We have now used two 16GB CF cards that initialize in about a second and write as well as anything to the Signa SD14. They are 150x 16GB TopRam, which is a generic brand available from a number of eBay sellers in the US and around the world. The second is the Transcend 133X 16GB avilable at amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF133-16GB-Co...">http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF...ctronics.... The Transcend CF has a reputation for being slow on some digital cameras but it is as fast as anything we have tested on the SD14 and provides 16GB capacity for $84.
the macro sample images are a distinct improvement over those in previous articles, but i still think more demanding/representative subject matter would be helpful. e.g., shots that specifically show the sensors contrast and tonal range, shadow retention, highlight handling, etc... macro shots are more a test of the optics used, and are not particularly demanding of the sensor. i have seen some very fine, professional-quality macro work done on an old Canon PowerShot G3 with a macro adapter.
as a suggestion - nice sample images of PEOPLE would be very helpful. you can often tell a lot about image quality from how a camera/lens captures portraits and candids of people, particularly those of an impromptu nature - and after all, that's what most of us will be shooting much of the time. if you had to name the #1 subject matter of all photographs, it would have to be people!
After further testing it was discovered that the start-up time issues and lock-ups with the SD14 were related to a CF card compatibility issue. We have done further testing with CF cards, both a 16GB and a 4GB card, that work much better with the SD14. With the new cards start up is about a second which is completely acceptable. The random lockups that were first described in the review are also gone.
THE REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UPDATED TO REFLECT THESE NEW FINDINGS.
Let's understand something about the CF card issues.
Neither Canon or Nikon have those issues. As far as I know, neither does any other D-SLR from any other manufacturer (even if they use SD cards).
Therefore it IS an issue here, with this camera.
The best thing for readers here would be if you gave the name of the cards to us, so that those who might have this camera wouldn't make the mistake in buying them. This is no doubt a firmware issue that Sigma should resolve.
Secondly, I always have problems with camera images with different resolutions being shown at a native size in comparisons. No one looks at images that way, and it is unrealistic in testing results as well.
While the Sigma images may look at though they are sharp, and that noise is well controlled up through 200, a real comparison with equal image SIZE would show different results.
I realize it's somewhat difficult to do this on the web, but it's the only realistic comparison. A straight bicubic interpolation will give a closer representation than does that small image. I've done many of these tests, and prints.
An 8 x 10 is an 8 x 10, after all (or 11 x 14, etc), no matter what the resolution of the sensor.
You are certainly wrong about neither Canon nor Nikon having problems with high-speed CF cards. In fact Canon cameras often have problems with the UDMA file structures in some of the fastest CF cards above 4GB since the 40D and 5D do not support UDMA. The Olympus E-3, Sony A700, and Nikon D300 DO support UDMA. This appears to be a similar problem, and it is likely related to UDMA.
The problem cards are a generic no-label 280X hi-speed cards that are manufactured with Samsung chips - the same chips used in Extreme IV cards. We are not trying to protect any manufacturer, but it is difficult to name a brand when there is not one on the CF cards. The 16GB cards from the same supplier ALSO have lengthy initialization times on the SD14, but the 4GB cards from the same supplier initialize in about a second.
In addition ANY 4GB or smaller card we have tested is fine in the SD14 and initializes in that same one second. So does another 150X 16GB card that advertises complete compatibility with Canon cameras. This is what alerted us to what may be potentially going on.
Compact Flash memory is another subject that we really should do more with in the future, but our advice for SD14 users and potential customers is to buy cards that advertise Canon compatibility. This should be easy since neither the 40D nor the 5D support UDMA. We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize. However we need to do more testing to say that with confidence.
For now SD14 users can stay with 4GB or smaller cards or use larger cards that promise Canon compatibility. The 16GB card that works with 1 second initialization for us in the SD14 is the Topram brand, and you can find it from numerous resellers on eBay or direct from sources in the US, Taiwan, Australia and other etailers. The supplier whose 280X cards were problems for us also advertises 16GB 133X memory cards that are "Canon Compatible" that should work fine in the SD14.
What you're doing here is confusing the ability of a camera to support UDMA, which as of now, only four cameras support, and issues with using cards properly at all. The 1DS III also supports it.
We have two Canons here, at home, my 5D, and my daughters 40D, the same ones you have mentioned in your post, neither camera has a problem with our 4 or 8 GB Sandisk Ducati cards, and I've not heard of other problems either. The cards neither give a problem on startup, or give errors upon use. Do they run at the faster UMDA speed? Of course not. But they were bought to run faster with our Sandisk UDMA FW 800 readers. future cameras should support UDMA, so they are a hedge against that time.
If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you!
If those cards work properly in other cameras, you should also have said that. If they didn't, then you shouldn't have used them at all.
[quote] We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize.[/quote]
By saying that the camera needs a firmware revision you are now agreeing with what I said. So after disagreeing with me on this, you now agree with me on this. Confusing!
I'm also shocked that you are advising people to buy memory cards on eBay!
EVERY authority states quite firmly to NEVER buy memory cards, OR, batteries on eBay, as most are fake, and can be dangerous, particularly batteries.
Only buy these from a reputable dealer, with a money back guarantee.
It is true that Canon has updated their firmware so that most UDMA memory will now work just fine in their DSLR cameras, but of course it does not run at full speed since UDMA is not supported. However, that was not the case with early UDMA. The 16GB CF that also throws long initialize times on the SD14 is also a problem card on the 40D - which is why it is not used in reviews. The 8GB CFs we use for reviews did work fine in the 40D and XSi.
We have reviewed memory for far too long to take your words of wisdom too seriously. Almost no memory marketers make their own memory chips. They buy chips on the open market and most also buy the PCB on the open market as well. The only unique item is the SPD programming in desktop memory where most generic makers err on the side of caution rather than trying to squeeze the last bit of performance from the memory.
Only buying name brand flash memory is generally good advice for consumers because the manufacturer stands behind the memory with a warranty and tech support. That is a valuable feature, but if you know what memory chips to look for you can do fine with generics.
We also have name-brand SDHC cards that won't work correctly in some cameras that support SDHC. The advantage of the name brand, however, is that the manufacturer will replace these with SDHC cards that have been revised and work correctly, where the generic mfg won't generally replace. For some the risk of generic, which often came from the same factory as name brand, is worth taking when some name brand flash memory has a 400% higher price than quality generic.
You state that MY a about buying memory cards isn't good, but it isn't MY advice you should be taking, its the advice of Popular Photography, Rob Galbraith, who has the longest running, and most reliable database of cards that they have tested, and numerous other well known publications and people you should be taking the advice of. I don't know who this "we" is that you're referring to in your statement about reviewing memory cards. Who are you associated with that we can look to here. I don't ever remember seeing any memory card reviews from you anywhere else.
Why don't you show who advises buying memory cards from eBay. I'm sure your readers would LOVE to see that.
Until you can produce some well known authorities, people would be well advised to stay away from eBay and unknown brands, some of which MAY be legit, but some of which are coming out the "back door" of the factories at night. If you want to buy some of those, go ahead, but don't advise others to do the same.
I did not say your advice was not good advice. I specifically said buying brand name flash cards was generally sound advice for most consumers. But your advice that generic memory is always bad memory is just not true. That line is the standard line from camera stores and branded flash manufacturers. Many of the exact same plants that make the recognized name brand flash make the quality generic flash memory you criticise.
I have reviewed desktop and notebook memory on AnandTech for years and I have toured a number of memory manufacturing plants in the US and Asia. If you click the memory tab you will see that almost all the memory reviews for the past 5 years at AT have come from me. You will also see articles from memory plant tours of companies that make flash memory in addition to desktop and notebook memory.
If you are concerned about a company that will replace your memory if it fails or most times swap it out for you then the extra protection of brand-name flash memory is certainly worth the extra cost to you. If price is near the same brand-name is definitely the better choice.
However this is an enthusiast site and while we might recommend a brand-name computer (Dell or HP) that we review once in a while, we would never tell our readers that unless they bought a Dell or HP they were getting inferior quality. Most of our readers build their own and they and we know better. Assembling your own does not make the computer inferior. You do have to be smarter in selecting components, because no one is making those decisions for you - just as you do in selecting generic memory based on chips you know are used in the best flash memory produced.
If you recall you began all this by telling me I asked for the problems I found if I was "Stupid enough" to use generic flash memory. Generic memory was not the issue. I can send you a hand full of Brand-name failed and problem memory if it will help you to understand the memory problems like this can occur with ANY memory - whether it is labeled SanDisk Ultra Extreme or Lexar Professional or PNY Optima OR Transcend or AData or Topram.
I never accused you of being stupid. I double checked just to be sure, because I wouldn't do that. I certainly do not think you are stupid. Exactly what I said about that, was this:
"If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you! "
That's very different, and I stand by it. I've made many tests of equipment over the decades, and I always make certain that all ancillary equipment used for the tests are functioning properly beforehand.
If these cards did function properly with other cameras, the it shows the Sigma is deficient. If they weren't tested before, how would one know that they are functioning properly?
The difficulty with generic cards is not that the will always be bad, but that the likelihood that they will be is much higher than with well known brands bought from a legitimate source.
Despite some (check the post after this) having no problems (or thinking so), many others seem to. Cards are not that expensive these days, and saving a few bucks only to find your fairly new card has failed during a shoot, isn't worth it.
And as I said, much memory coming from those manufacturers sees to leave out the back door. How much of it is substandard, no one knows. A good deal of it even has fake labels from the majors. This is also well known, and likely to be what is bought on eBay at those "too good to be true" prices. Most people won't even know that the amount of memory stated on the label is wrong, or that the performance is less. They'll think the cards are just fine. It isn't even the idea that it will be replaced, but the loss of the files that is the big problem.
Again, Wesley, I don't think you are stupid. I think you're a very smart guy. I just don't agree with everything you say in these reviews.
I've bought over 100 memory cards on ebay, and all at respectable prices (here in Australia we still pay about US$30 for 2GB!) and I've never had a problem. I just purchased a nice 8Gb Sandisk Ultra III CF for my Sony A350, 4Gb CF Ducati, and 8gb Sandisk MicroSD just recently, and again without any errors or faults.
The only way to test these cards also, is to fill em up to the hilt with data. At 14MP, and 1 day of continuous shooting, I easily fill 8Gb.
The advice here should be dont buy $0.99 memory cards from sellers with less than 20 sales and 99% good comments or you will end up with BS backdoor memory cards full of sawdust instead of the usual silicone
In terms of this review, I think Anandtech has lost the plot again
Why compare a 14MP camera with 10 and 12MP??
You've reviewed the Sony A350, why isnt that in your review?
You're just wasting your own time carrying out reviews like this with out proper comparisons. I guess thats just because Anandtech is trying to be a jack of all trades, but not doing it very well
Others would argue we should only compare the SD14 to 6 Megapixel cameras, or even less, since it is really a 4.7MP finished image. Most consider the SD14 roughly competitive in the 10 Megapixel space - with some tilting toward the 8 megapixel side and others to the 12 Megapixel end. Our choices were representative of prosumer cameras many would consider as having good IQ in that megapixel range, which was our goal.
I understand what others argue. However, when you're comparing cameras, you also need to compare cameras of equal MP, regardless of what their end result is. This then gives an unexperienced DSLR user the opportunity to compare and examine the results from, for example, how a sony 14MP camera produces vs SD14 14MP camera, etc. This way, for those wanting 14MP, they can establish good value for money and make a call on where they ultimately want to end up. Therefore, it would have been good to include the Sony A350 results that you got from a previous review.
As noted above, in the case of Anandtech's past review of the Canon 450D (12.2MP) vs Sony A350 (14.2MP) vs Nikon 10.1MP cameras, I understand the varying MP review as that was all that was around at the time. From that review I actually purchased a Sony A350X set with the 2 lenses, as I established it was good value for money (and actually cheaper than the Canon 450D)
Some times a LIKE for LIKE comparrison is what we all need, especially for those of us who are non-pro photographers.
I've never heard of this being compared to a 12 MP camera. 8 to 9 seems to be the agreed upon equivalent. And even there, it depends upon the images, some look sharper, and some less so.
Amen to the comment about the CF issue. I feel better about the startup time, but now I'm troubled by the memory card problems. When you depend on your gear for your living, any possible point of failure is scary.
Holy cow. I considered purchasing a Sigma for portrait work because other portrait photographers rave about the IQ of the foveon sensor. I'm shocked, however, by the 9 second start-up time. This is not something anyone has discussed before. It is simply unacceptable for any modern camera to have such primitive electronics. I know that there are many "artistes" out there who feel smug about how they can create beautiful images with primitive gear. I am not one of them. I want my camera to function well and stay out of my way.
This is a good, fair summary of the camera. While "ease of use" is a subjective and nebulous concept, I think it's appropriate that you pointed out that the camera took 9 seconds to boot up and has a slow write time. Aside from IQ comparisons, this is the kind of useful information I'm looking for in a camera review.
My only experience with Sigma lenses turned me off to "generic lenses" forever. I had my camera with a Sigma 17mm lense slung on my shoulders. As I was leaning down to pick something, the camera swung down and hit the ground. Not too hard, but hard enough. The lense and camera continued to operate fine, so I thought nothing of it. When I got home and developed my slides, I noticed that there were stray light streaks in all my images (not typical lense flare). When I examined the lense more carefully, I noticed that its plastic casing had cracked. The rubber focusing ring had obscured the crack.
I'm still ticked off about this to this day 15 years later because I was on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Cambodia photographing Angkor Wat. All the hundreds of images I took with the Sigma had light streaks. Luckily, it was not a paying job, but the images had a lot of personal importance to me.
I've never had any such problems with the Canon L lenses, even though they've taken worse abuse. Their all metal build quality and wheather sealing (as well as fantastic optical quality) are the main reasons why I have been loyal to Canon even though Nikon, for now, has arguably superior cameras (D300, D3) to what I'm using (40D, 5D).
I agree that Fuji has found a place in the toolkits of many portrait photographers. The deal killer for me is that it has low resolution. I generally enlarge my prints to 24x36. An effective resolution of 6MP on the S5 Pro does not cut it. Come to think of it, the Sigma is probably not a good choice either because of its lower resolution. I've been a happy Canon 5D user, but I'm always looking for something different to add to my kitbag. That's why the foveon had some appeal.
Pinto if you are genuinely looking for an extra tool to complement the 5d that you already own then you may well be interested to read a comparison between the 5D and the SD14 as carried out by another user as found here http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/">http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ Personally I find Image quality to be a subjective thing. I own the SD14 myself and enjoy it but I would never try and suggest that it is always going to be a better camera than your 5D. Your 5D is capable of working in different areas than the SD14 but you may well find on occasions (if you like the IQ of the foveon look that is) that you will prefer to use the SD14 for certain subject matters but that depends on 3 factors - your shooting style, your photographic interests and your ability to see the difference between the foveon and the bayer image and most importantly that like what you see.
I'm not going to try and sell you a SD14 that should be Sigma's job, I just see the camera (whoever manufacturers it) as a tool in which to do a job. I happen to like the end result of what this tool is capable of in the areas that I have in interest in - that being landscapes, portraiture and IR. Having used this camera for a few months now and seen the images of other users I am also gaining more of an interest in macro. These are all areas in which the SD14 excels if you have an interest in any of those fields it might well be worthy of further consideration by yourself.
As for the Megapixels argument, I have little time for that between any manufacturer. The quality of the megapixels seems to vary greatly between camera and camera no matter whether a foveon or bayer chip is used. I know from experience that there is a lot of information in a raw foveon image that suggests it is greater than the 4.7MP that some say, but less than the 14MP that Sigma would like us to believe. There are some users that say they can get print up to A0 with a SD14 file, and Sigma have been known to do this themselves but personally I've never felt the need to print that extreme. A2, or perhaps on the rare occasion A1 would be perfectly adequate for my needs and for that the raw file of the SD14 is ideal. It takes a little bit of skill to get the most of the foveon file. In my experience I found the auto white balance wasn't good enough for my needs but after switching to custom white balance in camera I found the results improved dramatically.
My advise is to do your research and look at what others who own the SD14 are able to get out of it and decide from there. In the end that's what sold it for me. The cheap price although a factor in sparking my initial interest was also something that put me off to an extent but it was the photography of the long term users that persuaded me in the end not the marketing by Sigma or megapixels argument between bayer or foveon fans.
We used three different 8GB CF cards in the course of testing fro this review. All were 280X cards based on Samsung memory chips, and all 3 cards have worked fine with every other camera we have tested at AT.
After receiving several emails from SD14 users reporting startups of 1 second or so we tried two new CF cards of different brands - a 16GB and a 4GB. BOTH the new cards initialized in about a second and we have not experienced a lock-up yet in shooting with either card. THE STARTUP DELAY AND LOCK-UPS APPEAR TO BE THE FAULT OF CF CARD COMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND NOT THE SD!$ CAMERA.
We will revise the review shortly to reflect these findings and also update the lock-up issue as soon as we have had more time with the new cards.
By on large as a Sigma SD14 owner of a few months I found this a fair and reasonable review, except on one matter. The experienced start up time of the author of this review puzzles me greatly. When I turn on my camera, within about a second its ready to go. If I had experienced an 8 second start up time I would have returned it to the shop in frustration. Sadly I'm not patient enough to deal with a start up time of that magnitude, thankfully I've not had to do just that. In fact the start up time has never been an issue for me. I'm not sure why the author experienced this issue, perhaps it was the 15 year old lens that was used although that seems unlikely.
There are areas where the camera is slow, writing to card for instance - so for someone who is used to a quicker camera it does mean an adjustment in shooting styles.
Anyway about from the issue I highlighted it was a fair review. The Image quality of the camera is superb with good quality lens when combined with good skills of an experienced photographer. I would say the IQ compares favourably with the mid priced dslrs albeit at low isos, and with the current price of the SD14 it is a bargain, especially when you consider you have two cameras for the price of one if you are into IR. Most if not all other Dslrs require a permanent irreversible modification if you want to shoot in IR, whereas with the SD14 you can easily swap between regular colour and IR as your mood dictates.
I would never try to suggest this as a camera for everyone, its a specialist camera but if you have an interest in Landscape, Macro, portraiture and/or Infrared photography its well worth consideration for the image quality capabilities of the camera and the price - and unless something is very wrong it should be ready to shoot without contemplating whistling the first few notes of "Why are we waiting...."
This is hardly primitive gear. As Wesley wrote in the review, since no other major manufacturer has used the Foveon sensor, it's impossible to know whether it's the camera design or just the sensor itself that is responsible for the slow response times.
Your portrait photographer friends don't need a really quick camera, as portraits are usually carefully set up and controlled. Add in unbeatable image quality and it sounds like the right choice for a portrait photographer.
Layer-per-primary is the future of digital photography. I can't wait till Canon or Nikon do the same, as they are bound to wrap more accurate hardware around the technology.
Layer-per-primary is definitely NOT the future of digital photography. It's a concept that sounds nice, but in practical application things are a lot muddier. The basic problem is that while the literature makes it sound like red photons go to one layer, green to another layer, etc, the reality is that you don't get nice discretely separated layers. Photons of a certain wavelength will generally penetrate silicon to a certain depth, but that depth varies based on a lot of factors, and photons come in a continous spectrum, not discretely separated wavelengths, so the reality is that you get a nice soup of photons all being absorbed in the "red" layer that may not be red at all. The sigma cameras are only able to produce their images through some very impressive image processing.
If you want R, G, and B information at each pixel, there is a good way to do it: 3-CCD technology. Use a beamsplitter to image the same scene with 3 different imagers each filtered for one color. That will give you correct tri-color information at each pixel, but it costs a lot and it can be quite difficult to design.
And has no real advantage over a single Bayer sensor with twice the height and width. Takes up (a lot) more space, cost more and is extremely hard to align (different wavelengths diffract differently).
It is a great idea, but passing through the first two layers to get to the red layer eats too much of the light. To make up for it, they make the red layer supersensitive, which then leads to clipping or extremely complex attempts at color correction. Unless there is some breakthrough material to make the sensor out of, it will always be noisy.
Except useing this method of three layer technology and pretending thats the only way is pretty close minded and short sighted.
Their are better methods than what Foveon has, but layer-per-primary as a base WILL be the future of digital photography. Its a technology in its infancy, and hinestly, do you see any other method that would even come close to haveing the same future potential? If you mention fuji ill shoot you.
Potential is irrelevant when the current technology has aready hit the "lens wall".
Bayer pattern sensors are already at the limit of lens resolution, and can still be pushed forward. Unless Foveon can suddenly increase the resolution of their sensors by 300%, fix all the color problems, and Sigma releases lenses that can beat the top Nikon and Canon models, they simply don't offer any advantage (note that there are sharper lenses than Canon's or Nikon's - Leica, Hasselblad, Voigtlander, Zeiss - but they're used by less than 0.1% of people).
If anyone is interested in improving the quality of Bayer sensors, the way to go is tetrachromacy (Sony is experimenting with that), but that makes processing more complex and offers only a very slight little advantage, so I don't see that happening, either.
Current Bayer sensors have hit the resolution limit for lenses, and improvements to sensitivity and chroma range are more important than resolution. Since those are precisely the points where Foveon is further behind, its future isn't particularly bright. Some people will continue to buy them, because the concept "seems to make sense", but in the real world they're simply worse in every sense. Even if done "perfectly" (with materials that don't even exist yet), they'd be more expensive and the advantage wouldn't be noticeable without a major upgrade to lens quality.
No not fuji, great for pocket cams, not so hot for SLRs.
I think one of two things. Either a new material with much lower noise properties. Or if costs keep going down, we could potentially see someone do a creative take on the three sensor design like they do in high end video cameras.
PS.
There is this new and great technology called PNG. No one expects you to display tiff or raw files. I'm not sure why a paragraph was put into explaining that to everyone.
We use PNG all the time in our articles and reviews and it is a desirable lossless format like TIFF. However it is not really very suitable for photographic images. To quote from Wikipedia:
"JPEG can produce a smaller file than PNG for photographic (and photo-like) images, since JPEG uses a lossy encoding method specifically designed for photographic image data. Using PNG instead of a high-quality JPEG for such images would result in a large increase in filesize (often 5–10 times) with negligible gain in quality."
For photographs PNG is no better than JPEG, but the files are MUCH larger. PNG is best with tables and line drawings. We need a new web format as neither TIFF or PNG are suitable and current JPEG is just 8-bit - perhaps an update of JPEG.
PNG uses prediction and error coding, followed by entropy encoding. It's pretty much the best lossless algorithm you can get for photos.
For line drawings and tables, GIF (LZ compression) will frequently produce smaller files than PNG, especially if they have regular dithering patterns.
If you think there's no difference between JPEG (even at the maximum quality allowed by Photoshop) and PNG, you need to have your eyes checked. Even though Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source, the article you quoted says "a negligible gain in quality". Not "no gain". You're the one who extrapolated that to "PNG is no better than JPEG".
The meaning of "negligible" depends on the situation. Yes, the PNG files are significantly bigger. And yes, if you use a crappy camera, you'll get artifacts from the lens and sensor anyway. But when you're comparing high-end cameras and sensors, it definitely pays to use a lossless format (generated from raw, of course, not from an in-camera JPEG). Even better, post a couple of raw files and let people who are interested download and compare them using appropriate software.
BTW, there already is an "update of JPEG". It's called JPEG-2000 and gets about 40% higher compression for the same (lossy) image quality, and even supports lossless compression. If you can convince browser makers (namely Microsoft) to add support for it to their software, we'd be thankful. Until then, I doubt it'll catch on.
I have no idea why you need a higher-than-8-bit format "for the web", considering that about half the LCDs out there are actually 6-bit panels and that 99.9% of graphics cards are limited to 8-bpc. We definitely don't need browsers to become more bloated just so they can handle HDR or RPF images natively (which 99% of people have no use for in web pages).
For distribution and webpage "decoration", 8-bit JPEGs are fine. The question is whether they're fine for an article comparing minute differences between high-end digital sensors. And the answer to that is almost certainly no (just as MP3 files aren't really the right choice to evaluate high-end audio equipment).
Last time I checked, JPEG2000 is pretty much dead and MS is trying to setup a new JPEG2000 like picture file system along with many other major companies. I forgot the details but it was open architecture and it was better than JPEG 2000.
JPEG-2000 is only "dead" due to lack of native support in Windows and web browsers. It's a significant improvement on JPEG.
Microsoft's format (which has gone through three names, I think the current one is "MS HD Photo") is a DRM'd format which, in terms of quality vs. compression, is slightly inferior to JPEG-2000 and can only be manipulated through Microsoft's own APIs (very much not an "open architecture"). It does have support for several useful features (like floating-point HDR) but I really don't see those being relevant for a distribution format; if you want HDR data, you probably don't want lossy compression, and vice-versa.
A unified "raw" format for all camera manufacturers, on the other hand, would be nice, but considering the different sensor layouts, different bit depths, different processing required, etc., you would have a single file extension but effectively N different sub-formats.
In context, when mentioning all those formats, and not mentioning png, its kinda off. Also, PNG with such tiny crops is negligible.
Aside from that, a contrustive suggestion would be, if youre going to do side by side images, have a single croped image, and several mouse-overable links that change the image dynamicaly. It gives a much much better result when trying to see subtile differences between cameras.
IMO that would one-up anandtech camera reviews compaired tomost online.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
Wesley Fink - Friday, June 6, 2008 - link
We have now used two 16GB CF cards that initialize in about a second and write as well as anything to the Signa SD14. They are 150x 16GB TopRam, which is a generic brand available from a number of eBay sellers in the US and around the world. The second is the Transcend 133X 16GB avilable at amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF133-16GB-Co...">http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF...ctronics.... The Transcend CF has a reputation for being slow on some digital cameras but it is as fast as anything we have tested on the SD14 and provides 16GB capacity for $84.n4bby - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
hi wesley,the macro sample images are a distinct improvement over those in previous articles, but i still think more demanding/representative subject matter would be helpful. e.g., shots that specifically show the sensors contrast and tonal range, shadow retention, highlight handling, etc... macro shots are more a test of the optics used, and are not particularly demanding of the sensor. i have seen some very fine, professional-quality macro work done on an old Canon PowerShot G3 with a macro adapter.
as a suggestion - nice sample images of PEOPLE would be very helpful. you can often tell a lot about image quality from how a camera/lens captures portraits and candids of people, particularly those of an impromptu nature - and after all, that's what most of us will be shooting much of the time. if you had to name the #1 subject matter of all photographs, it would have to be people!
cheers,
marc
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
After further testing it was discovered that the start-up time issues and lock-ups with the SD14 were related to a CF card compatibility issue. We have done further testing with CF cards, both a 16GB and a 4GB card, that work much better with the SD14. With the new cards start up is about a second which is completely acceptable. The random lockups that were first described in the review are also gone.THE REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UPDATED TO REFLECT THESE NEW FINDINGS.
melgross - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Let's understand something about the CF card issues.Neither Canon or Nikon have those issues. As far as I know, neither does any other D-SLR from any other manufacturer (even if they use SD cards).
Therefore it IS an issue here, with this camera.
The best thing for readers here would be if you gave the name of the cards to us, so that those who might have this camera wouldn't make the mistake in buying them. This is no doubt a firmware issue that Sigma should resolve.
Secondly, I always have problems with camera images with different resolutions being shown at a native size in comparisons. No one looks at images that way, and it is unrealistic in testing results as well.
While the Sigma images may look at though they are sharp, and that noise is well controlled up through 200, a real comparison with equal image SIZE would show different results.
I realize it's somewhat difficult to do this on the web, but it's the only realistic comparison. A straight bicubic interpolation will give a closer representation than does that small image. I've done many of these tests, and prints.
An 8 x 10 is an 8 x 10, after all (or 11 x 14, etc), no matter what the resolution of the sensor.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
You are certainly wrong about neither Canon nor Nikon having problems with high-speed CF cards. In fact Canon cameras often have problems with the UDMA file structures in some of the fastest CF cards above 4GB since the 40D and 5D do not support UDMA. The Olympus E-3, Sony A700, and Nikon D300 DO support UDMA. This appears to be a similar problem, and it is likely related to UDMA.The problem cards are a generic no-label 280X hi-speed cards that are manufactured with Samsung chips - the same chips used in Extreme IV cards. We are not trying to protect any manufacturer, but it is difficult to name a brand when there is not one on the CF cards. The 16GB cards from the same supplier ALSO have lengthy initialization times on the SD14, but the 4GB cards from the same supplier initialize in about a second.
In addition ANY 4GB or smaller card we have tested is fine in the SD14 and initializes in that same one second. So does another 150X 16GB card that advertises complete compatibility with Canon cameras. This is what alerted us to what may be potentially going on.
Compact Flash memory is another subject that we really should do more with in the future, but our advice for SD14 users and potential customers is to buy cards that advertise Canon compatibility. This should be easy since neither the 40D nor the 5D support UDMA. We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize. However we need to do more testing to say that with confidence.
For now SD14 users can stay with 4GB or smaller cards or use larger cards that promise Canon compatibility. The 16GB card that works with 1 second initialization for us in the SD14 is the Topram brand, and you can find it from numerous resellers on eBay or direct from sources in the US, Taiwan, Australia and other etailers. The supplier whose 280X cards were problems for us also advertises 16GB 133X memory cards that are "Canon Compatible" that should work fine in the SD14.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
What you're doing here is confusing the ability of a camera to support UDMA, which as of now, only four cameras support, and issues with using cards properly at all. The 1DS III also supports it.We have two Canons here, at home, my 5D, and my daughters 40D, the same ones you have mentioned in your post, neither camera has a problem with our 4 or 8 GB Sandisk Ducati cards, and I've not heard of other problems either. The cards neither give a problem on startup, or give errors upon use. Do they run at the faster UMDA speed? Of course not. But they were bought to run faster with our Sandisk UDMA FW 800 readers. future cameras should support UDMA, so they are a hedge against that time.
If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you!
If those cards work properly in other cameras, you should also have said that. If they didn't, then you shouldn't have used them at all.
[quote] We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize.[/quote]
By saying that the camera needs a firmware revision you are now agreeing with what I said. So after disagreeing with me on this, you now agree with me on this. Confusing!
I'm also shocked that you are advising people to buy memory cards on eBay!
EVERY authority states quite firmly to NEVER buy memory cards, OR, batteries on eBay, as most are fake, and can be dangerous, particularly batteries.
Only buy these from a reputable dealer, with a money back guarantee.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
It is true that Canon has updated their firmware so that most UDMA memory will now work just fine in their DSLR cameras, but of course it does not run at full speed since UDMA is not supported. However, that was not the case with early UDMA. The 16GB CF that also throws long initialize times on the SD14 is also a problem card on the 40D - which is why it is not used in reviews. The 8GB CFs we use for reviews did work fine in the 40D and XSi.We have reviewed memory for far too long to take your words of wisdom too seriously. Almost no memory marketers make their own memory chips. They buy chips on the open market and most also buy the PCB on the open market as well. The only unique item is the SPD programming in desktop memory where most generic makers err on the side of caution rather than trying to squeeze the last bit of performance from the memory.
Only buying name brand flash memory is generally good advice for consumers because the manufacturer stands behind the memory with a warranty and tech support. That is a valuable feature, but if you know what memory chips to look for you can do fine with generics.
We also have name-brand SDHC cards that won't work correctly in some cameras that support SDHC. The advantage of the name brand, however, is that the manufacturer will replace these with SDHC cards that have been revised and work correctly, where the generic mfg won't generally replace. For some the risk of generic, which often came from the same factory as name brand, is worth taking when some name brand flash memory has a 400% higher price than quality generic.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
You state that MY a about buying memory cards isn't good, but it isn't MY advice you should be taking, its the advice of Popular Photography, Rob Galbraith, who has the longest running, and most reliable database of cards that they have tested, and numerous other well known publications and people you should be taking the advice of. I don't know who this "we" is that you're referring to in your statement about reviewing memory cards. Who are you associated with that we can look to here. I don't ever remember seeing any memory card reviews from you anywhere else.Why don't you show who advises buying memory cards from eBay. I'm sure your readers would LOVE to see that.
Until you can produce some well known authorities, people would be well advised to stay away from eBay and unknown brands, some of which MAY be legit, but some of which are coming out the "back door" of the factories at night. If you want to buy some of those, go ahead, but don't advise others to do the same.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I did not say your advice was not good advice. I specifically said buying brand name flash cards was generally sound advice for most consumers. But your advice that generic memory is always bad memory is just not true. That line is the standard line from camera stores and branded flash manufacturers. Many of the exact same plants that make the recognized name brand flash make the quality generic flash memory you criticise.I have reviewed desktop and notebook memory on AnandTech for years and I have toured a number of memory manufacturing plants in the US and Asia. If you click the memory tab you will see that almost all the memory reviews for the past 5 years at AT have come from me. You will also see articles from memory plant tours of companies that make flash memory in addition to desktop and notebook memory.
If you are concerned about a company that will replace your memory if it fails or most times swap it out for you then the extra protection of brand-name flash memory is certainly worth the extra cost to you. If price is near the same brand-name is definitely the better choice.
However this is an enthusiast site and while we might recommend a brand-name computer (Dell or HP) that we review once in a while, we would never tell our readers that unless they bought a Dell or HP they were getting inferior quality. Most of our readers build their own and they and we know better. Assembling your own does not make the computer inferior. You do have to be smarter in selecting components, because no one is making those decisions for you - just as you do in selecting generic memory based on chips you know are used in the best flash memory produced.
If you recall you began all this by telling me I asked for the problems I found if I was "Stupid enough" to use generic flash memory. Generic memory was not the issue. I can send you a hand full of Brand-name failed and problem memory if it will help you to understand the memory problems like this can occur with ANY memory - whether it is labeled SanDisk Ultra Extreme or Lexar Professional or PNY Optima OR Transcend or AData or Topram.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I never accused you of being stupid. I double checked just to be sure, because I wouldn't do that. I certainly do not think you are stupid. Exactly what I said about that, was this:"If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you! "
That's very different, and I stand by it. I've made many tests of equipment over the decades, and I always make certain that all ancillary equipment used for the tests are functioning properly beforehand.
If these cards did function properly with other cameras, the it shows the Sigma is deficient. If they weren't tested before, how would one know that they are functioning properly?
The difficulty with generic cards is not that the will always be bad, but that the likelihood that they will be is much higher than with well known brands bought from a legitimate source.
Despite some (check the post after this) having no problems (or thinking so), many others seem to. Cards are not that expensive these days, and saving a few bucks only to find your fairly new card has failed during a shoot, isn't worth it.
And as I said, much memory coming from those manufacturers sees to leave out the back door. How much of it is substandard, no one knows. A good deal of it even has fake labels from the majors. This is also well known, and likely to be what is bought on eBay at those "too good to be true" prices. Most people won't even know that the amount of memory stated on the label is wrong, or that the performance is less. They'll think the cards are just fine. It isn't even the idea that it will be replaced, but the loss of the files that is the big problem.
Again, Wesley, I don't think you are stupid. I think you're a very smart guy. I just don't agree with everything you say in these reviews.
cheetah2k - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I've bought over 100 memory cards on ebay, and all at respectable prices (here in Australia we still pay about US$30 for 2GB!) and I've never had a problem. I just purchased a nice 8Gb Sandisk Ultra III CF for my Sony A350, 4Gb CF Ducati, and 8gb Sandisk MicroSD just recently, and again without any errors or faults.The only way to test these cards also, is to fill em up to the hilt with data. At 14MP, and 1 day of continuous shooting, I easily fill 8Gb.
The advice here should be dont buy $0.99 memory cards from sellers with less than 20 sales and 99% good comments or you will end up with BS backdoor memory cards full of sawdust instead of the usual silicone
cheetah2k - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
In terms of this review, I think Anandtech has lost the plot againWhy compare a 14MP camera with 10 and 12MP??
You've reviewed the Sony A350, why isnt that in your review?
You're just wasting your own time carrying out reviews like this with out proper comparisons. I guess thats just because Anandtech is trying to be a jack of all trades, but not doing it very well
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Others would argue we should only compare the SD14 to 6 Megapixel cameras, or even less, since it is really a 4.7MP finished image. Most consider the SD14 roughly competitive in the 10 Megapixel space - with some tilting toward the 8 megapixel side and others to the 12 Megapixel end. Our choices were representative of prosumer cameras many would consider as having good IQ in that megapixel range, which was our goal.If you wish to compare the images to the Pentax K20D and the Sony A350 the crops and full images can be found at http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as...">http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as...
cheetah2k - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I understand what others argue. However, when you're comparing cameras, you also need to compare cameras of equal MP, regardless of what their end result is. This then gives an unexperienced DSLR user the opportunity to compare and examine the results from, for example, how a sony 14MP camera produces vs SD14 14MP camera, etc. This way, for those wanting 14MP, they can establish good value for money and make a call on where they ultimately want to end up. Therefore, it would have been good to include the Sony A350 results that you got from a previous review.As noted above, in the case of Anandtech's past review of the Canon 450D (12.2MP) vs Sony A350 (14.2MP) vs Nikon 10.1MP cameras, I understand the varying MP review as that was all that was around at the time. From that review I actually purchased a Sony A350X set with the 2 lenses, as I established it was good value for money (and actually cheaper than the Canon 450D)
Some times a LIKE for LIKE comparrison is what we all need, especially for those of us who are non-pro photographers.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I've never heard of this being compared to a 12 MP camera. 8 to 9 seems to be the agreed upon equivalent. And even there, it depends upon the images, some look sharper, and some less so.pinto4402 - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Amen to the comment about the CF issue. I feel better about the startup time, but now I'm troubled by the memory card problems. When you depend on your gear for your living, any possible point of failure is scary.pinto4402 - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Holy cow. I considered purchasing a Sigma for portrait work because other portrait photographers rave about the IQ of the foveon sensor. I'm shocked, however, by the 9 second start-up time. This is not something anyone has discussed before. It is simply unacceptable for any modern camera to have such primitive electronics. I know that there are many "artistes" out there who feel smug about how they can create beautiful images with primitive gear. I am not one of them. I want my camera to function well and stay out of my way.This is a good, fair summary of the camera. While "ease of use" is a subjective and nebulous concept, I think it's appropriate that you pointed out that the camera took 9 seconds to boot up and has a slow write time. Aside from IQ comparisons, this is the kind of useful information I'm looking for in a camera review.
Maxington - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
If I was heavily into portraits I'd go with the Fuji DSLR's, with their specialized sensors, not the Sigma.I can't knock Sigma lenses, they have some gems, but their cameras so far are pretty lacklustre.
I'd like Foveon to stay around as competition though, maybe with development it will find its strong points.
pinto4402 - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
My only experience with Sigma lenses turned me off to "generic lenses" forever. I had my camera with a Sigma 17mm lense slung on my shoulders. As I was leaning down to pick something, the camera swung down and hit the ground. Not too hard, but hard enough. The lense and camera continued to operate fine, so I thought nothing of it. When I got home and developed my slides, I noticed that there were stray light streaks in all my images (not typical lense flare). When I examined the lense more carefully, I noticed that its plastic casing had cracked. The rubber focusing ring had obscured the crack.I'm still ticked off about this to this day 15 years later because I was on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Cambodia photographing Angkor Wat. All the hundreds of images I took with the Sigma had light streaks. Luckily, it was not a paying job, but the images had a lot of personal importance to me.
I've never had any such problems with the Canon L lenses, even though they've taken worse abuse. Their all metal build quality and wheather sealing (as well as fantastic optical quality) are the main reasons why I have been loyal to Canon even though Nikon, for now, has arguably superior cameras (D300, D3) to what I'm using (40D, 5D).
pinto4402 - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I agree that Fuji has found a place in the toolkits of many portrait photographers. The deal killer for me is that it has low resolution. I generally enlarge my prints to 24x36. An effective resolution of 6MP on the S5 Pro does not cut it. Come to think of it, the Sigma is probably not a good choice either because of its lower resolution. I've been a happy Canon 5D user, but I'm always looking for something different to add to my kitbag. That's why the foveon had some appeal.justascot - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
Pinto if you are genuinely looking for an extra tool to complement the 5d that you already own then you may well be interested to read a comparison between the 5D and the SD14 as carried out by another user as found here http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/">http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/Personally I find Image quality to be a subjective thing. I own the SD14 myself and enjoy it but I would never try and suggest that it is always going to be a better camera than your 5D. Your 5D is capable of working in different areas than the SD14 but you may well find on occasions (if you like the IQ of the foveon look that is) that you will prefer to use the SD14 for certain subject matters but that depends on 3 factors - your shooting style, your photographic interests and your ability to see the difference between the foveon and the bayer image and most importantly that like what you see.
I'm not going to try and sell you a SD14 that should be Sigma's job, I just see the camera (whoever manufacturers it) as a tool in which to do a job. I happen to like the end result of what this tool is capable of in the areas that I have in interest in - that being landscapes, portraiture and IR. Having used this camera for a few months now and seen the images of other users I am also gaining more of an interest in macro. These are all areas in which the SD14 excels if you have an interest in any of those fields it might well be worthy of further consideration by yourself.
As for the Megapixels argument, I have little time for that between any manufacturer. The quality of the megapixels seems to vary greatly between camera and camera no matter whether a foveon or bayer chip is used. I know from experience that there is a lot of information in a raw foveon image that suggests it is greater than the 4.7MP that some say, but less than the 14MP that Sigma would like us to believe. There are some users that say they can get print up to A0 with a SD14 file, and Sigma have been known to do this themselves but personally I've never felt the need to print that extreme. A2, or perhaps on the rare occasion A1 would be perfectly adequate for my needs and for that the raw file of the SD14 is ideal. It takes a little bit of skill to get the most of the foveon file. In my experience I found the auto white balance wasn't good enough for my needs but after switching to custom white balance in camera I found the results improved dramatically.
My advise is to do your research and look at what others who own the SD14 are able to get out of it and decide from there. In the end that's what sold it for me. The cheap price although a factor in sparking my initial interest was also something that put me off to an extent but it was the photography of the long term users that persuaded me in the end not the marketing by Sigma or megapixels argument between bayer or foveon fans.
pinto4402 - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
Your comments are well taken. Thank you for taking the time discuss this with me.justascot - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
You are welcome. I hope whatever conclusion you come to, it proves to be the right decision for you.My apologies for my lack of spacing between paragraphs in my previous comment I hadn't realised my mistake until after I pressed send.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
WE WERE WRONG ABOUT START-UP.We used three different 8GB CF cards in the course of testing fro this review. All were 280X cards based on Samsung memory chips, and all 3 cards have worked fine with every other camera we have tested at AT.
After receiving several emails from SD14 users reporting startups of 1 second or so we tried two new CF cards of different brands - a 16GB and a 4GB. BOTH the new cards initialized in about a second and we have not experienced a lock-up yet in shooting with either card. THE STARTUP DELAY AND LOCK-UPS APPEAR TO BE THE FAULT OF CF CARD COMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND NOT THE SD!$ CAMERA.
We will revise the review shortly to reflect these findings and also update the lock-up issue as soon as we have had more time with the new cards.
justascot - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
By on large as a Sigma SD14 owner of a few months I found this a fair and reasonable review, except on one matter. The experienced start up time of the author of this review puzzles me greatly. When I turn on my camera, within about a second its ready to go. If I had experienced an 8 second start up time I would have returned it to the shop in frustration. Sadly I'm not patient enough to deal with a start up time of that magnitude, thankfully I've not had to do just that. In fact the start up time has never been an issue for me. I'm not sure why the author experienced this issue, perhaps it was the 15 year old lens that was used although that seems unlikely.There are areas where the camera is slow, writing to card for instance - so for someone who is used to a quicker camera it does mean an adjustment in shooting styles.
Anyway about from the issue I highlighted it was a fair review. The Image quality of the camera is superb with good quality lens when combined with good skills of an experienced photographer. I would say the IQ compares favourably with the mid priced dslrs albeit at low isos, and with the current price of the SD14 it is a bargain, especially when you consider you have two cameras for the price of one if you are into IR. Most if not all other Dslrs require a permanent irreversible modification if you want to shoot in IR, whereas with the SD14 you can easily swap between regular colour and IR as your mood dictates.
I would never try to suggest this as a camera for everyone, its a specialist camera but if you have an interest in Landscape, Macro, portraiture and/or Infrared photography its well worth consideration for the image quality capabilities of the camera and the price - and unless something is very wrong it should be ready to shoot without contemplating whistling the first few notes of "Why are we waiting...."
Souka - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
9 sec start up time? Probably running a flavor of Windows....crimson117 - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
This is hardly primitive gear. As Wesley wrote in the review, since no other major manufacturer has used the Foveon sensor, it's impossible to know whether it's the camera design or just the sensor itself that is responsible for the slow response times.Your portrait photographer friends don't need a really quick camera, as portraits are usually carefully set up and controlled. Add in unbeatable image quality and it sounds like the right choice for a portrait photographer.
aeternitas - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Layer-per-primary is the future of digital photography. I can't wait till Canon or Nikon do the same, as they are bound to wrap more accurate hardware around the technology.For more pictures
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/sigma-sd...">http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/sigma-sd...
s12033722 - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
Layer-per-primary is definitely NOT the future of digital photography. It's a concept that sounds nice, but in practical application things are a lot muddier. The basic problem is that while the literature makes it sound like red photons go to one layer, green to another layer, etc, the reality is that you don't get nice discretely separated layers. Photons of a certain wavelength will generally penetrate silicon to a certain depth, but that depth varies based on a lot of factors, and photons come in a continous spectrum, not discretely separated wavelengths, so the reality is that you get a nice soup of photons all being absorbed in the "red" layer that may not be red at all. The sigma cameras are only able to produce their images through some very impressive image processing.If you want R, G, and B information at each pixel, there is a good way to do it: 3-CCD technology. Use a beamsplitter to image the same scene with 3 different imagers each filtered for one color. That will give you correct tri-color information at each pixel, but it costs a lot and it can be quite difficult to design.
Justin Case - Friday, June 6, 2008 - link
And has no real advantage over a single Bayer sensor with twice the height and width. Takes up (a lot) more space, cost more and is extremely hard to align (different wavelengths diffract differently).chibimike - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Layer-per-primary is not the future.It is a great idea, but passing through the first two layers to get to the red layer eats too much of the light. To make up for it, they make the red layer supersensitive, which then leads to clipping or extremely complex attempts at color correction. Unless there is some breakthrough material to make the sensor out of, it will always be noisy.
aeternitas - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
I see your point, and its a good one.Except useing this method of three layer technology and pretending thats the only way is pretty close minded and short sighted.
Their are better methods than what Foveon has, but layer-per-primary as a base WILL be the future of digital photography. Its a technology in its infancy, and hinestly, do you see any other method that would even come close to haveing the same future potential? If you mention fuji ill shoot you.
Justin Case - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
Potential is irrelevant when the current technology has aready hit the "lens wall".Bayer pattern sensors are already at the limit of lens resolution, and can still be pushed forward. Unless Foveon can suddenly increase the resolution of their sensors by 300%, fix all the color problems, and Sigma releases lenses that can beat the top Nikon and Canon models, they simply don't offer any advantage (note that there are sharper lenses than Canon's or Nikon's - Leica, Hasselblad, Voigtlander, Zeiss - but they're used by less than 0.1% of people).
If anyone is interested in improving the quality of Bayer sensors, the way to go is tetrachromacy (Sony is experimenting with that), but that makes processing more complex and offers only a very slight little advantage, so I don't see that happening, either.
Current Bayer sensors have hit the resolution limit for lenses, and improvements to sensitivity and chroma range are more important than resolution. Since those are precisely the points where Foveon is further behind, its future isn't particularly bright. Some people will continue to buy them, because the concept "seems to make sense", but in the real world they're simply worse in every sense. Even if done "perfectly" (with materials that don't even exist yet), they'd be more expensive and the advantage wouldn't be noticeable without a major upgrade to lens quality.
chibimike - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
No not fuji, great for pocket cams, not so hot for SLRs.I think one of two things. Either a new material with much lower noise properties. Or if costs keep going down, we could potentially see someone do a creative take on the three sensor design like they do in high end video cameras.
aeternitas - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
PS.There is this new and great technology called PNG. No one expects you to display tiff or raw files. I'm not sure why a paragraph was put into explaining that to everyone.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
We use PNG all the time in our articles and reviews and it is a desirable lossless format like TIFF. However it is not really very suitable for photographic images. To quote from Wikipedia:"JPEG can produce a smaller file than PNG for photographic (and photo-like) images, since JPEG uses a lossy encoding method specifically designed for photographic image data. Using PNG instead of a high-quality JPEG for such images would result in a large increase in filesize (often 5–10 times) with negligible gain in quality."
For photographs PNG is no better than JPEG, but the files are MUCH larger. PNG is best with tables and line drawings. We need a new web format as neither TIFF or PNG are suitable and current JPEG is just 8-bit - perhaps an update of JPEG.
Justin Case - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
PNG uses prediction and error coding, followed by entropy encoding. It's pretty much the best lossless algorithm you can get for photos.For line drawings and tables, GIF (LZ compression) will frequently produce smaller files than PNG, especially if they have regular dithering patterns.
If you think there's no difference between JPEG (even at the maximum quality allowed by Photoshop) and PNG, you need to have your eyes checked. Even though Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source, the article you quoted says "a negligible gain in quality". Not "no gain". You're the one who extrapolated that to "PNG is no better than JPEG".
The meaning of "negligible" depends on the situation. Yes, the PNG files are significantly bigger. And yes, if you use a crappy camera, you'll get artifacts from the lens and sensor anyway. But when you're comparing high-end cameras and sensors, it definitely pays to use a lossless format (generated from raw, of course, not from an in-camera JPEG). Even better, post a couple of raw files and let people who are interested download and compare them using appropriate software.
BTW, there already is an "update of JPEG". It's called JPEG-2000 and gets about 40% higher compression for the same (lossy) image quality, and even supports lossless compression. If you can convince browser makers (namely Microsoft) to add support for it to their software, we'd be thankful. Until then, I doubt it'll catch on.
I have no idea why you need a higher-than-8-bit format "for the web", considering that about half the LCDs out there are actually 6-bit panels and that 99.9% of graphics cards are limited to 8-bpc. We definitely don't need browsers to become more bloated just so they can handle HDR or RPF images natively (which 99% of people have no use for in web pages).
For distribution and webpage "decoration", 8-bit JPEGs are fine. The question is whether they're fine for an article comparing minute differences between high-end digital sensors. And the answer to that is almost certainly no (just as MP3 files aren't really the right choice to evaluate high-end audio equipment).
Deadtrees - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - link
Last time I checked, JPEG2000 is pretty much dead and MS is trying to setup a new JPEG2000 like picture file system along with many other major companies. I forgot the details but it was open architecture and it was better than JPEG 2000.Justin Case - Friday, June 6, 2008 - link
JPEG-2000 is only "dead" due to lack of native support in Windows and web browsers. It's a significant improvement on JPEG.Microsoft's format (which has gone through three names, I think the current one is "MS HD Photo") is a DRM'd format which, in terms of quality vs. compression, is slightly inferior to JPEG-2000 and can only be manipulated through Microsoft's own APIs (very much not an "open architecture"). It does have support for several useful features (like floating-point HDR) but I really don't see those being relevant for a distribution format; if you want HDR data, you probably don't want lossy compression, and vice-versa.
A unified "raw" format for all camera manufacturers, on the other hand, would be nice, but considering the different sensor layouts, different bit depths, different processing required, etc., you would have a single file extension but effectively N different sub-formats.
aeternitas - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
I understand the differance between the two.In context, when mentioning all those formats, and not mentioning png, its kinda off. Also, PNG with such tiny crops is negligible.
Aside from that, a contrustive suggestion would be, if youre going to do side by side images, have a single croped image, and several mouse-overable links that change the image dynamicaly. It gives a much much better result when trying to see subtile differences between cameras.
IMO that would one-up anandtech camera reviews compaired tomost online.