Polaroid x530 w/Foveon sensor will ship - finally.

Discussion in 'Digital Point & Shoot Camera' started by True211, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. True211

    True211 Guest

    True211, Feb 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Woodchuck Bill, Feb 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 23, 2005
    #3
  4. True211

    ittsy Guest

    It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

    Rose Parchen
     
    ittsy, Feb 24, 2005
    #4
  5. It'll be interesting to see the "Bayer equivalency" for the x530. Reviews of
    the 3.4 Megapixel Sigma SD10 state that it compares to a 6 megapixel Bayer
    based D-SLR, in terms of resolution.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 24, 2005
    #5
  6. If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
    technology...really...who cares at this point?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 25, 2005
    #6
  7. True211

    The PhAnToM Guest

    Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
     
    The PhAnToM, Feb 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Those of us who use Foveon sensor cameras quite like them. There's honest
    criticism of the sensor and then there's dishonest crtiticism from the likes
    of Randall and Steven Scharf who never used the camera. Sort of like
    telling someone how a steak tastes without ever tasting one for themselves.
    It's best to discount what they say and stick to the posts from those who
    are more objective even if they don't like the Foveon sensor.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #8
  9. True211

    Larry Guest

    I wouldn't call it hatred, just a lack of repect for a good idea that didn't
    work, but still gets promoted and sold as if it did work.

    The photos from that sensor are pretty bad.
     
    Larry, Feb 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Thanks.

    There is no hatred.

    There was a lot of disappointment when the Sigma D-SLRs, produced
    relatively mediocre results compared to all other digital SLRs (and
    compared to many compact digital cameras for that matter). This has
    translated into healthy skepticism that the 1.5 megapixel sensor in the
    Polaroid x530 will produce good results (this camera is nearly a year
    late, with no explanation ever provided for the delay, making many
    people very nervous about it, but who knows, it could be a sleeper).

    What upset a lot of people about Foveon was how the 3.4 megapixel X10
    sensor somehow morphed into a 10.2 megapixel sensor. This stemmed from
    an attempt to re-define a pixel from a spatial input element into a
    photo-detector. Terms such as "pixel sensor" were invented, in an
    attempt to confuse the consumer. Foveon decided not to adhere to the
    JCIA GLA03 standard regarding the definition of a pixel, claiming that
    the standard did not adequately address X3 technology (it actually
    does). Fujitsu, who has a non-standard sensor design, takes great pains
    to be accurate in terms of the JCIA GLA03 standard, even noting the
    standard in their specifications (i.e. see
    "http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/f810/performance.html").

    Now we have the 1.5 megapixel Polaroid x530 being marketed as a 4.5
    megapixel camera. But what can WWL do, since if they tried marketing it
    as a 1.5 megapixel camera it would surely fail. This camera will likely
    be about as good as a current 3 megapixel compact camera, but it isn't
    3 megapixels either, it's a 1.5 megapixel, 4.5 megasensor camera. The
    problem is that many consumers look only at megapixels, just as when
    buying computers many look only at megahertz; this is unfortunate, but
    it requires education of the consumer into accepting a different
    standard for product selection (can you imagine if a company tried to
    redefine megahertz?!).

    Some ill will may have been created by a few people, posting under many
    aliases, on rec.photo.digital, who promulgated a tremendous amount of
    mis-information about Foveon and Sigma. But most people realized that
    these individuals were not speaking on behalf of Sigma or Foveon, so
    their actions didn't have a lot of effect (and of course, in the big
    scheme of things, Usenet means nothing). These people were basically
    trying to justify their purchase of a specific product, and got
    extremely upset whenever anyone pointed out any flaws (I'll never
    understand this attitude, yet it certainly is not limited to digital
    cameras). They've disappeared from Usenet for the most part, and we all
    want to believe that they didn't represent the majority of Sigma camera
    owners!

    Personally, I have many excellent photographs in my home that were
    taken with Foveon technology, and they are indistinguishable from 35mm
    (at least to me). But these were all taken with the Foveon studio
    camera, which is a very different animal (and in most cases I don't
    know how much time the photographer spent on post-processing).

    So "hatred" is definitely not the right word. Disappointment that what
    appeared to be a great concept hasn't worken out commercially, at least
    on the high end, is more like it. (you'll probably soon see Foveon
    sensors in a lot of new applications, since they do have some inherent
    advantages).
     
    scharf.steven, Feb 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Because it's crappy technology?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 26, 2005
    #11
  12. I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know it's something I
    don't want to do. I guess the Foveon is OK if you like 3.42MP cameras
    with Homer Simpson skin tones.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 26, 2005
    #12
  13. True211

    The PhAnToM Guest

    <snip>

    Thanks, Steve. That is a reasonable answer. When I first came across
    the technology, it seemed like the next big thing. I did not, however,
    follow it from the consumer side, other than to see a whole lot of
    Foveon bashing here in the past. It got to be too much for me to filter
    out the noise to come up with a reasonable conclusion. So here we go
    again... maybe.
     
    The PhAnToM, Feb 26, 2005
    #13
  14. The PhAnToM wrote:
    []
    Perhaps because there was once a guy called Steve who's answer for
    everything was "Sigma/Foveon DSLRs"..... The poor resolution and colour
    rendering didn't help.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
    in your mouth.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #15
  16. You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #16
  17. True211

    JPS Guest

    In message <_3%Td.9$>,
    Every image I've seen from a Sigma DSLR that I've liked has been due to
    the composition, not the technology.

    The green/blue discrimination is poor and hue-noisy , and there is too
    much aliasing when sharp optics are used.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 26, 2005
    #17
  18. True211

    Larry Guest

    Wrong on BOTH counts, I have used BOTH SD9 and SD10, and though some of the
    shots were quite nice, the flesh tones were unusable in all but the most
    perfect lighting conditions.

    My opinions are MY opinions.

    In my opinion the Foveon Sensor is LOUSY at color rendition, and especially
    lousy at skin tones.

    But then, Ive only been taking pictures on a daily basis since 1959, so what
    the hell is my opinion worth... Not one whit more (or less) than yours.

    The OP asked a question, I answered with my opinion, would you rather I
    answered with someone elses opinion??? I'm sure you would rather I answered
    with your opinion, but it doesn't work that way.
     
    Larry, Feb 26, 2005
    #18
  19. Instead of bashing me, how about defending this mediocre technology
    you're so hot on. No, I've never touched a Sigma camera. But I have
    seen them and seen the images that come out of them. Spin it any way
    you will, but they're still 3.42MP with downright crappy color
    rendition. And, they're outrageously priced for what they are. I'm sory
    that you can't see reality.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 26, 2005
    #19
  20. That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.