Sigma DP1 for those considering a DSLR

[webshark3]

After 2 years at Disney with a DSLR, I'll be buying the Sigma DP1 when it's released (May/June hopefully). It's the first "DLSR" packed into a compact body. It's APS-C sensor is three layers for optimal color reproduction. That + Disney will = some amazing shots.

http://sigma-dp1.com/

The only real downsides: Cost estimated at $799-$1000US. It also has a fixed 28mm lens. Good news is, at least it's true wide angle. ;)

[Master Mason]

After 2 years at Disney with a DSLR, I'll be buying the Sigma DP1 when it's released (May/June hopefully). It's the first "DLSR" packed into a compact body. It's APS-C sensor is three layers for optimal color reproduction. That + Disney will = some amazing shots.

http://sigma-dp1.com/

The only real downsides: Cost estimated at $799-$1000US. It also has a fixed 28mm lens. Good news is, at least it's true wide angle. ;)

Well, it looks like a nice camera, but it isn't a dSLR. SLR's allow you to change lenses and the take pictures differently, you actually look through the lens to focus and frame.

If it is what you want and it fits your needs, the you should jump on it, but it would never do what I want my camera to do.

[handicap18]

Its ONLY a 28mm lens camera. No zoom (outside of 3x digital zoom) and you can't change lenses. Its not a dSLR, it is a compact camera with the sensor size of a dSLR. Though it is slightly smaller than the current dSLR sensors (Canon 1.6x and Nikon/Pentax/Sony 1.5x) at 1.7x (16.6mm x 1.7 = 28mm).

Sure you'd get some great pictures at Disney, but it would be almost usless at AK because it is only a 28mm lens. You'd have to do a TON of cropping and then the images would be very degraded.

For that price,,, I'll pass.

[Groucho]

I am very fascinated by Sigma's Foveon sensor, but my understanding is that they're still getting more noise than more traditional sensor designs. Its sharpness is unparalleled, though.

I think their concept is great, however it'll never sell well (partly due to no one knowing who Sigma is, no one knowing where to buy one, and the very high price tag), and I would fear that other manufacturers could point to it and say "see, consumers don't want a large-sensor PnS."

What I'd really like to see is someone like Fuji produce a long-zoom like their S9100 and stick a DSLR-sized sensor in there, with or without IS. You'd have the PnS benefits with quality that should match a DSLR with a single "walk around" lens, and little to no worry about dust blobs, either.

If not that, then maybe Olympus could take that darn 4/3rds sensor and put it in a PnS-type long-zoom body, it's smaller than the usual DSLR APS sensors so wouldn't require quite as big of a chassis, and would still be much higher quality than a typical PnS.

[MarkBarbieri]

SLR's allow you to change lenses and the take pictures differently, you actually look through the lens to focus and frame.

Technically, you can make a SLR that doesn't have interchangeable lenses. It's the viewing through the lens bit that makes it an SLR. I can't think of why someone would want to build an SLR with a fixed lens, but you never know.

[boBQuincy]

I really like the idea of a P&S with a large sensor but can't see one at that price and without a zoom lens actually being a success.
If they added a tri-elmar type of lens (maybe a 28 - 50 - 85) it could be an affordable Leica substitute and I would have my credit card out!

[webshark3]

Ok all. SOme of you missed me putting DSLR in quotes. Of course it's not a DSLR. However, it uses the same sensor and guts as the SD14 DSLR. If your into LONG zooms, then it's not for you. However, I noticed 90% of my shots at Disney were in the 28mm range. I don't do zoom at AK, I'm more interested in photos of my kids who tend to be really close up. ;) I can photograph animals at my local zoo. I hate changing leses at Disney, have have really stuck to the kit lens.

As fore noise, the SD14 samples are on par with Nikon and Canon. A lot has to do with how you process them.

As for zoom, obviously long zoom is out of the question, but 3x digital zoom will still give you a far superior stills to a small sensor P&S with 3x optical zoom. A small crop from my 300D (6mp) is far superior to my 6mp P&S.

[webshark3]

I really like the idea of a P&S with a large sensor but can't see one at that price and without a zoom lens actually being a success.
If they added a tri-elmar type of lens (maybe a 28 - 50 - 85) it could be an affordable Leica substitute and I would have my credit card out!

You want the Epson digital rangefinder, just pull out your credit card and a second mortgage on your house.... lol

[webshark3]

Technically, you can make a SLR that doesn't have interchangeable lenses. It's the viewing through the lens bit that makes it an SLR. I can't think of why someone would want to build an SLR with a fixed lens, but you never know.

No mirror, but the Sony R1 fits that build.

[webshark3]

I really like the idea of a P&S with a large sensor but can't see one at that price

Price out a Canon 30D and 10-22mm lens, and the Sigma price/size gets attractive real quick. :)

[MarkBarbieri]

I'd still prefer the Leica M8 for a small, primarily wide, simple camera. There is a slight price difference (some $4,000 plus lenses), but who wants to quibble over a few bucks?

[boBQuincy]

Price out a Canon 30D and 10-22mm lens, and the Sigma price/size gets attractive real quick. :)

I have a 30D and a 10-22 and you are correct, it gets pricy real quick. The deal with that is that for another few hundred I can also have a midrange lens, and for a few hundred more a long lens.
The Sigma is very attractive due to it's size but I really want more lens options than it offers. Epson's RD-1 would be ok even at the high price if it worked better, the focus mechanism is not that good from what I read. Auto focus is fine with me anyway, the rangefinder doesn't add anything that I would want.

My guess is Sigma will see the potential of a P&S with a real sensor and quickly fit a short zoom or vari-focal on the camera, then take my $$$.

[Master Mason]

Ok all. SOme of you missed me putting DSLR in quotes. Of course it's not a DSLR. However, it uses the same sensor and guts as the SD14 DSLR. If your into LONG zooms, then it's not for you. However, I noticed 90% of my shots at Disney were in the 28mm range. I don't do zoom at AK, I'm more interested in photos of my kids who tend to be really close up. ;) I can photograph animals at my local zoo. I hate changing leses at Disney, have have really stuck to the kit lens.

As fore noise, the SD14 samples are on par with Nikon and Canon. A lot has to do with how you process them.

As for zoom, obviously long zoom is out of the question, but 3x digital zoom will still give you a far superior stills to a small sensor P&S with 3x optical zoom. A small crop from my 300D (6mp) is far superior to my 6mp P&S.

As I said, if it fits your needs and budget, then you should jump all over it. However, it isn't what I am looking for.

As for the digital zoom, to me that is a worthless feature, If I want to crop a photo, I will do so in a PP program, but that's just me.

[Groucho]

Another thing is that a 30D and a 10-22mm lens will probably hold their value better than the Sigma, which is such a niche product that I can't imagine that used ones will sell easily for anything close to new prices.

Furthermore, comparing to a 10-22 lens is apples and oranges... compare it to a DSLR with a 28mm F4 lens.

The sensor is actually smaller than most DSLR sensors... 20.7 x 13.8mm, versus 23.5 x 15.7mm in my DSLR, and most are either the same or just a mm or so in either direction. Still, I don't doubt that their unique technology will win out in sharpness, but probably lose (easily) when comparing noise levels. Your final photos will be somewhere around 4-5mp (I'm too lazy to do the math at the moment).

It's certainly a unique beast. But there are some weird specs. Slowest shutter speed of 15 seconds? That's pretty crummy. And you use a dial to focus manually? Bleah.

[webshark3]

Another thing is that a 30D and a 10-22mm lens will probably hold their value better than the Sigma, which is such a niche product that I can't imagine that used ones will sell easily for anything close to new prices.

Furthermore, comparing to a 10-22 lens is apples and oranges... compare it to a DSLR with a 28mm F4 lens.

The sensor is actually smaller than most DSLR sensors... 20.7 x 13.8mm, versus 23.5 x 15.7mm in my DSLR, and most are either the same or just a mm or so in either direction. Still, I don't doubt that their unique technology will win out in sharpness, but probably lose (easily) when comparing noise levels. Your final photos will be somewhere around 4-5mp (I'm too lazy to do the math at the moment).

It's certainly a unique beast. But there are some weird specs. Slowest shutter speed of 15 seconds? That's pretty crummy. And you use a dial to focus manually? Bleah.

Manual focus via a dial is very desirable. As for the 15 sec limit, I think Foveon still has issues with Noise with longer exposures. Believe it or not, Niche cameras become cult cameras real quick. Look at pricing on the old Ricoh GR-D, or Sony DSC-60u. Years later, and still retail type pricing most of the time.

The new Foveon sensor is really a 14mp. It's hard to explain, but it competes at a 10-12mp range, not 4-5. You can look for direct comparisons on dpreview of the SD14 versus the Canon 5D (Full Frame Sensor). The SD14 is pretty amazing. And I'm a Canon owner. ;)

[Groucho]

I can't see how focus with a dial is preferable to focus with a ring.

And I do not buy into the whole "14mp" thing. I understand perfectly why they claim that, but it's bogus. Three b/w 4mp images combined still mean one 4mp image. That's be like old-fashioned three-strip Technicolor movie film suddenly claiming that it was actually 105mm film, not 35mm.

Actually, I remember someone with a very early scanner, it was connected to his Amiga and was basically a b/w camera that sat about a foot over a flat surface. You'd rotate a color wheel in front of the lens and take three "scans" of whatever you're trying to capture and it would then combine the RGB channels.

I certainly will not debate the potential superiority of distinct color channels or of the Foveon sensor in general. But suddenly claiming that a 4mp-size image is something other than that is disingenuous - or "just marketing" to put it another way.

Ultimately, what we're left with with this camera is less-than-entry-level PnS features (no zoom, no movie mode, 15 seconds max shutter, etc) with what is probably an extremely nice sensor. It's the answer to the question no one was asking.

Now, give it the features of your average 3x zoom PnS and price it closer to a higher-end PnS (say, $500, maybe $600), and they might have a chance of selling a few. (I'd like to see one of the more mainstream DSLR manufacturers make such a camera.) I think this will barely sell any models... but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[webshark3]

Got to look a little closer. It will have a movie mode. Also, with FULL manual control, and extended 1600 (3200) iso. How can it be lacking P&S features? lol

Given that's it's a P&S, with no room for a manual focus ring, a manual focus dial is the next best thing.

I'm sorry you don't believe in the 3-layer design. I personally don't own one yet, but the results speak for themselves (See Dpreview samples and user comparisons). The SD14 EASILY competes with 10-12mp DSLRs. Don't you get caught up on the whole mp war. :) I have a 2mp Sony that kicks @@@ on my 6mp P&S. Their claim is not bogus if you look at the definition of a pixel.

But who cares about pixels if the end result looks great. You're right, it's audience is limited, it'll definitely be a niche camera. But a very necessary niche. I'm tired of sensors getting smaller and smaller.


I can't see how focus with a dial is preferable to focus with a ring.

And I do not buy into the whole "14mp" thing. I understand perfectly why they claim that, but it's bogus. Three b/w 4mp images combined still mean one 4mp image. That's be like old-fashioned three-strip Technicolor movie film suddenly claiming that it was actually 105mm film, not 35mm.

Actually, I remember someone with a very early scanner, it was connected to his Amiga and was basically a b/w camera that sat about a foot over a flat surface. You'd rotate a color wheel in front of the lens and take three "scans" of whatever you're trying to capture and it would then combine the RGB channels.

I certainly will not debate the potential superiority of distinct color channels or of the Foveon sensor in general. But suddenly claiming that a 4mp-size image is something other than that is disingenuous - or "just marketing" to put it another way.

Ultimately, what we're left with with this camera is less-than-entry-level PnS features (no zoom, no movie mode, 15 seconds max shutter, etc) with what is probably an extremely nice sensor. It's the answer to the question no one was asking.

Now, give it the features of your average 3x zoom PnS and price it closer to a higher-end PnS (say, $500, maybe $600), and they might have a chance of selling a few. (I'd like to see one of the more mainstream DSLR manufacturers make such a camera.) I think this will barely sell any models... but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[Groucho]

I do believe in the merits of separate RGB receptors.

But I don't buy that three monochromatic 4mp pictures combined to make one single chromatic 4mp picture is the same thing as 14mp.

Again, the three-strip Technicolor comparison - three-strip Technicolor gives astonishingly vibrant colors and a very distinctive look, but it's still a 35mm image. And your resulting jpg (or format of choice) will be 4mp of resolution. It's the final result that matters.

The big PnS feature that's lacking is zoom of any level (and we all know that digital zoom just plain doesn't count.)

Hey, I'm not saying that the camera won't produce terrific images - it probably will. But it has severe limitations, as well, and I don't think the difference in quality compared to a DSLR is worth it compared to all that you give up.

[Anewman]

I'm sorry you don't believe in the 3-layer design. I personally don't own one yet, but the results speak for themselves (See Dpreview samples and user comparisons). The SD14 EASILY competes with 10-12mp DSLRs. Don't you get caught up on the whole mp war. :)

I agree with Groucho on this, yes we believe in the 3-layer design. We believe that it produces AMAZING 4mp images that is.

Isnt Sigma the one getting caught up in the whole MP war thing by RECOUNTING pixels on this sensor?

If all you say about competing with 10mp DSLRS is true why would they worry about the MP count?
"But who cares about pixels if the end result looks great.", sounds like SIGMA cares or else we would all agree that it is 4mp as the image produced is 4mp


As for the 15 sec limit, I think Foveon still has issues with Noise with longer exposures.

I dont think the noise issues are limited to longer exposures.

[MarkBarbieri]

But I don't buy that three monochromatic 4mp pictures combined to make one single chromatic 4mp picture is the same thing as 14mp.

Doesn't the K100D take 1 monochromatic 4mp picture and 2 monochromatic 1mp pictures and call that a six megapixel picture? I was under the impression that the advertised mp resolution of a digital camera counted each pixel as one pixel disregarding the fact that each is only a single color. The combined image is then made by using an algorithm to guess what the full color of each of those pixels is supposed to be.

Now it's true that a traditional 6mp SLR really has 6 million discrete monochromatic pixels as opposed to 4 million tri-color pixels. I'm not sure how you compare the two. I'd recommend comparisons based on actual resolving power and color accuracy rather than megapixel counts because the 6mp isn't really 6 color megapixels and the 4 mp is definitely not 14 megapixels.

[Master Mason]

Doesn't the K100D take 1 monochromatic 4mp picture and 2 monochromatic 1mp pictures and call that a six megapixel picture? I was under the impression that the advertised mp resolution of a digital camera counted each pixel as one pixel disregarding the fact that each is only a single color. The combined image is then made by using an algorithm to guess what the full color of each of those pixels is supposed to be.

Now it's true that a traditional 6mp SLR really has 6 million discrete monochromatic pixels as opposed to 4 million tri-color pixels. I'm not sure how you compare the two. I'd recommend comparisons based on actual resolving power and color accuracy rather than megapixel counts because the 6mp isn't really 6 color megapixels and the 4 mp is definitely not 14 megapixels.

yes save youselves the arguement and simply buy a Canon dSLR, we all know they are the best :rolleyes1

[MarkBarbieri]

yes save youselves the arguement and simply buy a Canon dSLR, we all know they are the best

Now, now. I was just using the K100D as an example and meant it no disrespect. As far as I know, all Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus cameras are the same in their reliance on a RGBG sensor and they all count each monochromatic pixel as a pixel on their count. So while the Foveon may have fewer pixels, it has full color pixels rather than monochromatic pixels that get their color from interpolation.

[Master Mason]

Now, now. I was just using the K100D as an example and meant it no disrespect. As far as I know, all Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus cameras are the same in their reliance on a RGBG sensor and they all count each monochromatic pixel as a pixel on their count. So while the Foveon may have fewer pixels, it has full color pixels rather than monochromatic pixels that get their color from interpolation.

I was just yanking some chains. I have canon, for my own reasons, but they all the brands are good. I don't think you'll ever see me being a canon pusher for real.

[webshark3]

Technically, the Sigma has ~14 million effective pixels. So despite the resolution, it's 14mp, NOT 4mp.

But, if you want to call it a 4mp, I don't care. the 10 foot tall prints show what it can really do with "4mp". :) (And the Mars Rover shows what a 1mp camera can do on an IMAX screen).

I could go back to dpreview for the technical debates. I brought up the DP1 here because of a re-occurring question "Should I bring a DSLR or my P&S to Disney. Unsurprisingly, the answers are always 50/50 with good reasons on both sides.

The DP1 is the first camera that is a P&S, that will produce DSLR results, despite it's design compromises. The COO of Sigma came right out and said that this camera was designed for serious/pro DSLR users who do not want to always carry around their DSLRs. For me it'll make a great Disney Camera, as I use wide angle much more than any zoom.

[Master Mason]

The DP1 is the first camera that is a P&S, that will produce DSLR results, despite it's design compromises. The COO of Sigma came right out and said that this camera was designed for serious/pro DSLR users who do not want to always carry around their DSLRs. For me it'll make a great Disney Camera, as I use wide angle much more than any zoom.

This is my problem with your arguement. It simply won't. It might take equal pictures to a dslr with only a 28mm prime, but a dslr is so much more than a camera with a single focal length.

so as stated a couple of times, if it fits your needs and budget, you should be all over it. I hope that you enjoy it emmensly. Just not what I am looking for myself.

[webshark3]

It might take equal pictures to a dslr with only a 28mm prime,

Thanks for confirming my comments. :)

It would actually be about a 16-18mm prime roughly, but I know what you meant. ;)

If they fail to release it, my backup plan is my 300D with 24mm prime lens, or kit lens (18-55). I have a incredible 28-75 f2.8 lenses, but learned that it really starts to weigh on you over the course of the day in 90+ degree heat.

I bought the 24mm last yeat after determining most of my photos were wide angle, and even crops looked great. Unfortunately, the 24mm never came out to play as it rained all the time. FORTUNATELY I planned for that, and my Pentax OptioWP (waterproof) came out to play for the whole trip. LOL I'd like to see ANY DSLR do this:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/webshark3/IMGP4512.jpg

[Master Mason]

Thanks for confirming my comments. :) Key word is might, but I'll take your word for it :)

I bought the 24mm last yeat after determining most of my photos were wide angle, and even crops looked great. Unfortunately, the 24mm never came out to play as it rained all the time. FORTUNATELY I planned for that, and my Pentax OptioWP (waterproof) came out to play for the whole trip. LOL I'd like to see ANY DSLR do this:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/webshark3/IMGP4512.jpg

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=319451&highlight=photos+in+the+rain

It just depends on what DSLR you have or the set up

http://www.justinunderwater.com/homepage.htm

[webshark3]

I thought about a casing or bag for my DSLR. But my wife would have been furious if I was strugling to get a case on my camera (cameras with video) while leaving my son in a downpour. LOL

[MarkBarbieri]

Technically, the Sigma has ~14 million effective pixels. So despite the resolution, it's 14mp, NOT 4mp

It's just a semantic thing, but the DPReview article says that it has 14 million "sensor photo detectors" which translates to 4.6 million pixels. I'm really not sure that there is any valid way to compare that in simple numeric terms to a traditional bayer array sensor. It only resolves 4.6 million pixels of detail, but it takes 14 million color readings. This compares with a 6 mp digital camera resolving 6 million pixels of detail and 6 million color readings. Apples and Oranges. Just judge it by the picture quality in the formats you need and ignore the numbers game.

[Anewman]

Technically, the Sigma has ~14 million effective pixels. So despite the resolution, it's 14mp, NOT 4mp.


Last question...

So the image produced by the camera in what ever format(jpeg, tiff, etc...) contains how many pixels?

[webshark3]

It just depends on what DSLR you have or the set up

http://www.justinunderwater.com/homepage.htm

Actually, while we're off topic, I'll share a neat tip to protect your SLR that's super cheap. NOT waterproof, but rain is not a problem. You'll need:

1) a Large clear plastic zip-lock bag (any brand should be ok; weaker bags may work better - more flexible).
2) SLR camera with lens (duh)
3) Filter for the lens
4) (Optional) Lens Hood

Step 1) Put your SLR in the bag, lens down (so the lens is in the bottom away from the opening.
Step 2) Close the bag. You don't need air in the bad, you can let it all out.
Step 3) On the Outside of the bag, carefully screw the filter onto the lens over the plastic.
Step 4) With a knife (most likey swiss-army) cut the plastic away from the INSIDE of the lens filter, exposing the filter. The threading should still be griping the plastic bag.
Step 5) add the lens hood if you have on to help keep rain off the filter.

That's it. A cheap way to help protect, as well as allow you to shoot in the rain at Disney. I didn't do it myself since I had a Waterproof camera. Had to fuss around with to many other things during the quick downpours.... :)

[MarkBarbieri]

If you do that, keep the lens cover on as much as possible, keep the lenses pointed down when not shooting and the lens cover is off, and keep a dry store of microfiber cloths. The goal is to avoid water drops on the lens as much as possible.

[webshark3]

Last question...

So the image produced by the camera in what ever format(jpeg, tiff, etc...) contains how many pixels?

Trick question. What are you using to process the image? Only the Sigma Software (v3) will properly handle the image. 14 million pixels.

Windows is dumb, and Adobe isn't ready for the new Foveon Sensor (Which is why there are still so many complaints about noise).

[webshark3]

If you do that, keep the lens cover on as much as possible, keep the lenses pointed down when not shooting and the lens cover is off, and keep a dry store of microfiber cloths. The goal is to avoid water drops on the lens as much as possible.

Good points. ;)

I heard that some pros would rub an apple slice on the filter. If kept water droplets from forming. Never tried it, so don't know if it works.

[Anewman]

Trick question. What are you using to process the image? Only the Sigma Software (v3) will properly handle the image. 14 million pixels.

Windows is dumb, and Adobe isn't ready for the new Foveon Sensor (Which is why there are still so many complaints about noise).


So the Sigma Software will produce a 14mp final product?

I am being 100% serious.

[webshark3]

So the Sigma Software will produce a 14mp final product?

I am being 100% serious.

I played around with it. It's actually quite involved. So I will say that Foveon is probably not for the faint of heart. But I was able to choose output resolution, and choosing some sample images, I could easily compare it's 14mp output to a ~10mp Bayer Layer.

But I'll concede part of our original point. :) If you shoot JPG and view it in windows, you'll see a 4mp image. But from a APS-C sensor, that 4mp image will still be much more versatile than a P&S tiny sensor. Sigma has shown that "4mp" image as a 10' tall print to dispel any myth about the pixels. My 6mp P&S struggles at 8x10".

[Groucho]

Rain pictures are no big deal for any DSLR with water and dust sealing. They should be fine in almost anything save submersion. I would guess that even non-sealed DSLRs will often be fine in a light rain.

The megapixel count is purely marketing. As far as I'm concerned, megapixels should rate the resolution of the photo you get out of the camera is. A typical 6mp camera gives you 6mp, a 10mp gives you 10, etc.

If you want to start getting nitty-gritty, you could make a claim that cameras that cannot save in a lossless format (like most RAW formats) are actually less mp than they claim because some pixels are lost to compression.

The Foveon sensor effectively makes three black and white photos. There is color information for just one single channel in each of the 4.7 mp. Now, I can easily take a picture made with any digital camera and break it down into three separate pictures, one each for the color channels, but does that mean that that picture is suddenly 3x the megapixels? Of course not.

So, three pictures that are each one third of the original photograph, and are basically useless without the other two, do not count as three photos in my book. Using separate sensors is a very neat trick and may be the way of the future - but that's all "behind the scenes" stuff. If a customer actually buys one and expects to get a 14mp photo and is actually left with a 2652 x 1768 image is going to be pretty disappointed.

And yes, basically everyone except Sigma has normal Bayer-filter sensors. The only thing somewhat comparable to the Sigma, I think, is the Fuji sensor in their S3 Pro DSLR, which has basically two 6mp sensors (and is also guilty of claiming more mp, though they can at least product a 12mp photo from them straight from the camera), but those are for dynamic range, not color.

[handicap18]

Actually, while we're off topic, I'll share a neat tip to protect your SLR that's super cheap. NOT waterproof, but rain is not a problem. You'll need:

1) a Large clear plastic zip-lock bag (any brand should be ok; weaker bags may work better - more flexible).
2) SLR camera with lens (duh)
3) Filter for the lens
4) (Optional) Lens Hood

Step 1) Put your SLR in the bag, lens down (so the lens is in the bottom away from the opening.
Step 2) Close the bag. You don't need air in the bad, you can let it all out.
Step 3) On the Outside of the bag, carefully screw the filter onto the lens over the plastic.
Step 4) With a knife (most likey swiss-army) cut the plastic away from the INSIDE of the lens filter, exposing the filter. The threading should still be griping the plastic bag.
Step 5) add the lens hood if you have on to help keep rain off the filter.

That's it. A cheap way to help protect, as well as allow you to shoot in the rain at Disney. I didn't do it myself since I had a Waterproof camera. Had to fuss around with to many other things during the quick downpours.... :)

I've read this and re-read this many times trying to visualize it and correct me if I'm wrong, but this will not work.

If the camera and lens are in the bag and you screw the filter over the lens from the outside of the bag, then the part that you want to cut away is now between the lens and the filter. :confused: :confused3 You'd have to cut away the glass on the filter to get to the plastic that needs to be cut away.

Now I do think that it will work if you attach the lens hood from the outside of the bag as the lens hood has no glass to cover over the part of the bag you want to cut away. Then you can attatch the filter to hold the bag to the lens. Unless of course the filter doesn't have glass on it, then its just a plain old ring that can screw onto a lens.

[Anewman]

I've read this and re-read this many times trying to visualize it and correct me if I'm wrong, but this will not work.

If the camera and lens are in the bag and you screw the filter over the lens from the outside of the bag, then the part that you want to cut away is now between the lens and the filter. :confused: :confused3 You'd have to cut away the glass on the filter to get to the plastic that needs to be cut away.

Now I do think that it will work if you attach the lens hood from the outside of the bag as the lens hood has no glass to cover over the part of the bag you want to cut away. Then you can attatch the filter to hold the bag to the lens. Unless of course the filter doesn't have glass on it, then its just a plain old ring that can screw onto a lens.
Think that is the only way it would work...

[MarkBarbieri]

The Foveon sensor effectively makes three black and white photos. There is color information for just one single channel in each of the 4.7 mp.

Umm, have you checked to see how a normal bayer array sensor works? Each of the 6 megapixels captured by a K100D (or any other 6 megapixel camera) is also "black and white" (monochromatic, actually). So what do you want a mere 6 million photo-receptors or 14 million photo receptors? Do you want 6 million different monochromatic pixels or a mere 4.7 million full color pixels? There is just no way to make an apples to apples comparison.

Now, I can easily take a picture made with any digital camera and break it down into three separate pictures, one each for the color channels, but does that mean that that picture is suddenly 3x the megapixels? Of course not.

Why not claim it had 3x megapixels? Other makers claim the full monochromatic resolution and don't divide that number by three when talk about full color photographs. It would certainly be innaccurate to claim the higher number of pixels for the foveon because they are interpolated, but the converse has never stopped other digital camera makers. How many people realize that their 6 mp DSLR isn't really recording 6 mp worth of full color pixels and is relying on interpolation to convert those monochromatic pixels to color?

There are other theoretical advantages to using stacked sensors. You should be able to have larger photo-receptors in the same physical area because they are stacked. You also don't need a blur-inducing anti-aliasing filter to prevent moire patterns.

Of course, theory is theory and reality is reality. Just compare the images and make up your own mind.

[Groucho]

Umm, have you checked to see how a normal bayer array sensor works? Each of the 6 megapixels captured by a K100D (or any other 6 megapixel camera) is also "black and white" (monochromatic, actually). So what do you want a mere 6 million photo-receptors or 14 million photo receptors? Do you want 6 million different monochromatic pixels or a mere 4.7 million full color pixels? There is just no way to make an apples to apples comparison.
You're preaching to the choir here. I'm not debating the potential superiority over a Bayer sensor.

However, like I said, I think you need to measure the total number of pixels that come out of the camera when all is said and done. The Sigma makes a 4.7mp image. A 6mp Bayer-sensor DSLR makes a 6mp picture. Both have their own "trickery" to produce the final result.

[MarkBarbieri]

However, like I said, I think you need to measure the total number of pixels that come out of the camera when all is said and done.

So if the Sigma did an in-camera interpolation to build a 14 megapixel image, would that make it a "14 megapixel" camera?

[Anewman]

So if the Sigma did an in-camera interpolation to build a 14 megapixel image, what would make it a "14 megapixel" camera?

It is a start;)

[webshark3]

I'll try to find the web article for the water bag....

[YEKCIM]

I've read this and re-read this many times trying to visualize it and correct me if I'm wrong, but this will not work.

If the camera and lens are in the bag and you screw the filter over the lens from the outside of the bag, then the part that you want to cut away is now between the lens and the filter. :confused: :confused3 You'd have to cut away the glass on the filter to get to the plastic that needs to be cut away.

Now I do think that it will work if you attach the lens hood from the outside of the bag as the lens hood has no glass to cover over the part of the bag you want to cut away. Then you can attatch the filter to hold the bag to the lens. Unless of course the filter doesn't have glass on it, then its just a plain old ring that can screw onto a lens.

How about using a step ring instead of a filter?

~YEKCIM

[webshark3]

So my directions were a little off. it's been years. :)

Here's the links:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/summer-shooting-tip-cheap-splashproofing-for-your-camera-189371.php

Step by Step:
http://www.instructables.com/id/ERZGHB60KVEP286425/

[Groucho]

So if the Sigma did an in-camera interpolation to build a 14 megapixel image, would that make it a "14 megapixel" camera?
Certainly, though not a very good one. There goes most of the extra sharpness that you gain from their sensor design. I believe this is sort of what the Fuji S3 does to get a 12mp image out of two 6mp sensors.

The key difference here is that each group of 3 of the Sigma's sensors is recording the same pixel. It records one third of a full pixel.

Yes, the Bayer filters are monochromatic as well, but each sensor is a unique pixel. The color is then estimated back - but you're still recording six million unique pixels.

[webshark3]

Not bad for a 3.4mp x3 sensor

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page17.asp

"What these three comparisons have proven is that the SD10 image [3mp] is (for all intents and purposes) at least as detailed and containing as much resolution as a six megapixel image from a Bayer pattern sensor. That said it can also be argued that you can produce an 'X3 like' image from a six megapixel camera by simply downsampling the image."


Certainly, though not a very good one. There goes most of the extra sharpness that you gain from their sensor design. I believe this is sort of what the Fuji S3 does to get a 12mp image out of two 6mp sensors.

The key difference here is that each group of 3 of the Sigma's sensors is recording the same pixel. It records one third of a full pixel.

Yes, the Bayer filters are monochromatic as well, but each sensor is a unique pixel. The color is then estimated back - but you're still recording six million unique pixels.

[Anewman]

Not bad for a 3.4mp x3 sensor

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page17.asp

"What these three comparisons have proven is that the SD10 image [3mp] is (for all intents and purposes) at least as detailed and containing as much resolution as a six megapixel image from a Bayer pattern sensor. That said it can also be argued that you can produce an 'X3 like' image from a six megapixel camera by simply downsampling the image."


So what that proves is that a 10.2mp(3.4x3) Foveon sensor competes with a 6mp Bayer sensor.

Cool, now if we can find a comparison that is not from 2003...

[webshark3]

So what that proves is that a 10.2mp(3.4x3) Foveon sensor competes with a 6mp Bayer sensor.

Cool, now if we can find a comparison that is not from 2003...

From 2003 and just as valid today as it was then. Cameras don't stop functioning because newer models came out. :) I'll check my 300D, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't "expired" since the XT and XTi came out. lol

The SD14 comprehensive review is not out yet (will be soon). And what the old review shows is that a 3mp camera (as everyone has pointed out in the thread based on the final actual resolution) retains as much detail as a 6mp Bayer Sensor.

It is speculated and shown in side by side comparisons that the SD14 (~5mp if you want to view it that way;) ) will have the same resolving power as a 10-12mp Bayer Sensor.

It all comes down to throwing out the whole "my camera's better than yours because it has more pixels" debate. It doesn't hold up anymore than the GHz game that was played by Intel and AMD.

Let's say the Sigma SD10 has 10.2 million pixels which can hold up to the resolution of a 6mp Bayer Layer Sensor while maintaining full and accurate color. See why it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison? To give Canon justice, their SLRs produce incredible color IMO.

[GrumpyOne]

Alright, I'm confused. Isn't this essentially the same as multiple exposures?

[Anewman]

From 2003 and just as valid today as it was then. Cameras don't stop functioning because newer models came out. :) I'll check my 300D, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't "expired" since the XT and XTi came out. lol



Fact is that sensors have improved over the last 4 years, sorry if I offended your 300D by stating the truth. :thumbsup2


It is speculated and shown in side by side comparisons that the SD14 (~5mp if you want to view it that way;) ) will have the same resolving power as a 10-12mp Bayer Sensor.


Yes is it speculated, that is why I posted my desire for a CURRENT COMPARISON. Sounds like you agree with me that it would be nice to have one.


It all comes down to throwing out the whole "my camera's better than yours because it has more pixels" debate. It doesn't hold up anymore than the GHz game that was played by Intel and AMD.


but isnt that what you are doing by claiming 14mp???:confused3

If a SD10 is 10.2mp isn't it a disappointment that it only resolves as much detail as a 6mp Bayer sensor camera?
If this new camera is 14mp why do you keep making it sound like coming close to a 10mp bayer sensor camera is such a big accomplishment?

And that GHz war is still going strong even if it does not hold up in your opinion.

Let's say the Sigma SD10 has 10.2 million pixels which can hold up to the resolution of a 6mp Bayer Layer Sensor while maintaining full and accurate color. See why it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison? To give Canon justice, their SLRs produce incredible color IMO.

Again if it has 10.2 million pixels, why not compare its resolution to a D80 or 30D? isn't that apples to apples?

[webshark3]

Alright, I'm confused. Isn't this essentially the same as multiple exposures?

All light can be separated in 3 primary colors. Each of the 3 layers in the Foveon sensor picks up one of the 3 (red,green, blue). Each layer of the sensor "absorbs" the color it's responsible for.

In the Bayer Layer, It's a single Layer sensor, so each pixel is responsible for all three colors. There are no dedicated pixels.

So Foveon has less pixels in each layer, but more pixels in depth, and dedicated pixel for each color.

Bayer has more pixels for it's layer, but no depth, so each pixel has triple duty.

In Theory, the 3 layer should be a better design. In practice, it takes a lot of x3 pixels to do what a Bayer does (3.4mpx3 Foveon ~ 6mp Bayer).

Let me know how much more I've confused things. ;)

[webshark3]

Fact is that sensors have improved over the last 4 years, sorry if I offended your 300D by stating the truth. :thumbsup2

But lenses haven't. I'll take my 300D with my good lenses over a XTI with kit lens any day.

Yes is it speculated, that is why I posted my desire for a CURRENT COMPARISON. Sounds like you agree with me that it would be nice to have one.

YEP


but isnt that what you are doing by claiming 14mp???:confused3

If a SD10 is 10.2mp isn't it a disappointment that it only resolves as much detail as a 6mp Bayer sensor camera?
If this new camera is 14mp why do you keep making it sound like coming close to a 10mp bayer sensor camera is such a big accomplishment?

And that GHz war is still going strong even if it does not hold up in your opinion.

So you bought a new 5GHz+ Computer? ;) Or was it a lower GHz dual core?



Again if it has 10.2 million pixels, why not compare its resolution to a D80 or 30D? isn't that apples to apples?

Can't. It's not apples to apples, but the results speak for themselves.

[Anewman]

Can't. It's not apples to apples, but the results speak for themselves.


Yes and the results that you posted say that a "10.2mp" Foveon sensor competes with a 6mp Bayer sensor.

:scared1:

[Groucho]

The SD14 comprehensive review is not out yet (will be soon). And what the old review shows is that a 3mp camera (as everyone has pointed out in the thread based on the final actual resolution) retains as much detail as a 6mp Bayer Sensor.
Actually, we're talking about a 4.7mp Foveon being similar in detail to a 6mp Bayer. 4.7 is a lot more than 3.

Speaking of Bayer, anyone feeling a need for aspirin? :rotfl:

It is speculated and shown in side by side comparisons that the SD14 (~5mp if you want to view it that way;) ) will have the same resolving power as a 10-12mp Bayer Sensor.
Like I mentioned early, you're only getting 4.7 megapixels of resolution. That's IT. Each sensor is recording different colors, not different actual image data, unlike the Bayer, in which a 6mp camera actually grabs 6mp worth of image data.

It all comes down to throwing out the whole "my camera's better than yours because it has more pixels" debate. It doesn't hold up anymore than the GHz game that was played by Intel and AMD.
To be fair, Intel was the one who played that game (AMD changed the rules), and I think most DSLR owner with a little bit of sense will realize that mp are certainly not the top criteria in a camera's desirability. Again, how many XTi owners wouldn't be happy going to a 30D despite losing 2mp?

For better of for worse, though, I fear that the Foveon sensor will go the way of three-strip Technicolor. It is likely that CCD and CMOS sensors will continue to improve and chip away at any advantages of the Foveon, and their advantages in cost, complexity, and other features (like noise control), to say nothing of ubiquity, will ultimately lead to Foveon becoming completely obsolete, remembered only by gray-haired photographers, chewing the cud in a retirement home somewhere many years from now.

[GrumpyOne]

Let me know how much more I've confused things. ;)
I would but I'm afraid I'll get an explanation. :scared1:

I think it's probably one of those things where I'll need to see more info in order to make sense out of it. It's not a big deal since I'm not getting a camera with that sensor, it would be kind of like buying a VHS and wanting to know how a Beta-Max worked. Interesting but not necessarily practical.

[webshark3]

Groucho,

We can continue the technical discussions over at dpreview.com. If you think I'm "supportive" of the Foveon concept, just go to the Sigma forum where they they it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. LOL

I really posted at disboards becuase of these facts (regrardless of resolution):
1) Many Disneyers want the most from there photos, and want their DSLRs.
2) Many Disneyers was a P&S camera to "just record the moment."
3) A third class of Disneyer (me) is looking for a P&S sized device that could produce that 20x30 masterpiece hanging on my livingroom wall. You just never know when the moment will arise.

The Sigma DP1 is the first option the industry has given us. You're probably right that the concept may be short-lived, but fortunately, even if Sigma folded overnight, my DP1 would still function. :) I wouldn't worry about it since i'm not buying into a SLR system. People are too hung up about cameras being obsolute once the next model comes out. I have to laugh as it's usually the same people who didn't know how photos could be any better with their cameras when they were new...

[webshark3]

No Problem. All you need to know is that the Sigma DP1 will be the first point-and-shoot compact camera on the market that uses the same sensor as the large (non pocket friendly) Digital SLRs. It will be quite interesting.

I would but I'm afraid I'll get an explanation. :scared1:

I think it's probably one of those things where I'll need to see more info in order to make sense out of it. It's not a big deal since I'm not getting a camera with that sensor, it would be kind of like buying a VHS and wanting to know how a Beta-Max worked. Interesting but not necessarily practical.

[MarkBarbieri]

Like I mentioned early, you're only getting 4.7 megapixels of resolution. That's IT. Each sensor is recording different colors, not different actual image data, unlike the Bayer, in which a 6mp camera actually grabs 6mp worth of image data.

That depends. Let's say you're taking a picture of a beautiful red rose. Just about all of the data is in the red color channel. With the Foveon, you're getting your full resolution throughout the photo. With the bayer camera, you're only getting 1/4 of your resolution in the red areas because the green and blue channels aren't seeing anything. So the resolving power of a bayer array sensor varies depending on the color composition of the subject.

[With a bayer array] you're still recording six million unique pixels.
Even this statement isn't as simple as it sounds. At the A/D level, it's true that you are recording data from six million different positions on the X/Y grid of the sensor. However, you have to have an anti-aliasing filter (also known as a blur filter) in front of the sensor. The filter blurs the image so that the samed focused points of light are spread across the different colored sensors in the bayer array. So the effective resolution even of a gray image is still reduced below nominal resolution.

Once again, it is not very meaningful to compare the megapixel numbers of full color and bayer array sensors. I would assume that when people talk about pixel numbers, they are really trying to determine resolving power. Just like with the analogy of computer speed and CPU clock rate, the relationship between sensor pixel or photosite counts and photo resolution is not straightforward.

[Groucho]

No way am I going over to DPReview's forums, and certainly I'm not stepping foot anywhere near the Sigma forums. You think I have a death wish or something? :lmao:

Anyway, I stand by all my points, and as I've said many times, I still am fascinated by the sensor.

I think that the big problems with the DP1 can be easily put into two categories: Cost (too high) and Zoom (none). There are other little annoyances (short max shutter speed, if you're going to make it a prime lens - why in the world isn't it at least an F2.8, etc), but I think the top two will effectively shoot this one in the leg. If Sigma could have created the same camera with a 3-5x zoom lens and kept the price at $500 or less, I think they might have had a good chance by marketing to the more knowledgable shooters who know that Sigma makes cameras at all.

And I think only the most optimistic Sigma supporter could honestly believe that the Foveon is headed for a nice, long life. The best they can hope for is to for Sigma to continue to funnel money from their lens line into the camera line and keep churning out at least one Foveon-sensor camera, kind of like how Mazda will usually have at least one rotary-engine car in their line-up. (Though they went without for several years there recently.)

[webshark3]

Unfortunately, a compact camera with a APS-C sensor and a f2.8 lens wouldn't be a compact camera anymore. :) They may get there, but clearly, not in the next 1-2 years. Add a zoom, and it's DEFINATELY out of the question (If your goal was a compact camera). You're right, these lacking features will keep the mainstream away, but there is enough cult audience to keep it around. The Ricoh GR-D, has a tiny sensor, and retailed at over $899, with a prime 28mm (equil) lens. Not only did it have a cult following, but they continue to improve and develop the line (now with a zoom).

I'm not concerned about the lifespan of the Foveon, only the lifespan of the camera I buy. It's not like 10 years from now I'll be searching for 110 film or a Kodak disc. LOL

No way am I going over to DPReview's forums, and certainly I'm not stepping foot anywhere near the Sigma forums. You think I have a death wish or something? :lmao:

Anyway, I stand by all my points, and as I've said many times, I still am fascinated by the sensor.

I think that the big problems with the DP1 can be easily put into two categories: Cost (too high) and Zoom (none). There are other little annoyances (short max shutter speed, if you're going to make it a prime lens - why in the world isn't it at least an F2.8, etc), but I think the top two will effectively shoot this one in the leg. If Sigma could have created the same camera with a 3-5x zoom lens and kept the price at $500 or less, I think they might have had a good chance by marketing to the more knowledgable shooters who know that Sigma makes cameras at all.

And I think only the most optimistic Sigma supporter could honestly believe that the Foveon is headed for a nice, long life. The best they can hope for is to for Sigma to continue to funnel money from their lens line into the camera line and keep churning out at least one Foveon-sensor camera, kind of like how Mazda will usually have at least one rotary-engine car in their line-up. (Though they went without for several years there recently.)