So arguing that the DP2, which itself is still just a 4.7mp camera (or even the SD1, which is a much higher resolution Foveon), is potentially equivalent to a 39mp camera, is gravely missing the point of having a truly higher resolution sensor (in luminance terms...luminace is where detail comes from, color CAN be of much lower spatial resolution so long as your luminance information is high...as a matter of fact, this is actually a standard practice in astrophotography, to image at high resolution in luminance, then when you switch to RGB filters, you bin 2x2 or 3x3, which increases your sensitivity, and reduces your resolution by 4x or 9x...and your never the wiser when looking at the final blended result). It buys into the very misleading hype that Sigma spews, which I believe is ultimately, in the long term, going to damage their reputation and hurt Foveon (because as more people try to produce images with a 4.7mp or 15mp Foveon sensor that compare to even the regular old D800, let alone the D800E or the 645D, and realize they simply cannot...they are either going to ditch Foveon and go back to bayer type sensors, or they are going to begin badmouthing Foveon.)
Nobody said the first generation Foveon sensor is equal to 39 MP. Jrista, again you learn about what you're interested in, but this leaves a lot of facts for you to miss.
When I mentioned the "new DP2", I was referring to this...it's called the Quattro.
...And it's most definitely more resolution than the SD-1...it's a new sensor with more pixels. Just exactly how many pixels it is, is kind of unclear. I think Sigma don't mind that it is unclear...lol. The actual pixel dimensions of the RAW image, might be 19 MP, or might be more. For some reason it can produce JPEGs that are 7680 x 5120 = 38.3 MP.
To argue about what outresolves what, on such a new product, is a waste of time in any case.
I try to speak about what I have had experience with. I've owned the original DP2, and it most certainly had more resolution than its native 4.6 MP image. As I said, it could easily scale to about 25 MP, and still look sharp enough to me for a print at 300 ppi.
So there's no reason to start bashing Sigma, and talking about what "TROUNCES" what. Nobody thinks a crop sensor is ever going to be "better" than a full frame sensor...other than you and your 7D . Everybody knows nothing compares to the mighty 7D!
I don't know where you guys are getting your info. On your own site, the DP2 is listed as having 29mp effective (non-masked) "photo detectors", which are the same thing as a photodiode. From the dp-series link:
Color Photo Detectors Total Pixels: Approx.33MP, Effective Pixels: Approx.29MP
That is 29 million PHOTODIODES. That means, from a SPATIAL standpoint (actual resolving power), you have 29/3 million PIXELS (actual square areas on the sensor that are light sensitive), or 9.7mp. The DP2 that you are referring to is a TEN MEGAPIXEL sensor. Not only that, it is a 10mp APS-C sized sensor, so were talking pretty small pixels.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how good those pixels are...there is no way, physically, that they could ever compare to the 36.3mp of a D800 nor the 40mp of the 645D. Spatially, from a luminance (detail) perspective, there is no loss of data or resolution in a bayer array. There is only, ONLY, a loss of color data or color spatial resolution. The loss of spatial color detail is a bit of a detractor for bayer type sensors, it hurts their color fidelity a little bit, however it is not enough of a detractor to warrant calling a 9.7mp Foveon as good as a 39mp bayer. The FULL detail luminance from a bayer is more than enough to offset the loss in color detail.
Neuro has explained how a properly designed OLPF (which is usually the case these days, even leaning towards the slightly weak side more often than not), despite blurring high frequency data, is not a huge detractor for bayer sensors as OLPF's blur predictably and consistently across the area of the sensor, meaning a light sharpening filter in post usually reverses the softening impact of an OLPF.
The whole "eqivalent megapixels" deal that Sigma uses is also very misleading. Currently, today, megapixel counts are based on output image widthxheight. A 15mp Sigma Foveon is 15mp, in terms of actual megapixels stored in the output JPED image or a JPEG that you can create from RAW. It may have 45 million photodiodes, but that is not the same as megapixels, and I really wish Sigma would stop being so misleading.
No more misleading than stating a sensor has so many megapixels, when each photodiode samples one color, and the other two are interpolated in the JPEG.
Your misunderstanding. Every bayer pixel may have only one color, but regardless of color, every pixel receives "light". This is why the spatial resolution of a bayer sensor is so high, and why a D800 is capable of resolving so much detail. If you convert a bayer sensor's data to monochrome, you effectively have just the full detail luminance. Advanced demosaicing algorithms like AHDD are explicitly designed to preserve as much luminance detail as possible, while effectively distributing color data to avoid mazing artifacts and other demosiacing quirks. A bayer sensor needs no interpolation from a luminance standpoint, they only need interpolation from a color standpoint. Bayer sensors have nearly their full resolution in terms of luminance, and since luminance is really what carries your fine detail, they DO have FAR more resolution than any Foveon on the market today, including the SD1.
This isn't missleading, it's how the physics and mathematics of interpolation work. Interpolation algorithms like AHDD are actually capable of producing crisper, smoother, sharper results with a bayer than your standard, basic demosaicing algorithm, and AHDD is pretty ubiquitous these days (LR/ACR use it, Adobe Aperture uses it, and it's a demosaicing option in most Linux RAW editors like RawThearapy and Darktable.) AHDD is even used in lower level tools, often used for astrophotography, like DeepSpaceStacker, Iris, and PixInsight.
The only loss with a bayer type sensor is in terms of color spatial resolution and color fidelity. The most obvious of those is really color fidelity, as when chrominance is blended with luminance, our eyes can't really tell the difference, or at least the difference is small enough that it isn't an issue unless you are directly comparing, side-by-side, a Foveon and Bayer image with the same image dimensions (in other words, if you had a 10mp bayer and a 10mp Foveon, then you would be able to tell that the Foveon had slightly better color microcontrast and better color fidelity...however when comparing a 35 or 40mp bayer to a 10mp Foveon, the only visible difference MIGHT be sharpness...that would depend on the strength or presence of an AA filter.)
It's not "my own" website. If you calculate the RAW image dimensions, it is 5424 x 3616 = 19.61 MP. Obviously there is some processing and/or interpolation involved to arrive at this image size, but there it is.
I never claimed it would outresolve a D800 "spatially", I just asked if he had seen it, and that it looked interesting...especially considering it's a crop sensor. The fair comparison would be, what is the resolving power of this camera, compared to the 70D and the Exmor 24 MP 1.5x crop sensor's best output, with its best lens mounted. To compare it to a full frame, is not a fair comparison, for various obvious reasons.
You're claiming that this new Sigma camera and sensor, could not resolve more than 10 MP worth of (equivalent "bayer"?) spatial information. I submit that you are jumping to conclusions, and they are quite possibly in error. Let's wait and see how it does when tested, rather than approaching a new product with a closed mind, and conclusions drawn...because of an unapologetic bias against the design, and the manufacturer.
It's not as if Canon have not explored their own foveon-type sensor ideas, all mockery aside.