Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: SIGMA DP-1  (Read 30889 times)
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« on: March 08, 2007, 01:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems that Sigma has listened to the feedback on announcing the advent of the DP-1 at Photokina: external optical viewfinder, hotshoe for flash and RAW capability. I'll bet it becomes the poor man's Leica M8
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2007, 01:47:45 PM »
ReplyReply

f4 lens, sorry sigma, if it had been a 35mm f2.0 I would have bought it...
Logged

NYRich
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2007, 02:03:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious about the crop factor. At 1.5x a 16.6mm lens equates to 24.9mm.  That's closer to 24mm than to 28mm.

I also would have liked a faster lens, but I have to see what the high ISO performance looks like before making a decision.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 02:03:41 PM by NYRich » Logged

Rich
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2007, 04:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The DP-1 will have a crop factor of 1.7, it uses the same sensor as in the SD14.
I wont start arguing about whether it will beat the M8 IQ-wise or not as there are no samples available so far and the cameras have different concepts (RF vs Compact) so its more or less a pointless comparison but..there are some pretty outstanding Sd14 samples around by now.
I am curious what Mr. Reichmann thinks about the new Sigmas and hope he will get his hands on one.
I will most definitely get my hands on one as soon as it is being released.

O.
Logged
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2007, 07:33:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Apparently the limitation of size and the need to cover all of the larger than normal compact sensor made an f2.8 lens impossible. As stated above if the higher ISO performance is good then that may compensate.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2007, 07:52:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
f4 lens, sorry sigma, if it had been a 35mm f2.0 I would have bought it...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
f/2.0 would be the way to go. At least this is a start.

I'll be interested to see how this generation of the X3 chip performs. Previous chips had issues with green blotchy noise. If they fixed that, then this will be something to look forward to.

On a side note, I wish they would stop with this x3 resolution marketing crap. It's a 4.7MP sensor. Not 14. Yes, it resolves more than a bayer pattern sensor but it's not 3 times as much. They'd be better off making a sensor that actually is about 10MP in pixel resolution and then advertising they resolve more detail than any of the competition, even in the high-end of things. I don't understand why they keep aiming lower than what they could do.

At the very least news sources need to stop the heck out of reporting the marketing as fact.
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2007, 08:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At the very least news sources need to stop the heck out of reporting the marketing as fact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I cringed when I saw the B&H website list the SD10 as 10.3MP.

I wonder if there is a way to get a mild AA filter onto this thing.  Maybe I can attach a vibrator to it.  I'd like one for B&W; ironically, *that* is what the Foveon excels at.  The noise levels are very low in the Foveon before a converter extrapolates color from it.  An ISO 800 pushed a few stops stills looks fairly clean in B&W.
Logged
Spooney
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007, 04:56:58 AM »
ReplyReply

This camera looks very interesting... it's a shame the lens is only f/4, but given the sensor size you can just up the ISO and it should still ace a point-and-shoot with f/2.8 but a tiny sensor. This seems a perfect compact camera for when lugging around my 5D isn't appropriate, I just wonder what it's going to cost...?
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2007, 09:22:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it needs an anti-alias filter. Every foveon image I've ever seen has been full of jaggie artifacts that I know sigma-crazies love, but that's not the way my eyes see the world. Without an anti-alias filter, I'd say the camera is incorrectly engineered. At least with all the bayer sensor cameras, you've got enough resolution you can downscale and get increased per-pixel sharpness without aliassing, but with the sigmas, you're starting off with such a low per-pixel resolution you're pretty much stuck with what you've got. Then, there's the hyper-strong matrix needed to extract proper colour from the camera RGB space tbat ruins you're noise performance. Given the size of the pixels it should be a high-ISO, low noise monster, but it isn't. What you're left with is a paradox of a camera. Interesting, but that's it....

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2007, 10:23:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It seems that Sigma has listened to the feedback on announcing the advent of the DP-1 at Photokina: external optical viewfinder, hotshoe for flash and RAW capability. I'll bet it becomes the poor man's Leica M8
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is the lead time in the deign, production and marketing of a new camera?  The question is, how long ago did Sigma have to start listening?
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2007, 12:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem with this specialized a product is that everyone (almost) will have at least one show stopper.  For me, it's not the f4, but rather the lack of articulated screen.  I'd use this for unobtrusive street shooting, but after the Sony R1 I'll never give up an articulated LCD.  Just like I won't settle for no raw or more noise.
Logged
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2007, 08:58:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, it needs an anti-alias filter. Every foveon image I've ever seen has been full of jaggie artifacts that I know sigma-crazies love, but that's not the way my eyes see the world.


Thats because the images may have been processed wrongly. Its in part due to a misleading setting of the Raw Converter. Sharpening needs to be set to -0.8 to switch any sharpening off. You can imagine what artifacts are introduced if the image is sharpened in the first place (e.g. with fringing and such things not removed beforehand), processed in PS with curves or anything, then up- or downsized and then sharpened again.
I usually forget to switch off sharpening in the Raw converter and it shows in my online images.
Did you look at the SD14 sample images? I see no jaggies in there.

Quote
Without an anti-alias filter, I'd say the camera is incorrectly engineered. At least with all the bayer sensor cameras, you've got enough resolution you can downscale and get increased per-pixel sharpness without aliassing, but with the sigmas, you're starting off with such a low per-pixel resolution you're pretty much stuck with what you've got.


Disagree but dont want to get into an argument "Bayer vs Foveon" here..
But I was wondering what you meant with per-pixel resolution. ANd I think I am safe to say that Foveon images size up better than bayer images with a similar amount of pixels in them.

Quote
Then, there's the hyper-strong matrix needed to extract proper colour from the camera RGB space tbat ruins you're noise performance. Given the size of the pixels it should be a high-ISO, low noise monster, but it isn't. What you're left with is a paradox of a camera. Interesting, but that's it....

Graeme
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agree thats a weak point. There is a software which extracts the colors as recorded by the camera. The colors are "off" (yet in a very pleasing way for me) but the tonal nuances captured are amazing (speaking of the SD10 here). Example here:

[a href=\"http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=407216923&size=l]http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=407216923&size=l[/url]

O.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2007, 09:05:50 AM by :Ollivr » Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2007, 10:07:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I see aliassing in pretty much every sigma image I've ever seen. Which is a shame as it's such an easy thing to have removed by a small filter infront of the sensor. But, because Sigma has such lower resolution than it's competition, they don't put this necessary filter in place as it does reduce resolution a little.

I guess some people are more annoyed by aliasing artifacts than others, depending on how their visual system is wired up. Also, when you know the engineering and mathematics of sampling theory, you associate such aliassing with an artifact, rather than the fake details that perhaps you'd think it was otherwise. You could view the aliassing as either an artifact or fake detail, but it's the brain that colours your perception, and colours mine to think it looks bad.
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2007, 10:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually the microlenses of the SD10 work as a very light AA filter.

Did you look at the fullsize sample images on the Sigma homepage? Do you see aliasing in those images as well?
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2007, 11:14:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree there can be an aliasing issue with the Foveon images. It shows in the sample raw images I have and seen but it is very dependent on the angle of the edge in question. Some images it shows quite a bit and some it does not. The solution is not to add an AA filter, but to increase the resolution of the sensor.

Ollivr, you say Foveon sensors can uprez better than other sensors of similar resolution. I would agree with that but there is a problem. When everyone was selling 6MP sensors, Sigma had a 3.4MP sensor. Now that everyone is at 10MP for APS-C, Sigma has moved up a whopping 1.2MP to 4.6MP (and it only took them 3 years to get there!). All your ability to uprez a Foveon file will go to simply matching what you can get from the start out of a Canon or Nikon in the same market segment.

Despite this, I think the Foveon chip will work will better in the form factor of the DP-1 than a SLR. With a SLR people are expecting high-performance imaging performance that reaches the bar Canon has set in the past. However, with this unique form-factor it is a specialty camera that is best suited for photography that typically is not printed large. And so the anemic resolution becomes nearly a non-issue.

The things that really are worth wondering, IMHO, about with this camera are ISO performance, lens performance, and responsiveness.
Logged
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2007, 12:02:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ollivr, you say Foveon sensors can uprez better than other sensors of similar resolution. I would agree with that but there is a problem. When everyone was selling 6MP sensors, Sigma had a 3.4MP sensor. Now that everyone is at 10MP for APS-C, Sigma has moved up a whopping 1.2MP to 4.6MP (and it only took them 3 years to get there!). All your ability to uprez a Foveon file will go to simply matching what you can get from the start out of a Canon or Nikon in the same market segment.

I put the comparison in that a conservative way in order to avoid a "Bayer vs Foveon" thing here. I couldnt care less what camera or sensor somebody uses, although I have to admit that I personally prefer the Foveon from my limited experience. Still, I found the opinions about foveon technology a little unfair (nobody notices the artifacts bayer cams have?) which is why I replied to this thread.

In some weeks there may be reviews saying the SD14 matches a typical 10MP bayer or that it doesnt, and people will trust those tests or not. I certainly neither have the equipment nor the experience needed to conduct a proper test. I can only look at Bayer images, and Foveon images (made from cameras of similar age and price range), and draw an unscientifical conclusion for myself.

Regarding hi ISO: Dont expect miracles there from Sigma, it has certainly improved but is not up to bayer standards. One should think of this whole foveon thing rather as an alternative type of film. Different behavior, different advantages and disadvantages.

Regards,

O.
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2007, 01:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On a side note, I wish they would stop with this x3 resolution marketing crap. It's a 4.7MP sensor. Not 14. Yes, it resolves more than a bayer pattern sensor but it's not 3 times as much. ....
At the very least news sources need to stop the heck out of reporting the marketing as fact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A little OT but I'd have to say that it is really only their timing that is off !
It was the original digital cameras with Bayer arrays that abused the meaning of the word pixel but no-one grumled about that marketing cr*p    When 640x480 color monitors came out they still only had ~300,000 pixels and each pixel was assumed to be complete (i.e. RGB) and they were not described as 920,000 pixel monitors.  Even the hype about "full" HDTV ( i.e. 1080p60) claims only 2 million pixels when they could claim 6  

Quote
They'd be better off making a sensor that actually is about 10MP in pixel resolution and then advertising they resolve more detail than any of the competition, even in the high-end of things. I don't understand why they keep aiming lower than what they could do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My guess, err, is that these sensors are kinda difficult to make
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2007, 09:16:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually the microlenses of the SD10 work as a very light AA filter.

A microlens may reduce the intensity of aliasing a little bit, but it is not an AA filter per se.  In order to have proper AA filtering, a photosite has to capture some photons that actually struck the sensor sandwich closer to the center of another, adjacent pixel.  A microlens does not do that.

Quote
Did you look at the fullsize sample images on the Sigma homepage? Do you see aliasing in those images as well?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I saw them, and some were extremely aliased, disturbingly so.

I don't know how anyone can claim that Sigma digital images are printable at large sizes.  They look like hard mosaics if printed literally, and ramped, softened mosaics, if filtered.  They scream, "look at me; I'm a grid of aliased pixels", IMO.

Look at the architecture shots, the one with the row of red-brick buildings.  The edges of the bricks on the corners are all exaggeratedly in the wrong place because of the aliasing.
Logged
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2007, 10:03:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Look at the architecture shots, the one with the row of red-brick buildings.  The edges of the bricks on the corners are all exaggeratedly in the wrong place because of the aliasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see how the bricks look weird at the edges but I wonder wether it is camera body artifacts. Just doesnt look like aliasing to me. As far as the jaggies are concerned I can only tell you about my own: Its mostly user error due to not setting sharpening to -0.8 in the raw converter.

O.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2007, 10:35:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Sharpening just makes the inherent aliassing more visible, and if that's an issue, the Sigma that designed their raw conversion software sound like they've not spoken to the Sigma that designed the cameras. RAW conversion and camera have to work as a team to "get it right". Even the Sigma adverts in magazines show nasty aliassing on the girl's eyelashes.

Aliassing on, say, perfect computer generated images, looks like your traditional stair stepping, but because real life has lots of detail that isn't in straight lines, aliassing from that manifests as almost a noise where you're getting uncorrelated pixels next to each other as neighbouring pixels are being fed widely different colour or tonal values.  In computer graphics, they vastly super-sample the image to get a smooth, continous image that's not aliassed. To do that on a sigma, would require so many more pixels than it has that the size of the camera would be like a truck. Or you could slip in a small sliver of glass, an anti-alias filter which really is an engineering necessity, take the resolution hit, but get smooth, continous images.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad