Polaroid x530 w/Foveon sensor will ship - finally.

In article .com, The
PhAnToM wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , ittsy
wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

Because it's crappy technology?

In article , Peter A. Stavrakoglou
wrote:

"The PhAnToM" wrote in message
oups.com...

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , ittsy
wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

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.

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.

wrote:
"The PhAnToM" wrote in message
oups.com...

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
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).

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 wrote:
[]
Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon?
Thanks.

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

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A. Stavrakoglou
wrote:

"The PhAnToM" wrote in message
oups.com...

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , ittsy
wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.

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.

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.

Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
in your mouth.

"Larry" wrote in message
T...
In article .com,
says...

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , ittsy
wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.



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 Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

In message ,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote:

You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

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.
--


John P Sheehy

In article , says...
"Larry" wrote in message
T...
In article .com,
says...

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , ittsy
wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.

It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
technology...really...who cares at this point?

Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.



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 Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.



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 Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article , Peter A. Stavrakoglou
wrote:

Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
in your mouth.

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.

In article , says...
You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.

That would put him at an advantage, "Preddy" Stavrakoglou.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/