Sigma launches SD14 and DP1 14 megapixel cameras

In case you're still curious about those SD14 teaser shots, Sigma has officially announced the arrival of it's newest flagship DSLR, and has thrown down a beefed up P&S to boot. The SD14 replaces the aging SD10 model, and rocks a (probably unnecessary) 14 megapixel Foveon X3 sensor, 2.5-inch monitor, dust protector, built-in flash, CF support, USB 2.0 connectivity, AF-assist, maximum ISO of 1600, and "improved auto focus / continuous shooting." The (admittedly odd) DP1 sports a P&S enclosure, but manages to house the same superfluous 14 megapixel sensor seen in the SD14, Sigma's "True" image processor, 2.5-inch LCD, CF slot, a fixed 16.6mm F4.0 lens, and even touts RAW capability. Sigma boasts that its specially-designed Foveon X3 sensor captures colors more accurately than typical CMOS sensors thanks to its three separate color sensitive layers (and judging by the promo site, results aren't too shabby). Both models should be available soon, and while we're left to ponder how much coin the DP1 (photos after the break) will demand, there's no questioning the £1099.99 ($2,093) required for the SD14.

Read - Sigma SD14
Read - Sigma DP1

[kdo @ Sep 26th 2006 12:53PM]

your writeup is a bit misleading when you refer to the "(probably unnecessary) 14 megapixel Foveon X3 sensor". you need to understand the Foveon sensor before making assumptions about it. even though it is a 14 megapixel sensor, it does not output 14 megapixel files. the 14 megapixels are spread across 4 layers (as opposed to one layer in a traditional sensor), thus it only outputs 4.7 megapixel files. so think of it as a very very accurate 4.7 megapixel camera, and then you realize that the 14 megapixel sensor is not only necessary, but its very possibly rather inadequate for professional use.

[Rohit Kapur @ Sep 26th 2006 1:05PM]

"the 14 megapixels are spread across 4 layers (as opposed to one layer in a traditional sensor), thus it only outputs 4.7 megapixel files."

14/4 = 3.5

14/3 = 4.7

Sheesh. Am I right or is this something way more complicated than that?

[Charles Bandes @ Sep 26th 2006 1:04PM]

The DP1 looks like a dream camera - many of us who are serious about photography have been waiting with bated breath for a compact digital camera that would give us the ability to take high-quality images without the need to carry our DSLRs all the time. This is the first-ever compact camera to include a quality sensor. It's true that the 4.7mp resolution is a little low, but if they can keep noise down (with a nice big sensor they probably can) and lens quality up, they'll have a real winner on their hands. I'll be first in line :)

[Fovemeon @ Sep 26th 2006 1:09PM]

Ask a 1Ds MKII owner if he thinks his 16.7 MP sensor is "superfluous". Also, bear in mind it is a Foveon sensor, so the 14 megapixel nomenclature is deceptive if comparing to a similar Bayer-type array. The actual image produced only has 14/3 megapixels. Are you impressed now?

I can't believe that Sigma has come out with a fixed lens digital compact (a great idea, I might add) and thrown a lame-duck f/4.0 lens it. What a spectacularly idiotic move.

[Jeff @ Sep 26th 2006 1:34PM]

I'm a big fan of the Foveon, but they really need to get it up beyond 4.7 megapixels to make any inroads in the market. I understand and agree that all else being equal, the Foveon producers superior color accuracy and detail. But the brute force approach of other manufacturers has so far proven pretty effective - Canon's and Nikon's sensors produce color almost as accurate as the Foveon but with greater detail (I've seen the comparison tests). I mean the bottom line is that it *is* the sensor that's the limiting factor in detail in most SLR's, so you want as many megapixels as you can get. (No, there's not much difference between, say, 8 and 10mp... but between 4.7mp and 10? Yes, there is a difference.)

The Foveon sensor still produces much better results than a standard sensor of that pixel size, and it does have somewhat better color accuracy. But until they get the output pixel numbers up to being even close to other manufacturers, you can't make an argument that the Foveon is the overall better choice. In some ways it is, in others it isn't. You need to look at the test results and determine what's most important to you, because there are tradeoffs.

[cupertino @ Sep 26th 2006 1:42PM]

This article is missing a key piece of information:

1.7x multiplier.

Foveon images were ho-hum before and I'm expecting the same. Any sample images anywhere?

[kdo @ Sep 26th 2006 1:42PM]

sorry... only 3 layers.. i thought there was a 4th layer in there for something else, but its just mainly 3 layers. my mistake. regardless, it still only gets you really sharp and accurate 4.7 megapixel images.

[Jerry Kindall @ Sep 26th 2006 1:46PM]

The Foveon sensor has its drawbacks. However, in terms of image quality, it is roughly equivalent to a Bayer sensor of the stated number of pixels (14 in this case). You have to remember that 2/3rds of the information in a Bayer-sensor camera is simply made up. Furthermore, because the color pixels of a Bayer sensor are separated in space, the sensor requires an anti-aliasing filter in front of it -- anti-aliasing being, in this case, another way of saying "blurring," i.e., removal of detail. Foveon sensors don't require this. (Well, technically they do, but the Foveon artifacts are much less annoying. With Bayer sensors you get unacceptable color moire if you don't have an antialiasing filter; with Foveon sensors you get a bit of spatial aliasing of fine detail.)

You could in theory take a Foveon image and blow it up to 14 true megapixels using something like PhotoZoom Pro and have an image that matches a 14 megapixel Bayer image for detail.

Foveon's Achilles heel actually has been color, not resolution. The sensor has historically suffered from metamerism, i.e., colors that are distinct to the human eye become a single color in a Foveon image. The sensor has been particularly weak with the cooler end of the spectrum, if I remember correctly. It'll be interesting to see if they've addressed this weakness in the new sensor. If kdo is correct, and they're now using 4 layers rather than 3, they may have done something about the color response.

The ideal digital camera would have two aligned sensors: a monochrome one for detail (luminance) and a Bayer mosaic one from which color (chroma) is derived. I'm surprised no one has done this, frankly, it's such an obvious idea. Alignment between the sensors could be done largely in software.

[Foof @ Sep 26th 2006 2:22PM]

2/3 of the data isn't simply "made up" in most cases (only if the image data of adjoining pixels consist entirely of a primary color R, G, B. For any other situation (99.9% of the time) bayer processing uses and interpolating data from every photosite. In theory, Foveon should have no real advantage over Bayer if a scene consists mainly of grayscale, since every bayer photosite is doing "equal" work.

Having said that, I've seen quite a bit of Foveon output over the years, and the detail it resolves is incredibly impressive, especially at full-size. A 4.7MP Foveon should be equivalent to a 10-12MP bayer, just as the 3MP Foveon in the SD9/10 generally outresolves Canon's best 6MP bayer.

The 0.98x frame coverage is great too, though I wonder how large a 0.9x maginfication will look on a relatively small 1.7x crop sensor...

[Jerry Kindall @ Sep 26th 2006 1:48PM]

Whoops, I see it's still only 3 layers.

[Peter @ Sep 26th 2006 3:38PM]

4.7MP x3 layers will not equal a 14mp non layer camera. Standard unlayered cameras use extremely sophisticated algorithms based on human perception to extract high amounts of detail.

Here is a zoomed in shot from the previous Foveon 10MP camera (3.4MP x3 layers) compared to a standard 10MP camera (Nikon D200) Sigma is left, Nikon is Right.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/56661706.SD10vsD200.jpg

Vastly more detail in a 10MP standard image than a 10MP image from 3.4mpX3 sensor.

[Fovemeon @ Sep 26th 2006 4:30PM]

But look at the colour! Wow!

I guess you're paying for that dust cover and night classes in aesthetics for the Sigma design team. The coolest thing about this camera is the Foveon X3 logo.

[Leoedin @ Sep 26th 2006 5:27PM]

Thats hardly fair - that is the Nikon D200 - a 10Mpixel camera, while the foveon from the SD10 is considered to resolve to about 6Mpixels. Megapixels aren't everything, but they certainly make a difference...

Saying that, I would think the foveon 14 will be more like 10Mpixels performance wise.

my 350D is fine for me though :D

[johan @ Sep 26th 2006 6:48PM]

The reason why the bayer pattern works so well is that most people don't use raw, but rather store their pix as JPGs.

All JPG compression starts by converting from RGB to YCrCb, and downsampling the Cr and Cb channels to half the resolution of the Y channel. This exactly matches the output of a bayer sensor (you have every pixel's brightness, but only one color per pixel), so JPG and bayer layout align perfectly.

If you JPG compress the output of a Foveon sensor, you're throwing away the one thing that makes it unique.

[pbg @ Sep 26th 2006 9:53PM]

LOL at fovemeon- "The coolest thing about this camera is the Foveon X3 logo." That may be true...

It is a sweet sensor, it's a shame about the lens mount too though. The DP1 is sexy, but jesus put a damn f/1.8-2.8 on the front. That's a dealbreaker.