I am not an insider with Foveon. As such I can only speculate. I suspect that Foveon was a research and development company with very little marketing resources. They ran their company base on capitals from venture capitalists so they are limited in funding. They had to pace themselves with their funds in order to survive.
They were competing with giant corporations in Japan making Bayer type mosaic sensors for a huge market. Foveon only customer was Sigma.
Since Sigma is a much larger company than Foveon, Sigma buying Foveon made a lot of sense.
Now that Foveon has the capital backing from Sigma I am sure the research and development will accelerate.
Since the digital camera market is moving toward prosumer full frame I am sure Sigma is also looking to compete in that market.
Personally the pixel density of a Foveon sensor makes a lot of sense. The technology makes a lot of sense. I sure will be hoping Sigma will help Foveon in coming out with a full frame sensor. Even at 6 to 8 megapixels full frame would create an incredible image because of the technology.
Just watching the Foveon image sharpen in the Sigma software is incredible. It is much better than watching a higher megapixel image sharpen in Photoshop.
Still, a 4mp file is still just that in terms of resolution, no matter what Sigma wants you to believe. There is no doubt in my mind that if the principle was implemented by Canon/Nikon/Sony it would be a huge success with 20+ mpbut I don't expect Sigma alone to do any substantial development.
As far as I understand it, the luminance resolution will be 4 megapixels equialent, but the color resolution would be 12 megapixels equialent? Or have I misunderstood something?
Beni wrote:
Yeah but in the real world it was more like 8 megapixels.
And that was still only after up-sizing. A FF Foveon with around 12 megapixels of resolution (with no up-sizing applied) would be an incredible sensor. That statement about watching the files sharpen is true - it's a difference experience than other sensor's output.
Just the fact that Foveon is better than bayer at 1 to1 and at a conservative ratio 2:1 has merit and worth the effort on my part to continue to use it. All Foveon/Sigma can do is grow with it and the photographic community will benefit from it. Then again how many pixels does it take to make a great image.
Larry Carter wrote:
Just the fact that Foveon is better than bayer at 1 to1 and at a conservative ratio 2:1 has merit and worth the effort on my part to continue to use it. All Foveon/Sigma can do is grow with it and the photographic community will benefit from it. Then again how many pixels does it take to make a great image.
Regards,
Larry
Wouldn't it be great if they put this sensor in a m4/3 type camera with removable lenses and a great EVF like the Panny G1? That would be cool...
Vern Dewit wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if they put this sensor in a m4/3 type camera with removable lenses and a great EVF like the Panny G1? That would be cool...
V.
I'm not a 4/3 user but I can see where a camera like that would benefit greatly and bring enjoyment for those who use one. So I have to say it would be nice of Sigma to make one.
Vern Dewit wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if they put this sensor in a m4/3 type camera with removable lenses and a great EVF like the Panny G1? That would be cool...
Larry Carter wrote:
I'm not a 4/3 user but I can see where a camera like that would benefit greatly and bring enjoyment for those who use one. So I have to say it would be nice of Sigma to make one.
Unfortunately (regardless of what you think of the sensor), Sigma have show themselves to be god-awful at designing cameras. IMHO, this is a prime example of a company that should be sticking to its knitting.
If they would team together with a big electronics company who can design consumer products for the mass market then they would probably do a lot better. Look at panasonic, not exactly what you think of when the word 'camera' comes to mind buy they've done extremely well with that G1 because they know how to design products that sell and have the money to apply the necessary research to whatever field they choose.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Unfortunately (regardless of what you think of the sensor), Sigma have show themselves to be god-awful at designing cameras. IMHO, this is a prime example of a company that should be sticking to its knitting.
No matter what you think everybody has to start somewhere. I think enough of the sensor to deal with the body. Give them time and they'll learn as the rest of them had. It's nice to have a company that are willing to do so and I'm glad they aren't sticking to knitting even though we know where you stand. Plus since Sigma is the owner of Foveon we have no choice.
Larry Carter wrote:
No matter what you think everybody has to start somewhere. I think enough of the sensor to deal with the body. Give them time and they'll learn as the rest of them had. It's nice to have a company that are willing to do so and I'm glad they aren't sticking to knitting even though we know where you stand. Plus since Sigma is the owner of Foveon we have no choice.
They've been making cameras for a fair while (The SA5 came out in 1993). And they still have yet to design a body that would make a competent mid-90's SLR.
Even Pentax (Makers of the only AF SLR's to rival the SA series for suckitude) has produced quite good DSLR designs.
mawz wrote:
They've been making cameras for a fair while (The SA5 came out in 1993). And they still have yet to design a body that would make a competent mid-90's SLR.
Even Pentax (Makers of the only AF SLR's to rival the SA series for suckitude) has produced quite good DSLR designs.
This may not be factual but I don't think they really cared before. I'll still support their efforts. Maybe hopefully they'll catchup. But the images for me is worth the pain. It's not for everybody and I wouldn't want it to be. I'm also glad there is another choice to the mix.
ulrikft wrote:
Hey! I tried to search the forums, but did not find any threads on this particular theme.
1) Why have we not seen any fullframe foveons? Cost? possible at all?
Of course it's possible. But even at current SD-14 pixel density, you'd have to pipe about 41MP of data per shot. 14.7 is slow enough. There's a lot of improvement to be made (we'll see with the SD-15) before they can handle that much data. To be competitive, that camera should be at least as fast as the old 5D...so more than three times the processing speed. Sigma is not there yet.
2) Why not more megapixels in the foveon sensors? Cost? Possible at all?
I for one, do not want to see higher densities without better high ISO performance. If I had to choose, I would do a 8-9MP output FF or 24-27MP as Sigma would call it. In other words, go back to SD-9 or SD-10 density with FF sensor.
I just imagine that foveon (or foveon like) sensor tech on a fullframe with 15-20mpix would be the dream of many.
It sure would, but only if they get it functionally 'right'.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Still, a 4mp file is still just that in terms of resolution, no matter what Sigma wants you to believe.
Your wrong...Try comparing an image from a 4mp Bayer sensor to one from the SD14...No contest!
Every time a head to head comparison has been conducted between the 5D and the D700 the result was a draw, showing the resolution is much higher in practice than you think.
OK, maybe not 14mp but certainly equivalent to good quality 12mp Bayer sensor using DSLR's.
Merry Christmas Holidays.