09-02-2012, 09:22 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1346572433' post='19920']
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: don't let the Sigma marketing fool you into believing this is a 45MP camera. As BC points out, it is not. The camera has a 15 MP sensor with three layers. Because of its different design, it can probably rival Bayer sensors in the 20 MP range, but it's no competition to the D800 (especially the D800E... BC does not like cameras without AA filters, but some others actually do... count me in here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ).
-- Markus
[/quote]
Markus,
There's a level of sharpness in DP2M images that i can not recall seeing anywhere, from any camera. I opened a 8 MP file of an old Canon IXUS about a month back, and it was incredibly sharp at 100%, you could see the individual grass blades at 100%. It was better than any high MP camera file i had seen in those terms. What i deduced from that is, as we have more megapixels in newer cameras, the detail at 100% will look like that, and you are expected to look at those files at a given print size to see the sharpness.
We have long come to associate DSLR files with a slight blurriness, which you only appreciate when you look at something so incredibly sharp at 100%. I understand that one is supposed to sharpen and not look at those files at 100%, and when you down sample those files, they do look sharper, but that's the demand that technology puts on us...we expect Bayer files to be like that.
However, there's no reason that they must and they should look like that.
I am sure all of us have seen Foveon files, and i am no Foveon champion, the way many people who like Foveon go overboard selling that tech....but for whatever its worth, here's a link to show the sharpness that comes with a Foveon capture:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1...iew-2.html
Where is this sharpness, the level of detail capturing and the separation of micro detail (like leaves) coming from? Is it a function of not having a blur filter? I am not sure, even some bayer cameras also don't have that filter...It seems to be generic to that technology, as far as i can think, something which that tech can do better than the other kinds...
Looks appealing to me as a photographer, even with all the handling handicaps. Maybe i will learn the hard way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: don't let the Sigma marketing fool you into believing this is a 45MP camera. As BC points out, it is not. The camera has a 15 MP sensor with three layers. Because of its different design, it can probably rival Bayer sensors in the 20 MP range, but it's no competition to the D800 (especially the D800E... BC does not like cameras without AA filters, but some others actually do... count me in here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ).-- Markus
[/quote]
Markus,
There's a level of sharpness in DP2M images that i can not recall seeing anywhere, from any camera. I opened a 8 MP file of an old Canon IXUS about a month back, and it was incredibly sharp at 100%, you could see the individual grass blades at 100%. It was better than any high MP camera file i had seen in those terms. What i deduced from that is, as we have more megapixels in newer cameras, the detail at 100% will look like that, and you are expected to look at those files at a given print size to see the sharpness.
We have long come to associate DSLR files with a slight blurriness, which you only appreciate when you look at something so incredibly sharp at 100%. I understand that one is supposed to sharpen and not look at those files at 100%, and when you down sample those files, they do look sharper, but that's the demand that technology puts on us...we expect Bayer files to be like that.
However, there's no reason that they must and they should look like that.
I am sure all of us have seen Foveon files, and i am no Foveon champion, the way many people who like Foveon go overboard selling that tech....but for whatever its worth, here's a link to show the sharpness that comes with a Foveon capture:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1...iew-2.html
Where is this sharpness, the level of detail capturing and the separation of micro detail (like leaves) coming from? Is it a function of not having a blur filter? I am not sure, even some bayer cameras also don't have that filter...It seems to be generic to that technology, as far as i can think, something which that tech can do better than the other kinds...
Looks appealing to me as a photographer, even with all the handling handicaps. Maybe i will learn the hard way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />