Camera Labs

That's very interesting! The idea of compacts with larger sensors is very exciting to me. I don't care for the bulk of DSLRs, and zoom isn't that important to me. However, picture quality is very important, and larger sensors mean that picture quality will be improving.

What's happening with compacts makes me very unhappy, and it is exemplified by the Canon A-series of point-and-shoot cameras (not quite small enough to be called compacts). Up to about 7 MP, the Canon compacts had fairly clean images (though not like a DSLR). However, as their sensors have grown to 10mm and 12mm, noise-reduction has become necessary even at low ISOs, and now you can't get even one clean image out of them. Of course, as you down-sample, much of the noise disappears, but I'm not convinced that it doesn't affect the final image.

Caleb

That could be because the only point I am making is that with the current sensors Foveon is better for some shots and a high pixel count Bayer sensor is better for others. If anyone was to say that "Foveon sensors are always better" then I would have to respectfully disagree. I would take the same attitude if anyone said that "Bayer sensors are always better". I have no axe to grind either way.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Thomas,
Nikon gave you an interview? Nice! Any chance of a link or something?

Back to the topic,

I think that it would be excellent if manufacturers were to make compacts with larger sensors but I don't see this happening on a large scale anytime soon. Manufacturers seem afraid to do this and understandably so. Look at the success(or lack thereof) of the Sony R-1.

Apple should try and make a large sensor compact! They seem to be able to market anything.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Well, in that case I guess I do have an ax to grind. When I got my first digital camera 7 years ago, I was surprised that the photos didn't look better at 100%, and that first impression stuck with me. But there's more to where I'm coming from than that. I'm very critical of businesses that produce poor products. The example I always use is of a bakery that uses poor-quality ingredients -- where is the pride in producing a poor product? To me, a camera which produces pictures which are blurry, as all Bayer cameras do to some extent, is a poor camera, and that also goes for small-sensor compacts that use heavy noise-reduction. The philosophy there is that the poor quality of the image won't show up in print, but they are overlooking the fact that only a small percentage of digital photos are printed.

As for comparing Foveon and Bayer sensors: At the same megapixel count, a Foveon sensor will always be better. And since it has been established that a Foveon image is about equal to a 10 MP Bayer image, I submit that a 4.6 MP Foveon image will always be better than a 10 MP Bayer image, simply because Foveon images are crisper and smaller in size (and thus easier to post-process). After all, if the two images have the same amount of detail, why prefer the larger, softer image? Now, if you are saying that a 14 MP Bayer image is better than a 4.6 MP, then that just isn't a fair comparison because a larger Foveon sensor hasn't been made yet.

Caleb

Gee, I didn't know about the R-1 until just now. Interesting camera.

Caleb

Agreed.

Ah, but life isn't fair. I was trying to explore that point in my "boat floating" post earlier on. As things stand it appears that at any particular level of fabrication technology it is more difficult to pack the pixels on a Foveon sensor. Here in the UK the SD14 body is priced about the same as a Canon 40D or a Fujifilm S5 Pro with 10 and 12 MP sensors respectively so in terms of "bang for my buck" that is the fair comparison.

Please accept that I am more than happy to be on the same hymn sheet as yourself about Foveon technology. I would love to see what could be done with a native 10 MP Foveon X3 sensor. I think it might blow the opposition away provided the possible high ISO sensor noise mentioned above isn't an issue.

For the DP1 (yes, back to the topic of the thread) I'm sure it will be a winner though I fear the lack of a zoom lens means it will remain more of a niche product than that nice Foveon sensor deserves.

I remember you said earlier in the thread that you have decided to buy the DP1. I'm looking forward to that event almost as much as you are - please post some pictures and a User Review if you can find the time.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Well, the price that was quoted to me directly by Sigma -- $700 -- was low, since the U.S. price for the camera was just announced at $999, and I can't afford that. I may have to wait up to a year for the price to drop, but then I will get the camera. In the mean time, I'll be able to read the reviews. If the DP1 turns out to have some serious drawbacks, I may end up with a Bayer DSLR. I am most interested in Pentax's new offerings.

Caleb

Apparently amazon.com has posted for sale the Sigma DP1 Camera.

Although at $799 it is a bit steep, considering amazon had been selling the Sigma SD14 around December-January for around $650 dollars, body only. And I just checked right now, the SD14 is going for $599 on amazon.

Oddness...

Well they're saying March 25th for $799 USD...

Carl Rytterfalk has posted on his site some pictures taken with a DP1 he's acquired. Some notables are with the built in flash, others are at ISO800 and he made some "push-processed" ISO1600 & ISO3200 B&W images.

Hi Gordon,

Any word on if you will get a review sample from sigma?

Thank you,

Gordon, I just want to add something to this thread in case you review the DP1 (which I hope you do).

The DP1 can produce photos at its native resolution, but it can also produce upsampled photos. For example, it has a setting called "Double Size RAW". I think it would be a mistake to base your review on upsampled photos, even if the camera itself produces them. I've seen some upsampled images, and they have the same blurriness that Bayer images have. It's pretty clear that Sigma provides the option of upsampling because it is claiming that the DP1 is equivalent to a higher-megapixel camera than it actually is.

The forte of the DP1, judging from the pictures I've seen, is that it produces extraordinarily clean and sharp photos at its native resolution. There is really no reason to upsample them. Their small size makes them easier to work with on a computer, though they have the same detail as images twice the size, and they can be printed at their native resolution without a problem. As for viewing them on a monitor, if you want to see more detail, you can just use your photo-editing program to temporarily enlarge them.

Upsampling, by its very nature, introduces distortions, and I don't think any review of a camera should be based on anything but the best images that the camera can produce. Furthermore, there are programs out there -- such as Qimage -- which may do a better job of upsampling than the camera does.

Caleb