Foveon technology

Hi All
First, disclaimers:
#1.) I really don't want to start a flame war, but I have little idea
how or where else to ask this.
#2.) Please, please ignore that poor kid, mental case's posts. The one
who takes famous aviators names. Really the only sensible thing is to
ignore him. He deserves help, but this is not the forum for it.

I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
& design problems w/ those two.
Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.
Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
wouldn't base my decision on that part alone. What is that thing
called? Focal plane? Light sensors... the pixelator in the back. I've
been pixilated in the back of some bars in Alaska a few times, but
that's a different story. Seriously though folks, what is a good, up
to date digital photography dictionary or computer dictionary that
covers photo.? I need help in more ways than one.

Thank You Very Much, John

In article ,
says...
I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
& design problems w/ those two.

Nikon is normally pretty good with quality, and if not quality, customer
service. I wouldn't worry too much. People can bitch too much.

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.

http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/

In my opinion, the Foveon sensor looks good on paper, but it doesn't
deliver enough for the bux. If you're looking to spend money on a dSLR,
a Canon dRebel or Nikon D70 will do you just fine. Heck, a lot of 4-5
megapixel point and shoots can outdo the Foveon in the SD10.

In case you haven't found it yet:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Great site for comparative reviews, sample shots and more.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
& design problems w/ those two.

Nikon is normally pretty good with quality, and if not quality, customer
service. I wouldn't worry too much. People can bitch too much.

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.

http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/

In my opinion, the Foveon sensor looks good on paper, but it doesn't
deliver enough for the bux. If you're looking to spend money on a dSLR,
a Canon dRebel or Nikon D70 will do you just fine. Heck, a lot of 4-5
megapixel point and shoots can outdo the Foveon in the SD10.

In case you haven't found it yet:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Great site for comparative reviews, sample shots and more.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm (35mm equiv range). (I believe that anything
over ~100mm in a non-SLR is absurd. Why did Leica go to a reflex
housing ~60 yrs ago? Anyway, I digress). And 28mm is a focal length I
use a lot. 35mm (equiv to 35mm) just doesn't cut it for me. However
after reading Amazons customer reviews of both the Coolpix 5000 &
5400, I get the distinct impression Nikon has serious Quality Control
& design problems w/ those two.

Nikon is normally pretty good with quality, and if not quality, customer
service. I wouldn't worry too much. People can bitch too much.

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.

http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/

In my opinion, the Foveon sensor looks good on paper, but it doesn't
deliver enough for the bux. If you're looking to spend money on a dSLR,
a Canon dRebel or Nikon D70 will do you just fine. Heck, a lot of 4-5
megapixel point and shoots can outdo the Foveon in the SD10.

In case you haven't found it yet:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Great site for comparative reviews, sample shots and more.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

John McGraw wrote:
[]
I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm

Go for it! An excellent camera particularly if the wide-angle end is your
preference. The 5400 is a more modern alternative. You will learn a lot,
and then have a better base from which to make any further decisions.

Cheers,
David

John McGraw wrote:
[]
I want to buy my 1st digital camera. I was favoring the Coolpix 5000.
Liked it's 28 to ~80mm

Go for it! An excellent camera particularly if the wide-angle end is your
preference. The 5400 is a more modern alternative. You will learn a lot,
and then have a better base from which to make any further decisions.

Cheers,
David

(John McGraw) wrote in
om:

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.

There are two good reviews at www.dpreview.com of SD9 and SD10.
As with any serious review you can read whatever you like, so
.... be prepared to see both sides using those reviews in their
arguments

Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
wouldn't base my decision on that part alone.

Yepp ... this is very important to understand. If the Sigma camera
contained a normal Bayer sensor, there is nothing that recommends it.
It is more expensive (than Canon 300D and Nikon D70), it has a smaller
sensor with fewer pixels and you can only use Sigma lenses.

So ... if you shall buy the Sigma, it is *only* the sensor technology
that is the reason for doing so. So, if you want to buy a Sigma, make
sure you like the output from the camera first.


/Roland

(John McGraw) wrote in
om:

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement. "Wiley Post's"
insanity tends to dissuade me. Can anyone direct me to unbiased
sources evaluating, testing Foveon technology? I can't get any Amazon
customer reviews today. Don't know if it's my browser or Amazon's
problem.

There are two good reviews at www.dpreview.com of SD9 and SD10.
As with any serious review you can read whatever you like, so
.... be prepared to see both sides using those reviews in their
arguments

Of course I realize that there is much more to a camera system than
just the digitizer.... imiagizer ...uhg ...uhg whatever the f....
that thing in the back is called, where the film used to be. I
wouldn't base my decision on that part alone.

Yepp ... this is very important to understand. If the Sigma camera
contained a normal Bayer sensor, there is nothing that recommends it.
It is more expensive (than Canon 300D and Nikon D70), it has a smaller
sensor with fewer pixels and you can only use Sigma lenses.

So ... if you shall buy the Sigma, it is *only* the sensor technology
that is the reason for doing so. So, if you want to buy a Sigma, make
sure you like the output from the camera first.


/Roland

"John McGraw" wrote in message
om...

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement.

Just read the reviews on the two consumer cameras that use a Foveon sensor.

The idea of three photodetectors per pixel is not new. Foveon's first
attempt was a good try, but as the reviews show, it still lags the more
widely used Bayer approach. Actually, Foveon's first attempt was using three
separate sensors and using a prism to separate colors; this worked pretty
well.

The Foveon sensor does work well at lower ISOs, and with very good lighting
conditions.

"John McGraw" wrote in message
om...

Then I read a supposedly unbiased review of the Foveon technology,
claiming that it is truly a significant advancement.

Just read the reviews on the two consumer cameras that use a Foveon sensor.

The idea of three photodetectors per pixel is not new. Foveon's first
attempt was a good try, but as the reviews show, it still lags the more
widely used Bayer approach. Actually, Foveon's first attempt was using three
separate sensors and using a prism to separate colors; this worked pretty
well.

The Foveon sensor does work well at lower ISOs, and with very good lighting
conditions.