Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: How much improvement is possible with Bayer sensors  (Read 996 times)

michaelsh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
How much improvement is possible with Bayer sensors
« on: August 15, 2018, 08:59:03 am »

and still allow for a 'compact' (mirrorless) camera system, which is also affordable (by which I mean a couple of thousand Euros at most)?

I'm wondering because I had a close look at the Hasselblad X1D in comparison to the Sigma DP1 Merrill here on DPReview:

DPReview Hasselblad X1D Sigma DP1 Merrill comparison

On the face of it such a comparison seems slightly ridiculous: the new X1D with a medium format Bayer sensor against the 6 year old Sigma with Foveon sensor.

But after downloading the two jpegs and comparing them carefully I can personally only say that even the latest medium format mirrorless offering falls short when it comes to fine detail, where the Foveon clearly has an advantage.

Not to mention the rather awkward rendering of the black and white samples (with rather hideous moire in the X1D sample).

Since I shoot with the DP2 and DP3 Merrills for years now and have enough experience (I think) to get the best out of them, I'm always surprised when I have a closer look at the latest Bayer offerings (like X1D, the Sonys and the Nikon 8xx) and quite often find them rather disappointing when it comes to fine detail and natural rendering of textures and foliage etc.

I understand that different people have different needs, but if you want your landsacpes or flora for instance to look as 'natural' as possible, the Merrills deliver outstanding results.

P.S.:
Unfortunately in 2014 Sigma introduced the Quattro sensor as successor to the Merrill sensor - one or two steps back in image quality.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How much improvement is possible with Bayer sensors
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2018, 10:49:52 am »

Indeed, the DP2 remains a unique proposition. It’s one of the cameas I should have kept.

Was never convinced by Quatro either although I tried.

Cheers,
Bernard

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • davidgp fotografia
Re: How much improvement is possible with Bayer sensors
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2018, 02:14:56 pm »

I don’t know if landscape shooters will be big enough to drive manufacturers to invest in a technology that for the moment showed limitations in high ISO and video capabilities. Also the lack of interest of Adobe or Capture ONE to support it is a big handicap.

I would love to see a sensor like that... I really think improving color reproduction from sensors will be a key factor in the sensor technology of the future... maybe it is just my wish...


http://dgpfotografia.com

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
Re: How much improvement is possible with Bayer sensors
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2018, 01:03:18 am »

and still allow for a 'compact' (mirrorless) camera system, which is also affordable (by which I mean a couple of thousand Euros at most)?

I'm wondering because I had a close look at the Hasselblad X1D in comparison to the Sigma DP1 Merrill here on DPReview:

DPReview Hasselblad X1D Sigma DP1 Merrill comparison

On the face of it such a comparison seems slightly ridiculous: the new X1D with a medium format Bayer sensor against the 6 year old Sigma with Foveon sensor.

But after downloading the two jpegs and comparing them carefully I can personally only say that even the latest medium format mirrorless offering falls short when it comes to fine detail, where the Foveon clearly has an advantage.

Not to mention the rather awkward rendering of the black and white samples (with rather hideous moire in the X1D sample).

Since I shoot with the DP2 and DP3 Merrills for years now and have enough experience (I think) to get the best out of them, I'm always surprised when I have a closer look at the latest Bayer offerings (like X1D, the Sonys and the Nikon 8xx) and quite often find them rather disappointing when it comes to fine detail and natural rendering of textures and foliage etc.

I understand that different people have different needs, but if you want your landsacpes or flora for instance to look as 'natural' as possible, the Merrills deliver outstanding results.

P.S.:
Unfortunately in 2014 Sigma introduced the Quattro sensor as successor to the Merrill sensor - one or two steps back in image quality.

I purchased DP2 in Dec 2009 and sold it w/o any regret once I got Sony A7 (mk1) in 2014 - for me a dSLM with EFCS and proper prime, proper raw converter and FocusMagic renders that merril obsolete when sized to identical megapixels, even with that foveon not suffering from colored moire... now with A7R2 merril simply never comes to mind.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up