Canon 5D stomps Sigma SD14 into the dust

What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting
these past few months.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22436468

 

Like it would take a lot to stomp a Sigma into the dust. For once, you
may have gotten it right.

 

No surprise there.

It is hard to see a reason for the SD14, but there will be a few
people that will buy it.
Sigma seems to always be about 2 to 3 years behind, if they came out
with the SD14
in 2003 they might have had something, but now who cares?

Scott

 

well, compared to the sd10, it is heaven. the camera now has more than
one autofocus point and in-camera jpegs!

anyway, supposedly the sd14 is 'as good as a 10 megapixel bayer
sensor.' but 10 mpix bayer cameras with more features cost half as
much as the sigma and they can use a wider selection of lenses and
accessories.

if the camera was $499, it might warrant a second look, but certainly
not at $1600.

<http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-DSLR-SD14-SD-14-Digital-Camera-In-Stock_W0QQi
temZ290092844617QQcategoryZ31388QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem>

such a deal! not.

agreed...this is destined to be a colossal failure.

 

Well, the cheapest metal bodied camera right now is the Canon 30D at
around $1100.00 for the body. $1600 does seem excessive but it's
possible this is intentional. Remember the idea of creating a demand
for presige? Price is prestige. Maybe they rationalized that if they
sold it for $800, they wouldn't sell as large a total $ volume as at
$1600 to Sigma adherents?

 

Here's another take on it from Mike Chaney (The QImage guy).
Hmmmm.....
http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/

 

Well there you go, time to dump Canon I think, what will a FF Foveon be
like?

 

Just remember that Mike Chaney's QImage program is primarily based on
selling you the idea that he knows how to resample (upsize) images
better than anyone else (and I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong).

 

Personally I really don't care, I will not be buying either, all my Pentax
lenses will not fit either. ;-)

 

More precisely, he is one of the few people who will sell you a
program with a gui frontend to various upsizing algorithms. If I spent
a couple of months reading journals, selected the 10 best algorithms I
could find, and wrote a command-line program that upsized better than
his (let's assume that this can be done, and assume further that I
could do it), how much would you pay me for it?

 

Shit, are people willing to pay for that sort of thing? Maybe I'd
better write one myself. ;^)

 

This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd only
take a comparison of two cameras from someone who was more than merely
competent in the use of both, not someone who "never got the hang" of
either.

 

I don't think the problem is getting the hang of anything. But if he
starts out by splitting out the red part of the CFA (which, fairly
obviously, has around 1/4 the total pixels of the total array) and
comparing that to the full image from a non-CFA imager, it occurs to
me that he is setting out to prove a point rather than to investigate
anything.

His arguments are perfectly fine and his conclusions may or may not be
right (I suppose they're not as far wrong as most people here would
immediately think, but have no idea, not having used a non-CFA
camera), but he hardly seems like an impartial observer.

 

And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the
expected from the Canonista crowd.
I think his comments re looking at the pictorial results instead of the
"numbers" are appropriate, regardless in which "camp" you reside. Good
advice at any time but usually ignored.
Bob

 

Your irony is misplaced, I am not a "Canonista" (I don't own a Canon
camera and actively dislike the idiotic cheerleading of canon going on
here and elsewhere).

Did you read that link? He starts by comparing the red part o the CFA
(ie 1/4 of the pixels) to the full image of another camera. If you
consider this "looking at the pictorial results" or impartial, well, I
don't see how a meaningful conversation can occur between us.

You also appeared to miss my second paragraph. But never mind, carry
on replying to what you think is being said instead of what is
actually being said.

 

except that the pictorial results are flawed - look at the sample
picture of the ribbon. the canon image has far less of the ribbon in
focus than the sigma. out of focus images don't tend to resolve all
that well...

 

Your categorization of my comments as irony is interesting and I'm relieved
to see you dislike the cheerleading as well!

Not only did I read it, I took the time to understand it. Interesting that
you consider his premise of starting comparative commentary from the weak
point of the "normal DSLR" to result in your "biased" view of his comments.
I feel he started out by exposing the weak points of both designs accurately
and furthermore pointed to them photographically.
Conversations are only meaningful when both parties give credit to the
other's agenda-free position. Given that understanding, you may be right.

Since here is where you pointed out his non-impartiality, perhaps my
understanding of the obvious is better than your statement of whatever it is
you thought you said.

Bob

 

This chart:

Measured Resolution
Canon EOS 5D Sigma SD14
B/W 2100 1700
Red 1630 1700
Green 2000 1700
Blue 1750 1700
Yellow 1950 1700
Magenta 1800 1700
Cyan 2000 1700
Average 1890 1700

Shows the sigma only has a slight advantage with pure reds, everything
else it gets tromped on.

 

Actually blue is almost as good.

 

Could this (out of focus effect on the ribbon) be attributed to the Bayer
Blur (color based because of chip design) that seems to be the basis of his
hypothesis?
By the way, the ribbon shot is gone since the update today !!
Interesting.

Bob