD9s. Time to run away now.
    George Preddy, Jan 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Luca Arnulfo

    John Bean Guest

    One last attempt, troll. You said "Every Sigma made has been sold.", no
    mention of which model. This is a lie, of course. As I expect from a troll.
    John Bean, Jan 30, 2004
  4. "And Sigma would have none in their factory"

    No, troll, mention, troll, of what model, troll, either, troll.
    George Preddy, Jan 30, 2004
  5. Luca Arnulfo

    John Bean Guest

    Ok "George", whatever. It might even make sense in your universe. Get well
    John Bean, Jan 30, 2004
  6. No, with a Canon 10D, for example.
    Just look at these official sample 1 and 2 portrait images from Canon:

    If Canon use such examples for official demonstration of the image
    quality achievable with their mosaic cameras, then all I can say
    is: NO, thank you! I don't want to see *that* kind of image 'quality',
    it is simply unacceptable for me.
    If *you* and other people accept that junk, then please go with it,
    but without me.
    If I look at portrait close-ups from the Foveon camera, I can see a
    HUGE difference, it's in a completely different quality class: (look at the woman face close-up)
    I simply can't understand how people like those from Canon can present
    such junk images like above without major embarrassment.
    I would feel highly embarrassed if I presented such 'images' beside
    the ones from the Foveon sensor.
    And what a huge waste of space with those Bayer 'images' containing
    predominantly artificial data far away from natural look.
    But well, each to their own...

    Guido Vollbeding, Jan 30, 2004
  7. Where do you see blotchy skin? Define blotchy, maybe you mean something
    I agree that in portrait 2 her right eye is not in optimal focus, but
    blotchy skin? Have you tried printing such a file size and compared it with
    a Sigma SD-9 enlargement to the same size? You'll probably say yes, but
    given your comments I doubt that.
    You don't even own a Foveon camera (according to what you've said in earlier
    posts), so what do you use instead?
    Yes, a huge close-up. How is that to compare with the above images?
    OMG, I hope that was shot in a sunset (which I doubt judging from the color
    of her shoulder strap and assuming white teeth), talk about a bad case of

    Jaundice!!! Sickening color. Besides, most women don't like their skin pores
    to be exaggerated (!) in a portrait. Have you ever looked at a person's skin
    from say 60cm (2 feet)? Your eyes would also have difficulty to see
    eyelashes unless helped by accentuating make-up.
    Healthy amount of postprocessing restraint, but yaundice galore, strange out
    of focus rendition and backgrounds are a bit noisy.

    Yes, thank goodness!

    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 30, 2004
  8. Obviously you are correct. Those blurry Canon samples have been up for a
    long time, it's amazing anyone seriously considers the camera given this is
    the best case scenario. I agree with the widely held view that if the eyes
    are blurry, throw the image out. The lobster is even blurrier than the
    portraits, and the highlites are badly blown. In all the images there
    appears to be no real focal point, the softness just drifts around unitil it
    increases to full blur as DOF takes over. The drifting blur makes these
    images really frustrating to view.

    While the composition is professional, technically, none of these are
    George Preddy, Jan 30, 2004
  9. Just look at these official sample 1 and 2 portrait images from Canon:
    I see no problem with sample 1, haven't checked sample 2. I simply see
    the model's skin as it is.....
    Too yellow for me!

    For me, it would be the Canon that wins.

    David J Taylor, Jan 30, 2004

    These are original SD9 firmware images too, I think from the same shoot as
    this one...

    That 105mm EX Macro is simply astounding. Obviously, you have to have a
    sensor to match, but on an SD DSLR (really the 9 more than the 10,
    microlenses seem to shave off a half a hair of sharpness), it consistently
    produces the most amazing images I've ever seen, digital or film.
    George Preddy, Jan 30, 2004
  11. SNIP
    Cheese colored skin, I'm glad we have a different taste.
    Don't get me wrong, I like cheese, but I don't like people erroneously
    looking like they're seriously ill.

    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 30, 2004
  12. In the context of a Bayer CFA, a 2x2 RGGB grid pixel is totally meaningless.
    You should know better, but perhaps I overestimated you.

    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 30, 2004
  13. Your cheating you know. You cut away other posters replies to make
    the posters say something else than they do.

    Roland Karlsson, Jan 30, 2004
  14. Muhahaha ... thats a good boy George.

    Roland Karlsson, Jan 30, 2004
  15. It's only meaningful in that a sensor can never display a higher color
    resolution than what it optically senses, so a 6MP-interpolated Bayer is
    hard limited at a 1.5MP optical color resolution. Yes, Bayer smears,
    borrows, and blurs that same amount of raw data into more recorded output
    pixels in the final image.
    George Preddy, Jan 31, 2004
    George Preddy, Jan 31, 2004
  17. What's wrong with sunset? The trousers also have the sunset color, so white
    balance was off (and there was a camera shake of 7 or 8 pixels vertical).
    That's avoidable user error.

    Foveon (skin)colors are apparently an unavoidable problem with the SD-9

    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 31, 2004
  18. What has that to do with a "2x2 RGGB grid pixel"?
    You're circumventing the question, aren't you?

    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 31, 2004
  19. I just told you, Bayers have very, very low full color resolution...

    It appears Canon has given up in their fight with Foveon, their new 2MP
    non-interpolated, 8MP-interpolated 1D MkII costs more than $4000, it appears
    they simply don't have the technology to touch the 10.3MP Foveon Pro 10M.
    Worse, with the output 4:1 interpolated, it eats bandwidth like there is no
    tomorrow with no optical benefit. Not to mention the sensor density is the
    same as the extremely low res 1Ds, meaning you have to give up any wide
    angle advantage even to match the truly lousy resolving power of the 10D.

    It'll be interesting to see if Nikon tries to compete at PMA, or if they
    raise the white flag too.
    George Preddy, Jan 31, 2004
  20. There is no excuse for any camera to miss that point blank image. What a
    crime. Which photo is sharper, these Canon sunset images?

    Or this Sigma sunset image?
    George Preddy, Jan 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.