Canon 5D stomps Sigma SD14 into the dust

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Mar 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Like it would take a lot to stomp a Sigma into the dust. For once, you
    may have gotten it right.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Mar 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Mar 15, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Mar 15, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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?
     
    RichA, Mar 15, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Mar 17, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Well there you go, time to dump Canon I think, what will a FF Foveon be
    like?
     
    Pete D, Mar 17, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    frederick Guest

    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).
     
    frederick, Mar 17, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Personally I really don't care, I will not be buying either, all my Pentax
    lenses will not fit either. ;-)
     
    Pete D, Mar 17, 2007
    #9
  10. 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?
     
    achilleaslazarides, Mar 17, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    Lionel Guest

    Shit, are people willing to pay for that sort of thing? Maybe I'd
    better write one myself. ;^)
     
    Lionel, Mar 17, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    Skip Guest

    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.
     
    Skip, Mar 17, 2007
    #12
  13. 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.
     
    achilleaslazarides, Mar 17, 2007
    #13
  14. RichA

    Robert Brace Guest

    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
     
    Robert Brace, Mar 17, 2007
    #14
  15. 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.
     
    achilleaslazarides, Mar 17, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    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...
     
    Guest, Mar 17, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Brace Guest

    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
     
    Robert Brace, Mar 17, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 17, 2007
    #18
  19. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Actually blue is almost as good.
     
    Pete D, Mar 17, 2007
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Brace Guest

    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
     
    Robert Brace, Mar 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.