>>3882053Dude, if you read my post and thought "This guy thinks Sigma's cameras are great!" then you really need to work on your reading comprehension because you're arguing with a strawman.
I can also link to a shitload of other posts on this board where I've expressed my distaste for Sigma cameras, speaking as someone who owns a DP2 Merrill.
But again, tradeoffs are a thing. For people who really like how Foveon sensors render images in good lighting, it might be enough to justify the piss-poor performance in low light (and even shadows) and the overall shitty handling.
For me personally? Nope. I barely touch my DP2M.
>>3881786> It's dead end tech.Ehh. It's *probably* dead end tech, but it's still being actively developed. There's always the possibility that there will be some breakthrough that solves the low-light issue to make it match or exceed Bayer sensors, at which point it'll be a serious contender. But it's also possible that that's not actually something that can be done.
It would certainly be better either way if we could move beyond the "Team Bayer" vs "Team Foveon" mentality to just judge the tech on its merits and whether or not we like the results we get from it, though. Like:
> Notice that the human eye works like a Bayer sensor. Wonder why....this is just dumb. It's a dumb statement. Are you going to say cars are dead-end tech because wheels don't act like legs? No. You can certainly say that legs are better for taking you up and down stairs, though.
Like, sure, it's debatable whether or not a Foveon gives *better* detail and color reproduction because "better" is a very slippery term, but if a photographer prefers the images they get out of a Foveon then it's better for them, even if it's "only" because it's higher saturation and contrast. That's like saying that Velvia isn't as good as Portra because Portra doesn't oversaturate the colors. Neither is better than the other for every photographer; they're just different choices.
