Karim D. Ghantous
Well-known member
I have recently purchased an old Sigma DSLR with a Foveon sensor, an SD14. I can't make specific comments about that camera yet. But I can say a few things about Foveon RAW files which I have downloaded and examined.
1. Innate saturation is so high that you might want to occasionally turn it down a little bit.
2. Innate sharpness is so high that you need to slightly detune it before exporting to a JPEG if you're using Sigma PhotoPro.
3. You cannot recover shadow detail as well as you can with a Bayer sensor.
4. It's the kind of sensor that's wasted if you shoot much higher than base ISO. This is reminiscent of old medium format CCD backs.
5. Resolution is so high that you need at least twice the photosites in a Bayer sensor to match it. I would prefer a modern Foveon to lower resolution MFD backs, hands down.
Conclusions: modern (and maybe future) Foveon files are like medium format Ektachrome. At these files are from Super 35 sized sensors. That's the amazing part. However, there are issues that a DP might want to think about, unless the fundamental properties of Foveon change in the next iteration.
For example, are you okay basically shooting with a digital transparency film? I'm sure many people are, but would you not prefer the insurance that a negative, or digital equivalent, would give you?
Would you care much about the ISO? I am not sure about V-Raptor, but Monstro has a base on 1600, if you didn't already know.
If you're shooting a b&w project, a monochrome Bayer sensor with the same photosite count would arguably be a superior choice. But for colour, you would need an 8K Bayer sensor to match a 4K-6K Foveon. Give or take.
If you're shooting a project where colour should be as pure and rich as possible, perhaps a Foveon sensor could be the better choice. Even if it's "only" 4K. The image would be fantastic compared to pretty much any cinema camera, including Monstro, Raptor and the (unnecessarily large and expensive) Alexa 65.
If you have any real experience with a Foveon camera, please let me know what you think.
1. Innate saturation is so high that you might want to occasionally turn it down a little bit.
2. Innate sharpness is so high that you need to slightly detune it before exporting to a JPEG if you're using Sigma PhotoPro.
3. You cannot recover shadow detail as well as you can with a Bayer sensor.
4. It's the kind of sensor that's wasted if you shoot much higher than base ISO. This is reminiscent of old medium format CCD backs.
5. Resolution is so high that you need at least twice the photosites in a Bayer sensor to match it. I would prefer a modern Foveon to lower resolution MFD backs, hands down.
Conclusions: modern (and maybe future) Foveon files are like medium format Ektachrome. At these files are from Super 35 sized sensors. That's the amazing part. However, there are issues that a DP might want to think about, unless the fundamental properties of Foveon change in the next iteration.
For example, are you okay basically shooting with a digital transparency film? I'm sure many people are, but would you not prefer the insurance that a negative, or digital equivalent, would give you?
Would you care much about the ISO? I am not sure about V-Raptor, but Monstro has a base on 1600, if you didn't already know.
If you're shooting a b&w project, a monochrome Bayer sensor with the same photosite count would arguably be a superior choice. But for colour, you would need an 8K Bayer sensor to match a 4K-6K Foveon. Give or take.
If you're shooting a project where colour should be as pure and rich as possible, perhaps a Foveon sensor could be the better choice. Even if it's "only" 4K. The image would be fantastic compared to pretty much any cinema camera, including Monstro, Raptor and the (unnecessarily large and expensive) Alexa 65.
If you have any real experience with a Foveon camera, please let me know what you think.