barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Share #1 Posted April 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) To read the comments and reviews on the DCR Sigma forum one is left with the impression that there is no better IQ available in any camera or if one is a troll it is terrible with green/purple globs. I was thinking about the DP1 for a P&S and was wondering how the IQ of the SD14 compared to the M8. I have been trying to see if anyone had both an M8 and an SD14 and could post comparison shots taken under similar conditions. I posted on the Sigma forum but no responses so I thought I would try here. It is hard to carry on an even handed critical discussion on that forum without being labeled a troll if one is a skeptic or fails to be a true believer. Thank goodness this site allows honest discourse flaws, warts and pimples while still recognizing the many beauty marks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 30, 2007 Posted April 30, 2007 Hi barjohn, Take a look here M8 IQ vs SD14 Foveon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted April 30, 2007 Share #2 Posted April 30, 2007 It's surely going to intimidate a lot of folks when everyone is talking about IQ. LOL What I know for sure is ... their 4MP RGB sensor still can't get rid of the nasty yellow cast and their official samples were drawn by a Photoshop artist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted April 30, 2007 How do you KNOW this? There were several comments on the forum about their ad photos and the model's perfect skin. Some one postulated that it was a very professional Photoshop touch up and some one else said there were no signs of it being Photoshopped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted April 30, 2007 Share #4 Posted April 30, 2007 How do you KNOW this? Ok, I don't know it ... BUT I SEE IT. LOL This image is perfect, right? http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/still-life/img/sd14-sl-001.jpg Now download and open it up in Photoshop, go to Image->Adjustments->Shadow/Highlight ... do this ... Pull the sliders of Amount and Tonal Width in Shadow section to 100% both ... click on OK, now repeat this one more time. Tell me what you see at 100% on screen. ROFL I don't even want to let these pictures stay on my computer for more than 3 minutes, they're more nasty than virus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted April 30, 2007 Share #5 Posted April 30, 2007 i think an analysis of the two would be worthwhile the SD14 foveon certainly has very good acuity it get trashed because there have been issues (sound familiar ?) and its a target because Mp count is hard for the trolls to quantify nonetheless, in good shooting conditions it has an image quality that defeats many Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/22840-m8-iq-vs-sd14-foveon/?do=findComment&comment=241870'>More sharing options...
sdai Posted April 30, 2007 Share #6 Posted April 30, 2007 Anyone who could count 1, 2, 3 are able to tell the difference. It's basically wasting everybody's time to mention about the SD14 in the M8 forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted April 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ok, I don't know it ... BUT I SEE IT. LOL This image is perfect, right? http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/still-life/img/sd14-sl-001.jpg Now download and open it up in Photoshop, go to Image->Adjustments->Shadow/Highlight ... do this ... Pull the sliders of Amount and Tonal Width in Shadow section to 100% both ... click on OK, now repeat this one more time. Tell me what you see at 100% on screen. ROFL I don't even want to let these pictures stay on my computer for more than 3 minutes, they're more nasty than virus. Ok, I have done that and you get a horrible looking image. You do with any file so what is the point? Am I missing something or is this a joke? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted April 30, 2007 Share #8 Posted April 30, 2007 Am I missing something or is this a joke? I think it's just "off topic", John ... if you've done it then you'd know how the official samples were made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted April 30, 2007 Share #9 Posted April 30, 2007 John-- I think what Simon is getting at is that at least in this image there are pretty clear signs of the use of some kind of external manipulation. After you do what he suggests with Shadow/Highlight, you need to be sure that you enlarge the image to 100% on screen. Then look around the edges of the fruit, stem and leaf, particularly around the top. There are clear signs of tracing portions of the image, possibly to increase contrast, although I've never used Photoshop the way it's being used here. There are definitely artifacts of something there. But then, I don't know why all the extra water drops appear either, so this may have to do with supporting the fruit for the shot. Definitely weird, though. Simon--this doesn't look like the kind of thing you just happen across on you way to work! How did you discover this anomaly? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted April 30, 2007 I am looking for a P&S that is as close as possible in IQ to the M8 for my wife. I generally prefer to use the M8 but there may be times when she would prefer I carry something a little smaller. Since the Dp1 has the same sensor as the SD14 I was hoping to get a comparison to the M8. All of the other P&S have a small sensor so I wouldn't expect them to come close. I have owned the D3 and I wasn't happy with it. I am debating between the Canon G7 and the DP1. If the DP1 has a significantly better IQ then it would be my choice. As to your test, perhaps you could explain what going to 100% on both sliders in PS is supposed to do with a "good" jpg. I have CS3 but I am new to it and just learning it. I also have LR. I have tried it with M8 jpgs and it doesn't create a very nice picture either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted April 30, 2007 Share #11 Posted April 30, 2007 John, did you see my post #9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted April 30, 2007 No I was writing mine when you posted it. I didn't know what I was looking for before. You are indicating it is artifacts that become visible through this process. Interesting concept. By the way, I remeber reading that she did some trick to shoot the image. I can't remember whether it is imersed in water or what but those are not water drops on the fruit but rather air bubbles if I remember right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted April 30, 2007 Share #13 Posted April 30, 2007 Great! I don't know what I'm seeing there. Air bubbles makes more sense. And I'm not sure I'm seeing artifacts from postprocessing. It is definitely strange. So your info is helping me understand: If someone just showed me this image, handled the way Simon said to do it, in the context of this thread, I would say (and I did say), "Aha! Photoshop!" But now you're saying the photographer used some weird technique, and these artifacts would be easier to relate to that: Looks as if she blackened the background but left some room for light to shine through, or something like that. Of course, that's legitimate. But then, we don't see the manipulations unless we go through Simon's procedure. So we're again left with the question, did she use Photoshop to cover up the mechanism? Sigh. Making no headway fast, aren't we? Why don't you just buy the camera for your wife? I think a lot of us are just a little put off by the Foveon, just because it doesn't work the way our cameras do. Sigma deserves some credit for sticking with the chip even though the world hasn't beat a path to their door. And in general the small cameras are all better than acceptable, so I don't think you'd go wrong with the DP1. You'd gain experience and a lot of people would be interested in how well you liked it. Since everyone's got a G7, you wouldn't go wrong there either, and it might be better than the DP1, but it would certainly be less interesting. And if you buy the DP1 and then don't like it, you can always blame me for talking you into it! Seriously, if the DP1 were anywhere close to the quality of the M8, I think we would have heard of it. But then, no one says the G7 is anywhere near as good as the M8 either... --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted April 30, 2007 Share #14 Posted April 30, 2007 I dont think the dp1 delievers as good IQ as the M8, but I would expect it to deliever better IQ than a Leica D-Lux3. cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted April 30, 2007 Share #15 Posted April 30, 2007 the Sigma's are very susceptible to poor PP process and various RAW converters this much is for certain when they are properly processed they punch way beyond their weight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted April 30, 2007 From what I have seen they are both very suceptible to the post processing and to the exposure (it tends to under expose). However, when properly exposed and processed there appears to be a great deal of detail, even in the shadows. Again, I was hopng someone here had both the SD14 and the M8 to give us a real comparison that I can trust. I have seen some comparisons with the Canon 5D and it was pretty close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted May 1, 2007 Share #17 Posted May 1, 2007 here are some links to SD14 images by photographer Kendall Gelner I think contrary to the opinions of some, they demonstrate that well processed images from foveon are possible, and that the acuity of this Sigma is a force to be reckoned with. Like M8, the lack of AA filtering is evident, but it seems to be free or moire effects, and of course it has a removable IR cutoff filter located in the 'out of focus area', so dust affects it less. This is the same sensor as DP1 Waters Addition photo - Kendall Gelner photos at pbase.com Path of Light photo - Kendall Gelner photos at pbase.com Endless Repairs photo - Kendall Gelner photos at pbase.com Quilt Colection photo - Kendall Gelner photos at pbase.com Taxi Tower photo - Kendall Gelner photos at pbase.com KiGi Photo - powered by smugmug Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/22840-m8-iq-vs-sd14-foveon/?do=findComment&comment=243308'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.