>Why take a leap forward if most people can't see the difference?
I agree. If there were a Foveon which could compete with the latest and greatest sensors from Nikon, Sony and Canon, then I'm sure people would buy it. For some reason Foveon development seems to have stalled. While you can argue that it matches the 5D at lower isos, it doesn't do so well at higher isos, and it is certainly no match for the current 21/24 Mpixel options. It's an elegant idea, but Foveon still has to BE better than the alternatives, before it can begin to PROVE that it's better. Those are two big hurdles. Nikon and Canon, and their users, clearly have no reason to envy it for the moment.
Sorry. I didn't mean to turn this into a Sigma/Foveon discussion. I was merely commenting on the guerrilla marketing tactics comment -- something that is obvious to me that Sigma utilizes.
But Richard is right. Foveon development has stalled. I still don't understand why they don't turn around and make a full frame sensor with the same pixel pitch. It might stand a chance of competing with the big boys. But as it is its just going to fade away. The limitation on development is that the Foveon 3 photo site-pixel is necessarily large, and it may be proving difficult to shrink it further to cram more pixels in. I full frame sensor would go at least part of the way to solving that but they don't seem to be going that way (from what I hear the sensor in strongly intolerant to the light hitting the sensor at large angle -- perhaps, speculating, because the bottom photo site in the pixel is relatively deep. I personally, from what I've seen and working with the files, don't think the current Foveon chip is the equal of the 5D at high ISO or at low ISO. It's more in 40D territory, IMHO.
Now, back to the 5D Mkll, a rather large hill for Sigma/Foveon to climb, although I suspect claims will be made...
Isn't the in-camera anti-shake technology licensed as well?
The basic "shake the filter" concept is too simple to patent in itself, and there are many ways to shake the filter...each particular way being patentable.
RDKirk wrote:
The basic "shake the filter" concept is too simple to patent in itself, and there are many ways to shake the filter...each particular way being patentable.
Oops, yes he was, although my answer would be the same. There's more than one way to keep the camera still. In that case, Canon and Nikon apparently believe they already have the proper answer (notice that although the IS and VR systems have the same result, they are quite differently designed systems), although I think it's really the "not invented here" syndrome.
You once showed nice pictures using sunpak rd2000. I don't remember where the original post is but I believe it was in this thread.
I just got mine and after a few shots, I found its light is yellowish, warmer, than the lights I got from other flashes, which are usually white. I am wondering if this is a common issue of this model, or of this brand, or of this kind of small power flash, or that my copy might be defective?
Other than this, this flash is really tiny and lightweight. I like its appearance from the first look.
Just got my 5D2 kit today. After 9 shots and letting it sit for a few hours, picked it back up and now just get the dreaded error 20. Did all the suggested fixes and even updated the firmware... no luck. It had the battery grip on it at the time, but it made no difference with out it. It will go back to B&H tomorrow.
Also found a large white speck of something on the inside of the front lens element on the 24-105. I also got the Canon UV filter for the lens and when I screwed it snug, it presses on the front element of the lens! What gives with Canon these days?
This is the worst luck I've ever had in buying Canon products for more than 20 years!
You once showed nice pictures using sunpak rd2000. I don't remember where the original post is but I believe it was in this thread.
I just got mine and after a few shots, I found its light is yellowish, warmer, than the lights I got from other flashes, which are usually white. I am wondering if this is a common issue of this model, or of this brand, or of this kind of small power flash, or that my copy might be defective?
Other than this, this flash is really tiny and lightweight. I like its appearance from the first look.
Mine is yellowy too, especially with the diffuser in place. Just use a custom white balance and you should be fine. Or put a gentle bluish gel over the bulb window.
Mine is yellowy too, especially with the diffuser in place. Just use a custom white balance and you should be fine. Or put a gentle bluish gel over the bulb window.
Thank you, Richard,
I actually tied a white card to the flash and used it as a reflector. Then the yellowy tincture was basically gone. The only concern is probably the loss of lights might be considerable when shooting with only the reflected lights in the field. I haven't done any further experiments, I think a colour gel could be a good idea if I would be lucky to find the appropriate blue.
Is the Sunpak RD2000 now working properly with the 5DII? I was waiting to buy/try one until the compatibility issues were resolved. What is the latest?
htbyron wrote:
Is the Sunpak RD2000 now working properly with the 5DII? I was waiting to buy/try one until the compatibility issues were resolved. What is the latest?
When I checked last week Sunpac engineers were looking at the problem and they would have a solution in the "future".
I believe the incompatibility is with both the 5DMK2 and the 5oD.
Tocad America is still working on the fix for the RD2000 - as it won't work with the 5D II. My Sunpak PZ40X II will work with the 5D II.
Bobby
joykafka wrote:
hi, bobbytan,
You once showed nice pictures using sunpak rd2000. I don't remember where the original post is but I believe it was in this thread.
I just got mine and after a few shots, I found its light is yellowish, warmer, than the lights I got from other flashes, which are usually white. I am wondering if this is a common issue of this model, or of this brand, or of this kind of small power flash, or that my copy might be defective?
Other than this, this flash is really tiny and lightweight. I like its appearance from the first look.
