Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 2

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If you compare some of the MTF that Sigma publishes versus the digital
Zuiko, for example, the 50-200 zooms, the Oly lens have the same
contrast at 60 lp/mm that the Sigma has at 30 lp/mm. If the Oly lens
are so so, I'll have to say "Sigma, I'm sorry."


George Preddy wrote:
> "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1116542568.856519.250110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > "The new DSLR bodies from Sigma
> > are going to be 20D killers in all aspects."
> >
> > They're going to have a Canon EF lens mount?
>
> The Four Thirds body will have the standard Four Thirds mount. The
> Oly lenses are so so, but Sigma will also be releasing a full line
> of Four Thirds lenses and accessories. When that happens, expect
> Four Thirds to really take off.
>
> The successor to the SD10 will have the standard Sigma mount.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It will be in a cell phone/fax machine body

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

George Preddy wrote:
> "Norman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:3fvjd8b68dg001@privacy.net:
>
>
>>George Preddy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Norman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>news:2fvjd8b68dg001@privacy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Preddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've been hearing plenty of great things about a soon-to-be
>>>>>released Four Thirds 20D-Killer body by Sigma. The sensor is
>>>>>supposed to be an improved version of the Foveon, manufactured
>>>>>by a licensed third-party company. The announcement will
>>>>>probably happen before the end of this summer, for a November
>>>>>or December shipping date. No wonder Sigma has been so quiet.
>>>>>This DSLR is going to be HOT.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the information. I must say that this info is
>>>>helpful, but it also clouds the buying process for an already
>>>>confused first time digital SLR buyer. :-(
>>>>
>>>>(I had decided to buy the Oly Evolt, after months of research,
>>>>and now this.)
>>>
>>>The Oly lenses are acceptable until the Sigma Four Thirds glass
>>>is released, but the bodies are not quite there yet. I would
>>>wait for the Sigma. If you want to buy a DSLR now and you don't
>>>want to wait, you can find really good deals on the Sigma SD9 and
>>>SD10 if you look around.
>>
>>Thanks again, George. I'm currently using an Olympus C-8080 and
>>I'm not happy with the noise levels and the limitations of a fixed
>>lens, so I'm anxious to move onto a digital SLR. You've convinced
>>me that it would probably be best to wait for the 4 3rds Sigma.
>
>
> Good idea. The noise levels on the EVOLT are only marginally better
> than your 8080, so you wouldn't notice much of an improvement at all.
> Save your money until they time is right.

Maybe there's something wrong with your news server, George?

Yesterday, you said:

> Granted, it happens more frequently to the Canon kit lenses, but
> I've heard numerous reports about the same problem with the Nikkor.

I asked you to produce three reports on the front element of Canon kit
lenses falling off, and three more about the same happening to Nikon
lenses. Where are they? You should either produce this evidence or admit
you were just lying - thanks!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <8daq8157ct7p2ancq0m8dd07rutcm8mffs@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Well, if the 3.4 megapixel images from the SD10 compare well
>to the 6 megapixel images from the Canon 10D and Nikon D100,
>it seems reasonable that a 5 meg version will do alright.

Download some RAW files from an SD9 or 10. Load them into IRIS, where
you can see the native color ... or fail to do so; they are basically
grey/brown.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <yf-dnUC2KMp3MxDfRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote:

>George made the mistake of eating cheese at bedtime. Everybody knows that
>causes vivid and weird dreams.

Once upon a time, I bought a cylinder of "pop'n'fresh" croissants, and
got an urge to make them, late at night. I also decided to add some
mozzarella cheese inside of them, but forgot to adjust the baking time.
Needless to say, I did not sleep that night, as hypnagogic images
flooded my racing mind all night, between the cheese and the raw dough.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:8aqdnRRNW4AbFhPfRVn-qA@speakeasy.net...

>
> Maybe there's something wrong with your news server, George?
>
> Yesterday, you said:
>
> > Granted, it happens more frequently to the Canon kit lenses, but
> > I've heard numerous reports about the same problem with the Nikkor.
>
> I asked you to produce three reports on the front element of Canon kit
> lenses falling off, and three more about the same happening to Nikon
> lenses. Where are they? You should either produce this evidence or admit
> you were just lying - thanks!

He will do neither. Nor will he ever post links to his own images.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Norman wrote:

> Thanks again, George. I'm currently using an Olympus C-8080 and I'm not
> happy with the noise levels and the limitations of a fixed lens, so I'm
> anxious to move onto a digital SLR. You've convinced me that it would
> probably be best to wait for the 4 3rds Sigma.

<chuckle>

For a given pixel count the Oly 4/3 system is noisier than its competing
DSLR counterparts. For example, the E-300 is noisier at all ISO's than
the competition. At ISO 800 it is noisier than the 20D is at ISO 1600.
That is saying an awful lot. As densities go up, this will get worse
for a smaller sensor area such as any 4/3 system v. the 1.6X crop to
full frame sensors that the other manufacturers have stuck to.

The noise level is acceptable at the current 8 Mpix density of the E300
and at ISO 400 or less, but as you can see, the system is already in a
narrow performance band. This will get narrower as time goes on.

So, I urge you to escape to K-M, Nikon, Canon or Pentax at your earliest
convenience.

Or, you're simply a GP sock puppet. Hmm. Yes. Most likely.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:y7OdnTMCP_o3-BLfRVn-vg@speakeasy.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Norman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:3fvjd8b68dg001@privacy.net...
>>
>>
>>>Thanks again, George. I'm currently using an Olympus C-8080 and I'm not
>>>happy with the noise levels and the limitations of a fixed lens, so I'm
>>>anxious to move onto a digital SLR. You've convinced me that it would
>>>probably be best to wait for the 4 3rds Sigma.
>>
>>
>> George lives for moments like this...
>
> What makes you think that this WASN'T George replying to himself?

Actually, now that you mention, nothing...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:19:03 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Norman wrote:
>
>> Thanks again, George. I'm currently using an Olympus C-8080 and I'm not
>> happy with the noise levels and the limitations of a fixed lens, so I'm
>> anxious to move onto a digital SLR. You've convinced me that it would
>> probably be best to wait for the 4 3rds Sigma.
>
><chuckle>
>
>For a given pixel count the Oly 4/3 system is noisier than its competing
>DSLR counterparts. For example, the E-300 is noisier at all ISO's than
>the competition. At ISO 800 it is noisier than the 20D is at ISO 1600.
> That is saying an awful lot. As densities go up, this will get worse
>for a smaller sensor area such as any 4/3 system v. the 1.6X crop to
>full frame sensors that the other manufacturers have stuck to.
>
>The noise level is acceptable at the current 8 Mpix density of the E300
>and at ISO 400 or less, but as you can see, the system is already in a
>narrow performance band. This will get narrower as time goes on.
>
>So, I urge you to escape to K-M, Nikon, Canon or Pentax at your earliest
>convenience.
>
>Or, you're simply a GP sock puppet. Hmm. Yes. Most likely.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.

Isn't it funny we always here this kind of thing from actual users
of products rather than "business analysts" who should be the ones
to know, given that they have to make assessments on where certain
businesses are going? If the 4/3rds system really is at a peformance
wall, then Olympus will have to dispense with it. Otherwise, they are
going to be forced to come up with something revolutionary that will
encourage consumers to buy despite any image qualilty drawbacks.
That's a tall order.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:19:03 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>For a given pixel count the Oly 4/3 system is noisier than its competing
>>DSLR counterparts. For example, the E-300 is noisier at all ISO's than
>>the competition. At ISO 800 it is noisier than the 20D is at ISO 1600.
>> That is saying an awful lot. As densities go up, this will get worse
>>for a smaller sensor area such as any 4/3 system v. the 1.6X crop to
>>full frame sensors that the other manufacturers have stuck to.
>>
>>The noise level is acceptable at the current 8 Mpix density of the E300
>>and at ISO 400 or less, but as you can see, the system is already in a
>>narrow performance band. This will get narrower as time goes on.
>>
>>So, I urge you to escape to K-M, Nikon, Canon or Pentax at your earliest
>>convenience.

>
> Isn't it funny we always here this kind of thing from actual users
> of products rather than "business analysts" who should be the ones
> to know, given that they have to make assessments on where certain
> businesses are going? If the 4/3rds system really is at a peformance
> wall, then Olympus will have to dispense with it. Otherwise, they are
> going to be forced to come up with something revolutionary that will
> encourage consumers to buy despite any image qualilty drawbacks.
> That's a tall order.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or protesting, but whatever, I'm
sticking to what I write above. The case can be made that a lot of use
is at ISO 400 and below and therefore the Oly at 8 mpix can cover a lot
fo ground. Time will tell.

I almost did add the following:

"If a Foveon 4/3 chip design could be made (three color sensors per
photosite), then possibly there could be an 8 mpix / R+G+B / 12 bit (or
more), 4/3 sensor with a very high signal/noise ratio. I'm not at all
certain however that the additional noise (3 sensors/site) can be managed.

Because of that last sentence, I didn't post it. But, there it is now...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> Since Sigma has hardly been mentioned here in months would it
> be fair to say that the 20D was a Sigma-Killer?

The SD-9 and SD-10 were the Sigma killers. Whatever shred of life was
left was snuffed out by George Preddy.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>
> Isn't it funny we always here this kind of thing from actual users
> of products rather than "business analysts" who should be the ones
> to know, given that they have to make assessments on where certain
> businesses are going? If the 4/3rds system really is at a peformance
> wall, then Olympus will have to dispense with it.

Why because Alan says it is? I could just as easily say K-M is against a
wall with their lenses being able to deal with higher pixel densities than
their 6MP camera now is able to deal with.



> Otherwise, they are
> going to be forced to come up with something revolutionary that will
> encourage consumers to buy despite any image qualilty drawbacks.
>

You assume that sensor technology is at it's peak. A few years ago CMOS
sensors were said to be too noisy to be of any real use in a digital camera
and look where we are now..
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:06:20 -0400, rafe bustin wrote:

> I'm not sure if we're "assuming" anything,
> but it kinda looks like the pace of
> technological developments in digicam
> sensors is slowing.
>
> I wouldn't mind being wrong on this prediction.

Would the new Fuji F10 indicate an advance in sensor technology?
I assume it's not using anything near a full frame sensor, yet it
supposedly has far less noise at high ISO levels than most
comparable non-DSLR cameras.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:37:31 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:06:20 -0400, rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if we're "assuming" anything,
>> but it kinda looks like the pace of
>> technological developments in digicam
>> sensors is slowing.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind being wrong on this prediction.
>
> Would the new Fuji F10 indicate an advance in sensor technology?
>I assume it's not using anything near a full frame sensor, yet it
>supposedly has far less noise at high ISO levels than most
>comparable non-DSLR cameras.


What's new about this sensor?

Offhand it doesn't look all that
radical to me.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" wrote ...

> Ever consider it's the kodak sensor used in these that causes the noise
> rather than the slightly smaller sensor? Are the canons a lot noisier than
> the nikons with a slightly larger sensor? The canon is ~1.5mm shorter than
> the nikon and the OM is ~1.5mm shorter than the canon, not enough to
> explain this noise IMHO. Also aren't the full frame cameras that use these
> type kodak sensors also noisy?
>
> Nah that would be too simple and doesn't fit "My choice will always be the
> best one" mentality.. Just keep repeating "Noise is all that matters" and
> maybe you'll really believe it.

--------------

That is an excellent observation. You never hear Nikon users lording over
Canon users about APS sensor sizes.

Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Basic Wedge wrote:

> "Stacey" wrote ...
>
>> Ever consider it's the kodak sensor used in these that causes the noise
>> rather than the slightly smaller sensor? Are the canons a lot noisier
>> than the nikons with a slightly larger sensor? The canon is ~1.5mm
>> shorter than the nikon and the OM is ~1.5mm shorter than the canon, not
>> enough to explain this noise IMHO.
> --------------
>
> That is an excellent observation. You never hear Nikon users lording over
> Canon users about APS sensor sizes.
>


Like I said, there isn't enough difference in the sensor size to account for
the noise. If you use the vertical measurement like you'd use when making
an 8X10 print from any of these, the "crop factor" on the OM is only a 1.7X
one vs 1.6 for the canon and 1.5 for the nikon.

It's more the design of the sensor which is aimed at higher dynamic range
at the expense of a higher noise floor. You hear everyone talking about
"blowing highlights" with a canon while olympus users don't have this
problem. The om's like being shot overexposed and pushing the upper end of
the sensor's range, which then takes this "shadow noise" out of the picture
totally, even though the shadow detail is still there if you need it. Also
gives a wider range of stops to work with developing the RAW files (or
develop the same shot at 2 different EV's and combine them..)

It's just a different way of working and if you don't understand it, you
get really noisy results, which is what you see in most reviews. If you
look at the results the users get, you don't see this. Of course the people
talking about this "problem" have never used one themselves or experimented
with different exposure settings etc.

For me this kodak sensor responds more like negative film and the canon
sensor is more like using slide film. Underexpose negative film and it gets
all grainy, overexpose it and it cleans up nicely and still retains most of
the highlights. Underexpose slide film and the colors are richer at the
expense of shadow detail, overexpose it even slightly and you risk blowing
the highlights.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> The greater light sensitivity (according to one review)
> allows its relatively puny flash to be useful to much greater
> distances than other compact P&S cameras. If the same improvement
> could be gained by DSLRs using full frame sensors, they'd be able to
> have usable ISOs of 1,600 and 3,200, possibly higher.

Exactly. I remember the first dSLR had no ISO setting other than 100, look
at what's being sold now? Given the money being invested into digital
imaging, I can't believe there isn't going to be any more improvements to
the sensors sensitivity and noise levels.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:47:48 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:19:03 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For a given pixel count the Oly 4/3 system is noisier than its competing
>>>DSLR counterparts. For example, the E-300 is noisier at all ISO's than
>>>the competition. At ISO 800 it is noisier than the 20D is at ISO 1600.
>>> That is saying an awful lot. As densities go up, this will get worse
>>>for a smaller sensor area such as any 4/3 system v. the 1.6X crop to
>>>full frame sensors that the other manufacturers have stuck to.
>>>
>>>The noise level is acceptable at the current 8 Mpix density of the E300
>>>and at ISO 400 or less, but as you can see, the system is already in a
>>>narrow performance band. This will get narrower as time goes on.
>>>
>>>So, I urge you to escape to K-M, Nikon, Canon or Pentax at your earliest
>>>convenience.
>
>>
>> Isn't it funny we always here this kind of thing from actual users
>> of products rather than "business analysts" who should be the ones
>> to know, given that they have to make assessments on where certain
>> businesses are going? If the 4/3rds system really is at a peformance
>> wall, then Olympus will have to dispense with it. Otherwise, they are
>> going to be forced to come up with something revolutionary that will
>> encourage consumers to buy despite any image qualilty drawbacks.
>> That's a tall order.
>
>I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or protesting, but whatever, I'm
>sticking to what I write above. The case can be made that a lot of use
>is at ISO 400 and below and therefore the Oly at 8 mpix can cover a lot
>fo ground. Time will tell.

Well, one thing they did that is now being emulated by others,
bringing out lenses specifically for digital cameras. I think the
spec calls for light rays to hit the CCD perpendicularly.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> Well, one thing they did that is now being emulated by others,
> bringing out lenses specifically for digital cameras. I think the
> spec calls for light rays to hit the CCD perpendicularly.

The spec may call for it, but since photographic lenses don't work that way
(for a point in the subject, photographic lenses project (focus) a cone of
light from the exit pupil to a point on the film/sensor, so the only way to
change the angle is to use more radical retrofocus designs, which will be
correspondingly inferior in their abberations) it's complete BS.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, one thing they did that is now being emulated by others,
> >> bringing out lenses specifically for digital cameras. I think the
> >> spec calls for light rays to hit the CCD perpendicularly.
> >
> > The spec may call for it, but since photographic lenses don't work that
> > way
>
> You mean legacy film lenses don't work that way.

No, any photographic lens. Including the Olympus 4/3 lenses.

> > (for a point in the subject, photographic lenses project (focus) a
> > cone of light from the exit pupil to a point on the film/sensor, so the
> > only way to change the angle is to use more radical retrofocus designs,
> > which will be correspondingly inferior in their abberations) it's
complete
> > BS.
>
> Yea the wide lenses on the rangefinder digital work so well this
telecentric
> stuff must be nonsense..

> http://www.nemeng.com/leica/004f.shtml

If Olympus had used the word _retrofocus_, instead of telecentric, they
wouldn't be lying sleazes. But they didn't. Telecentric actually has a
meaning. Unfortunately, it's not useful for pictorial imaging.

> Of course everyone knows the wide angle telecentric olympus lenses being
> made now are such really poor performers, must be what you're talking
about
> that makes them perform so badly? Thanx for posting these "facts" for us.

You might look up the term "telecentric". You'd learn something. Although
not something useful for anything other than an extremely limited class of
macro photography.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/telecent.htm

"If the object is moved nearer or farther from the lens system, it's size on
the film doesn't change."

Do _any_ Olympus 4/3 lenses have that property? Oops. Guess what? None of
them are telecentric.

"A telecentric lens "sees" a cylindrical tube of space of diameter equal to
that of the front lens element. It is limited to photographing objects whose
lateral dimensions do not exceed the diameter of the lens."

Not very usefull for pictorial photography.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsu [...] icleid=261

Since you are fond of Leica sources:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c001.html

"It may be possible that the angle of the rays may be somewhat reduced
compared to previous designs, but that is all. And we do not need these
designs. In a Kodak article (Photography with an 11-megapixel, 35mm format
CCD) you find the arguments. There you find a graph where the angle roll of
efficiency is diagrammed. This diagram tells you that at angles between +20
degrees and ?20 degrees the angle roll off is hardly important. Translated
in normal parlance: light rays from a lens striking the microlens at angle
at less than 20 degrees will be recorded with good QE! Given the usual 1.3
to 1.5 reduction factor in viewing angle most lenses will behave properly
and their light rays will strike at angels within the indicated +/- 20
degrees. Another myth is being born and transmitted through the world!"

http://www.photonics.com/directory [...] f/ch17.pdf

"A telecentric lens acts as if it had an infinite focal length;
magnification
is independent of object distance. An object moved from
far away to near the lens goes into and out of sharp focus, but its
image size is constant."

Etc. etc. etc.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yea the wide lenses on the rangefinder digital work so well this
> telecentric
>> stuff must be nonsense..
>
>> http://www.nemeng.com/leica/004f.shtml
>
> If Olympus had used the word _retrofocus_, instead of telecentric, they
> wouldn't be lying sleazes. But they didn't.

But they do explain what they mean using this term in plenty of detail for
people who can read..

>
>
> Since you are fond of Leica sources:
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c001.html
>

Hmm looks like someone's (Erwin Puts) personal site and opinion, like your
own? Hardly a "Leica source" as you put it.


From a company that actually makes sensors...

http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/DSC.asp

"Microlenses help increase effective fill factor in some sensors, but they
make the performance of the pixels -highly dependent on the angle of
incoming light rays-. Microlensed pixels do not respond uniformly at larger
iris openings (low f-numbers), particularly at at the edges of the sensor."

Then again you seem to feel you know more about this than sensor designers?
Or just bashing your favorite punching bag again...


--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote [of the Fuji F10]:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:13:56 -0400, rafe bustin wrote:
>
>
>>What's new about this sensor?
>>
>>Offhand it doesn't look all that
>>radical to me.
>
>
> As I said, (unless I've listed the wrong camera) much greater ISO
> capability. Said to be able to take indoor pictures without flash
> when most other cameras would need to use flash. Able to use ISO
> 1600.

There's some comparison shots versus a 7MP IXUS on the dpreview site.
The Fuji has slightly fewer pixels on a slightly larger sensor, and
doesn't have the 'conservative' ISO ratings of the Canon, but even
taking that lot into account the sensor looks to be a half stop or
so better per pixel area than the one in the Canon. How much of that
can be attributed to improvement in fill factor, processing software
and raw sensing efficiency who knows.

ISO 1600 can be selected but it doesn't look very useful. On the other
hand my digicam allows selection of ISO 400 and it's pretty dismal as
well.

- Len

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:02:47 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:52:00 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You assume that sensor technology is at it's peak. A few years ago CMOS
>>>sensors were said to be too noisy to be of any real use in a digital
>>>camera and look where we are now..
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if we're "assuming" anything,
>> but it kinda looks like the pace of
>> technological developments in digicam
>> sensors is slowing.
>>
>
>
>Really? Maybe canon has slowed but those new sony sensors sure look nice..


Maybe I'm not following the market as
closely as you are. What Sony sensors
are you refering to and what's so great
about them?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Since you are fond of Leica sources:
>> >
>> > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c001.html
>>
>> Hmm looks like someone's (Erwin Puts) personal site and opinion, like
>> your own? Hardly a "Leica source" as you put it.
>
> Calling Erwin Puts anything other than a "Leica source" would be pretty
> odd...

So he works for their design department or is an optical engineer for them?
Being a "Leica user" doesn't make him an optical expert.

>
>> From a company that actually makes sensors...
>>
>> http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/DSC.asp
>>
>> "Microlenses help increase effective fill factor in some sensors, but
>> they make the performance of the pixels -highly dependent on the angle of
>> incoming light rays-. Microlensed pixels do not respond uniformly at
> larger
>> iris openings (low f-numbers), particularly at at the edges of the
> sensor."
>
> I thought you'd be smart enough to recognize lying FUD from a sensor mfr
> who doesn't have the technology to put microlenses on their sensors. Guess
> not.

I thought you'd be smart enough to understand what microlenses even do and
why this is a problem, guess not.

>
>> Then again you seem to feel you know more about this than sensor
> designers?
>
> I know more about it than sleazy advertizing departments.

Obviously not, you believe "Canon rules" and that seem to be the extent of
your understanding of any of this.


>
> Reality check: there simply isn't a problem with (retrofocus) wide angle
> lenses. None, zip, nada, zilch.


Talk to people trying to stich images from them.

As far as "far better" I know that the =ONLY= factor you judge an image by
is it's grain/noise (even with film..) so I guess the 1Ds images do beat
anything else? Guess it makes it easier on your brain to only have to look
at one apeact of an image to attempt to judge quality? Like they say
ignorance is bliss.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:50:56 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:02:47 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Maybe canon has slowed but those new sony sensors sure look nice..
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm not following the market as
>> closely as you are. What Sony sensors
>> are you refering to and what's so great
>> about them?
>>
>>
>
> Isn't that who's making the sensor for the new "flagship" nikon?


Dunno. I haven't been following it.
What's their flagship nowadays? D70?
D2Hs? D2X?

D70 isn't too impressive.. 6.1 "effective"
pixels, same old 15x23mm sensor. Ho hum.

When I can get the equivalent of a Canon
1D MkII at, say, $1500, I'll be very interested.

Till then I'll be shooting with my old
10D and scanning film. Some of which
will be shot in my trusty old Nikon
(film) SLRs.

Still waiting to receive that Pentax 67
I bought on eBay a week ago.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com