>>3403216>If you think IQ is the only measure of how behind they are you're sorely mistaken.I mean, they're ahead in terms of on-sensor autofocus systems.
> Also, the Eos R looks worse than the K-1....At 100%, when shooting a test scene, and only just barely.
> You don't even understand how Foveon worksI do. They use the fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths to form colors instead of using a bayer filter array, which means that each individual photosite actually corresponds to a full RGB pixel instead of needing to poll its neighbors to get its missing color data as in Bayer (and Fuji X-Trans) sensors. At least, that's classic Foveon and Foveon Merrill; the newer Quattro Foveon chips do it slightly differently, with the green and red layers shared between four photosites with only the blue still being 1:1. Among other advantages, this gives the Foveon chips pretty unique color response and none of it really matters because they look like absolute ass if you go anywhere above ISO 400 and all of their cameras handle like shit. Foveon or something like it might have the potential to go somewhere interesting at some point in the future, but table stakes is being able to competently handle what are, in the year of our lord 2018, medium ISO values. Could be the new L-series Sigma bodies will have some new full frame Foveon that'll blow us all away. Probably not, but they're certainly not better than Canon or Sony or, hell, even Panasonic's 4/3 sensors at this point in time.
Yes, I prefer Canons. But I own and have used Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, and, yes, Sigma cameras. I'm arguing against you not out of fanboyism but out of an understanding that these tiny advantages or disadvantages that one sensor or another has mean basically nothing in the real world. They're something for gearfags to wank over, but not something that actually has any effect on anyone's photography.
