Digital camera gurus: Is it incorrect to equate megapixels with quality?

[Lucky]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/page24.asp


Sensitivity is limited and image sharpness and color response seem to drop off at higher ISO's. More serious is the tendency to clip color in a highlight, something I've described as "color clipping" and "gray halos". At this stage it's unclear if this is a sensor issue, a Photo Pro processing issue or a combination of the two. We're hoping Sigma / Foveon will be able to issue some kind of fix on this issue. For the time being shooting carefully so as to avoid overexposure is the key.
...

Conclusion - Cons
...
Color clipping / gray halos - not clear if a sensor or Photo Pro issue
Unnatural blue skies / chromatic aberration sensitivity - linked problems?




http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD9/SD9A12.HTM

Color
...weakness I observed was a tendency to undersaturate greens a bit. Color was a bit less well-behaved under imperfect lighting conditions, with high-contrast subjects sometimes resulting in lower color saturation in the final image files.


Color loss in highlights (and other findings by Phil Askey)

I can't take credit for this one - I noticed the effect in shots I took with neon signs in them, but didn't tumble to what was actually happening until I read my friendly competitor Phil Askey's excellent review of the SD9. Phil correctly identified the issue as being that the camera drops the chroma (color) to zero as it runs into the highlight range. Phil also identified a number of other image-quality problems on the page of his review linked above, including unnaturally blue skies, strange halos around light sources in night shots, some odd chromatic aberration that seems to be linked to UV light, image softness and loss of saturation at high ISO, and an odd nighttime exposure bug. Definitely worth reading if you're considering an SD9 for purchase.

White Balance
White balance was a bit of an Achilles heel for the SD9. It worked quite well in lighting that was more or less daylight-balanced, but had quite a bit of difficulty with light having strong color casts. ...The SD9's auto white balance couldn't correct for this strong a color cast, leaving a fair bit of yellow in the image. The SD9's custom white balance resulted in greenish casts under this light source, and in fact in general produced noticeable color casts in most of my tests. Most cameras have difficulty with the incandescent lighting in their automatic white balance modes, but competing SLRs do better than the SD9 when using manual or custom white balance settings.



Need more?

 

Obviously you have not seen much else of the site; it's one of the best digital photography review sites on the entire web. I'll gladly find another link supporting that the color is not perfect....what would you like me to quote from, the bible this time?

Yes, please. Well, you seem to hold divine knowledge, so a quote from that book of arcane knowledge would be great, k thanks.

did not quote from the forums; so that is irrelevant.

No, it's called an analogy, so it's very relevant. You do know what an analogy is right?

How many reviews of this flawed camera will it take for you to believe in something else other than the hype?

Well, following the scientific method, at least 3. Taking one opinion as truth is the epitome of folly.

Now, I'm not saying the camera itself is the new defining level of superiority. I'm saying that the new foevon X3 is a new step in defining quality. At this stage in the game, it's new and not fully developed. As soon as that technology gets sold off to other major manufacturers it will improve greatly.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n

Originally posted by: RossMAN
For most people anything over 2.1MP is overkill UNLESS you definitely plan on printing a lot of pictures onto paper.

...or plan on using digital zoom or processing the images further

so true, 2mp is too limiting, quality of 2mpix is kinda sad. mem prices are cheap now. 3+ is the way to go, much more freedom in cropping etc, plus detail.

 

[Booster]

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: Booster
It's not megapixels, but the price that's influencing the quality a lot. I noticed that somewhat good cameras are insanely expensive, they cost thousands of $, and yet aren't considered truely professional quality.

So you're saying that the EOS1DS ($7000) and its 30mb highest resolution image size is n00b =)?

No I'm not saying that. I just read that about digital cameras in general, how even the most expensive models don't come close in respect of image quality to the best samples of conventional (film) cameras. On a side note, that camera pricetag makes me shrink.

 

[Lucky]

Well, following the scientific method, at least 3.

Great, I proved you wrong then.

I'm saying that the new foevon X3 is a new step in defining quality. At this stage in the game, it's new and not fully developed. As soon as that technology gets sold off to other major manufacturers it will improve greatly.

It's not new, its been out for 18 months. And no doubt there are some interesting "features"...but many would vehemently disagree that they are beneficial to overall image quality.

 

[Lucky]

No I'm not saying that. I just read that about digital cameras in general, how even the most expensive models don't come close in respect of image quality to the best samples of conventional (film) cameras. On a side note, that camera pricetag makes me shrink.

Not meaning to nitpick here, but the newest digital cameras do surpass 35mm film in quality. Price is a whole 'nother issue entirely.

 

Great, I proved you wrong then.

I said at LEAST 3. So technically you met my bare minmum requirements.
You have lots of angst built up or something. Always arguing aggressively and degrading people. You my .. kind sir, need a break from life or something. 🙂

It's not new, its been out for 18 months. And no doubt there are some interesting "features"...but many would vehemently disagree that they are beneficial to overall image quality.

Well, at this stage in the game its too early to tell. But you can't just completely discount the technology and say its crap for all time. That would be along the lines of.. "no one needing over 512K of ram".

 

[Lucky]

I said at LEAST 3. So technically you met my bare minmum requirements.

Glad to be of service in proving you wrong.

You have lots of angst built up or something. Always arguing aggressively and degrading people. You my .. kind sir, need a break from life or something. 🙂

No, I have contempt for you ever since you talked big in this thread, called me a racist, and then ran out of the thread after I owned you. I

Well, at this stage in the game its too early to tell. But you can't just completely discount the technology and say its crap for all time. That would be along the lines of.. "no one needing over 512K of ram".

18 months is light-years at this stage in the game. I'm not aware of any other company planning to use it in professional D-SLR's at this point, and I'm not sure that the technology is even neccesary given it's drawbacks now that "regular" sensors have already surpassed film in every aspect.

 

No, I have contempt for you ever since you talked big in this thread, called me a racist, and then ran out of the thread after I owned you.

You were FAR from owning me. I started to write a reply but then decided against it. Because neither of us is going to change each other opinions. If you want, I'll write the reply for you. The fact that you say "i owned you" shows me your weak psyche.

 

[Lucky]

😀

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
Hey numb nuts!

Sorry just felt like name calling and wanted to be part of the action 😀

Back off Grand Nagus!!!!




Hahaha your title sounds like an insult!

 

[Wallydraigle]

The problem with the Foveon chip is that the colors are layered. When the light passes through the chip some of it is lost and the gain gets bumped up more in the red and green channels. This leads to more chroma noise in those channels. For now there's just no way around that. Because of this only low ISO ratings are usable. Another thing is that the top layer measures blue green and red, the second layer measures green and red, and the bottom layer measures red only. The colors are sorted out and put back together by means of an algorithm. The Bayer algorithm doesn't manipulate colors as drastically as the Foveon algorithm, and because of this the Foveon can never reach the level of color accuracy that Bayer chips output.

Nature uses mosaic imaging devices and not layered ones in the eyes of all creatures who have them. That's something to think about. If evolution couldn't perfect the Foveon method in billions of years there's no reason to think that we will do it in 18 months🙂

I don't understand the almost religious attachment people have for this chip. The technology seems to be inherently flawed. It's usually people who don't own it who are most fervent. That's something else to think about🙂

I don't care either way, because I'm happy with what I have. I wish that Foveon does perfect its chip, because then it will force everyone else to be that much better.

 

[0roo0roo]

one of the other companies is developing chips with 2 sizes of pixels😛

 

[The Sauce]

Wow, you guys take your camera tech seriously. Thanks for all the responses in-between the flames.

 

[silverpig]

I think the foveon chip will have it's place for sure in the future. Perhaps not in the average joe's hands, or even the professional photographer, but I can definitely see uses in the scientific realm. Imagine having a 20-layer foveon chip that can simultaneously take pictures of a star in the IR, visible, uv and x-ray bands...

 

[ROTC1983]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
Hey numb nuts!

Sorry just felt like name calling and wanted to be part of the action 😀

WHO YOU TALKING TO? :| 😛

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Lucky

No I'm not saying that. I just read that about digital cameras in general, how even the most expensive models don't come close in respect of image quality to the best samples of conventional (film) cameras. On a side note, that camera pricetag makes me shrink.

Not meaning to nitpick here, but the newest digital cameras do surpass 35mm film in quality. Price is a whole 'nother issue entirely.

I'm not meaning to nitpick either, but he didn't specify 35mm (though one would likely assume). Perhaps you could tell me (roughly speaking) what IS the megapixel equivalent of 35mm, and of 4x5 large format? Thanks!

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Lucky

No I'm not saying that. I just read that about digital cameras in general, how even the most expensive models don't come close in respect of image quality to the best samples of conventional (film) cameras. On a side note, that camera pricetag makes me shrink.

Not meaning to nitpick here, but the newest digital cameras do surpass 35mm film in quality. Price is a whole 'nother issue entirely.

I'm not meaning to nitpick either, but he didn't specify 35mm (though one would likely assume). Perhaps you could tell me (roughly speaking) what IS the megapixel equivalent of 35mm, and of 4x5 large format? Thanks!

Good point. As far as a straight megapixel equivilant, I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry. Here is a review]http://popularphotography.com/assets/download/3302003193951.pdf[/L][/L] of the Canon EOS-1Ds, which I've read in a few reviews to be the first (in their opinion) to completely surpass 35mm film quality.

 

[Ferocious]

I dunno.

My friend has this 3 MP camera (Nikon I think).....and photos from it look lame compared to a real camera.

I sorta think of Digital cameras as toys still.

But I really don't have much experience at all with them.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I dunno.

My friend has this 3 MP camera (Nikon I think).....and photos from it look lame compared to a real camera.

I sorta think of Digital cameras as toys still.

But I really don't have much experience at all with them.

You've apparently not seen too many of lirion's pics (example). Those are all taken with a digital SLR, and I definitely wouldn't consider it a "toy."

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I dunno.

My friend has this 3 MP camera (Nikon I think).....and photos from it look lame compared to a real camera.

I sorta think of Digital cameras as toys still.

But I really don't have much experience at all with them.

You've apparently not seen too many of lirion's pics (example). Those are all taken with a digital SLR, and I definitely wouldn't consider it a "toy."

exactly thoes pics are insane. his pics look better then Film SLR macro pics ive seen

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1

Originally posted by: jliechty
You've apparently not seen too many of lirion's pics (example). Those are all taken with a digital SLR, and I definitely wouldn't consider it a "toy."

exactly thoes pics are insane. his pics look better then Film SLR macro pics ive seen

While his camera and glass have a lot to do with the quality of those pics, it is the person behind the viewfinder that makes the pictures as striking and impressive as they are. If I had a Canon EOS10D and a macro lens like lirion, the pictures would look at least 100 times worse, because I lack what he has - photographic talent.