Comments on: Thoughts of today – Canon 1D Mark IV & Nikon D3s

By: Rafael Quesada

Rafael Quesada — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:11:12 +0000

I want Sigma DP1 !!! I love it.
Great job and great shots! Congratulations.

By: Benji

Benji — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:43:24 +0000

“The special “canon brownish look” was not because of the camera used, but how it was post-processed.”

Daniel,
Get real. To say any processed look has nothing to do with the camera it was captured by is just asinine. I know we like to think that with RAW we can process pictures from a virgin-like state but it’s just not true. These images before even processed have a stylistic look imparted to them from their sensors/software, and to each a cetain style of post-processing brings out the best, no?

In my experience it is true that most Canon DSLR’s produce a image that is best processed as a sort of muted/desaturated look. Canon images don’t like to be vibrant in their colours because they, simply stated, bleed and look more like cheap camcorder-like. But Canon does excel at low-light renditions for this reason (there are not many colours in low-light).

Nikon has been at it a lot longer and they have always focused on bringing the film look to digital SLR’s. They recognize that film produces vibrant colours that can be distinctly separated. They do a bit better than canon and for the most part come out with colours that don’t bleed too so much but they still have a hard time getting it right even in bright daylight. Though Nikon excels at greens and blues and the colder temperatures in my opinion, people still tend to process their nikon photos in a desaturated manner to hide it’s inaccuracy.

As for Foveon, yes, somewhat terrible in low-light (as there are not many colours to fill the sensors needs for RGB). But it light, especially in natural light, the sensor manages to capture such a wide spectrum of colours (and separate them!) and such a wide dynamic range as to beat out the competition flat out. My nikon friend makes fun of me when it comes to versatility but he fully admits that in daylight, his $5000 DSLR can’t beat the quality of my $400 DSLR (yep that’s what I paid for it brand new on clearance sale). This is of course forgetting the silly megapixel wars (and if you think megapixel equals a better camera I’ve got an article or two to share with you.)

By: flyingrooster

flyingrooster — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:36:45 +0000

So does Sigma also have telecentric optics like Olympus claims to have? If not, adopting such an approach would allow for higher resolution sensors, wouldn’t it?
At least when viewing pics from Olympus cameras, corner sharpness with any lens I have seen is very good and often visibly better than from other manufacturers, especially full frame cameras. So a more telecentric approach definitely has it’s strengths. A poosible solution for high-res Foveons?

By: Rong

Rong — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:13:35 +0000

Hi Carl, I’m touched by Foveon, too. Especially after visiting your website. 
But I don’t think Foveon can go further in more pixels and higher resolution, since it’s a “stacked “sensor not a “tiled” one.
For Foveon, incoming light ray must be exactly vertical to sensor’s surface so that the other two sensors under surface can capture color signals. Other “tiled” CMOS/CCD also get the problem, but not so strict, since they has only one layer to capture color signals.
I love Foveon’s film roll feeling, but I hate Sigma’s R&D ability. WHY cannot SIGMA develop Foveon’s electronic potential …

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:28:02 +0000

The special “canon brownish look” was not because of the camera used, but how it was post-processed. As Vincent writes on his blog:

“P.P.S. – on a technical note: because I know everyone will ask: the footage was graded with Stu’s Magic Bullet Colorista [...] The point here is to show what this footage CAN look like when processed on an average laptop (i.e. nothing fancy!)”

By: Jon Winters

Jon Winters — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:16:22 +0000

I love Sigma and it’s magical foveon sensor. But I am considering switching for the reasons cited above. I’d also like full frame and high speed sync.

Why do I stay? When I consider Image Quality per Dollar invested, Sigma can not be beat. Not that I’m a tightwad or anything, I’m just not shooting enough to justify the expense of a platform switch.