Sigma Photo, Seven Rules for Legal Advertising, FTC Consumer Complaint Link, and Suggested Text for

[]

Thanks, John, but other news postings may include that. I do appreciate
your efforts, though.

Cheers,
David

 

In message <>,

This doesn't say that a Bayer image downsized to 50% has all the
resolution of the same Bayer at 100%, clown. It says to get unique
information for each color channel at each output pixel you need to do
this, but he is oversimplifying things.
--

 

I haven't ever seen any manufacturer, other than Foveon, claim that its
pixels are "full color."

They just say megapixels. Anyone that understands how a camera sensor or a
television works, understands that there are red, green, and blue pixels (or
photodetectors).

If Foveon believes that they have a marketing advantage because they layer
three photodetectors at each pixel location, then they should agressively
market this feature.

What has stymied Foveon, is that the silicon filtering of light has proven
problematic, resulting in the X3 sensor producing less accurate color than a
Bayer mosaic. They have introduced a great deal more complexity, for results
that are not as good.

 

The idea was that not only would my posts that have only to do with
containing the contamination, as it were, but response to *those* posts
would be from flamers, indignant kill-filers, or other such that you'd
want to pass over anyway.

--

John

"Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall: 'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'."

 

Obviously you don't, or you would've said "red, green, or blue"
instead of your incorrect statement "red, green, and blue."

Unless you mean Sigma/Foveon, which does have optically discrete "red
and green and blue" info for every pixel, it is the only DSLR that
does.

 

Obviously you don't, or you would've said "red, green, or blue"
instead of your incorrect statement "red, green, and blue."

Unless you mean Sigma/Foveon, which does have optically discrete "red
and green and blue" info for every pixel, it is the only DSLR that
does.

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/30019277
http://www.pbase.com/image/30019309

 

Lets see your pics gp

 

Lets see your pics gp

 

In message <>,

Sharp, cool flash exposure mixed with long, camera-motion-blurred warm
ambient hand-held exposure, on a tiny-sensor P&S at high ISO (or
underexposure). Perhaps unfocused as well.

Tripod, or shorter shutter time, or high-speed flash sync.
--

 

The notes tell the story. Are you suggsting you like the Bayer image better?

 

Lets see your pics gp

 

In message <>,

I have not at any point in time suggested that I like all images taken
with a Bayer camera better than all images taken with X3 Sigmas. You
are fabricating that implication for effect. Horrible pictures can be
taken with any camera, and this particular bayer image is horrible. Not
because it is Bayer, but because of direct flash two inches away from
the lens, blurring of the hand-held ambient exposure due to a long
shutter speed an/or camera shake ( and a very different color
temperature than the flash), very high noise due to too high an ISO or
too little exposure for the tiny sensor, and possible lack of focus as
well.
--

 

In message <>,

This shot could not have been taken in total darkness unless there was
some non-optical glass between the camera and the prints. The angle
(about 30 degrees clockwise of the vertical) of the blur, which causes a
color shift, is not something that can be accounted for by the sensor or
by a radially symmetric lens. Either there are two exposures from two
different light sources (ambient and flash), or a piece of non-optical
glass shifted the colors.
--

 

It doesn't say total darkness, obviously the flash fired so you have
to be wrong. The Bayer image absolutely stinks, it's a joke only the
owner could love.

 

George Preddy wrote:
More of the same

The person posting under the name of George or Georgette Preddy (and
other pseudonyms) has an ungrounded but zealous faith that current
implementation of the Foveon chip is superior to all other chip
technologies. He will cite portions of reviews to ostensibly support his
claims, and will repeat, ad naseum, complete lines of out-of-context
material.

His claims may well be ignored, or at the very least verified since most
of them are extreme distortions and some are out and out fabrications."


Moreover, "Mr." "Preddy" has claimed to be a photographer (pro!), but
cannot bring himself to post a single picture with EXIF info that he
shot himself, in spite of repeated requests and challenges to do so.

Apparently he loathes anything related to Canon and loves everything
about Sigma cameras and lenses. His "claims" may be ignored, and he is
doing Sigma, and anyone related to the Foveon chip, no good at all by
arousing ire, increasing the N/S ratio, and generally spamming this
newsgroup.

 

No they don't, but you do. Reading comprehension is not your forte.

Bart

 

In message <>,

Then it was an ambient-light ghost, which has nothing to do with Bayer
vs. Foveon. You are comparing a tiny-sensor Sony to a medium-sensor
Foveon DSLR, with the Sony obviously over-exposed or at too high an ISO
for its size.

The Bayer image has the same subject. You took them both, or a guest at
your house or someone at your office took the Sony image.
--