Sigma SD 10 Newbie Help UPDATE

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Lex Mathews, Jul 26, 2004.

  1. Lex Mathews

    D.R. Guest

    Let me guess, you like Jack Nicholson alot, right? ;-)
     
    D.R., Aug 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lex Mathews

    D.R. Guest

    Regarding optical quality, I think that you are mistaken. See the ratings here:
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

    Note that Sigma make a high-end range and a low-end budget consumer range. The
    high-end range tend to be still cheaper, but Sigma rates highly in some of the
    optical quality tests. Also note that Sigma come out on top of two categories.
    FYI:


    Std. Lenses 50mm (the top 3):
    ==================================================================
    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!
    (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding!
    Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent


    Tele zooms -300/320mm (the top 3):
    ==================================================================
    Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (HSM) 4.18 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 2.8 120-300mm EX (HSM) 4.05 (3) = very-good
    Carl-Zeiss AF T* 4-5.6 70-300mm (N) 3.54 (3) = good


    Tele zooms -400/500mm (the top 3):
    ==================================================================
    Canon EF 4.5-5.6 100-400mm USM L IS 3.94 (5) = very-good
    Sigma AF 5.6 300-800mm EX 3.50 (2) = very-good
    Minolta AF 4.5-6.7 100-400mm APO 3.35 (5) = good


    Ultra Wide-angle zooms (the top 5):
    ==================================================================
    Carl-Zeiss AF 17-35mm f/2.8 N 4.10 (2) = very-good
    Canon EF 2.8 16-35mm USM L 3.97 (3) = very-good
    Canon EF 4.0 17-40mm USM L 3.78 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 2.8 20-40mm EX DG 3.56 (3) = good
    Sigma AF 3.5-4.5 15-30mm EX DG 3.54 (3) = good
     
    D.R., Aug 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. each pixel.

    Right after I finish building my own refrigerator, I'll start calibrating
    3.43 million individual pixels.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Aug 3, 2004
  4. Lex Mathews

    BillB Guest

    Ah. In that case applying an Eng. lang. ant-ialias filter to your
    "raw" name produces "Randall Ainshole", which is not only truer to
    the picture we have of you here in this ng, but is "buttressed" by
    your own words as well.
     
    BillB, Aug 3, 2004
  5. Lex Mathews

    BillB Guest

    Yes. Your mama's maiden name is Sigma and at birth you were
    personally delivered by Dr. Foveon, who must have slapped you in the
    wrong location.
     
    BillB, Aug 3, 2004
  6. Yes, the truth.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Aug 4, 2004
  7. WHOA! I've never heard that one before! I hope your photography is
    more original.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 4, 2004
  8. Lex Mathews

    BillB Guest

    Brush up your Sha.. er, logic. If you've never heard that one
    before it is original, no? Then why would you imply that my
    photography need be more original. If I showed you some photos
    showing similar originality, you may well repeat the "WHOA!", and it
    would have been taken either with 100% Nikon, 100% Canon or Zorki
    body (ca. 1960) w/Summicron lenses. Sorry, never used Sigma, but I
    can dream . . . :)
     
    BillB, Aug 4, 2004
  9. The only dream one could have about Sigma would be a nightmare.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 4, 2004
  10. Lex Mathews

    Lex Mathews Guest

    I'm not the fuckhead, ASSHOLE. And I'll tell you why:

    I came into this situation innocently, never having posted before, never
    having owned a Sigma camera before, and all I asked for was some objective
    technical advice and some technical opinions.

    Instead, I get personal attacks on my character and my honesty from paranoid
    wackos: I get accused of being a liar, a fraud, having a secret identity,
    and being some goddamned Sigma secret operative, etc.

    You don't like the camera? Fine.You don't like Sigma. Fine with me.

    Just don't attack me personally. You do, or anyone else does, I call them a
    MORON or an ASSHOLE and I stand by it 100%. Take your self-righteous
    indignation and shove it - you started it.


    ,
     
    Lex Mathews, Aug 5, 2004
  11. LOL - I wish I could write something definitive like "it's the best camera I
    have ever handled"

    But I can't - the only consoling thought that springs to mind is that fewer
    bigger sensors tend to be better than more smaller sensors.

    But this testosterone based analysis or comparison doesn't really make pics
    any better or worse.

    Look at the images from Russia - grossly imperfect technology with time
    taken to switch plates meaning that imperfections are picked up yet those
    images are sweet, very sweet.

    Bring on the new technology - I hope the first company to reach that magic
    breakthrough point in marrying lens - body - media & software does so within
    the next couple of years irrespective of it being Foveon based or bayer mask
    based

    Go for it!

    Arts

    ps - my DSLR money is staying in my pocket for the time being irrespective
    of what you espouse or postulate :)

    A
     
    Arty Phacting, Aug 5, 2004
  12. so they haven'y managed the impossible?

    Arts

    ps - how about Kodak DSLR switchable backs? Or is that a rumour too?

    A
     
    Arty Phacting, Aug 5, 2004
  13. It is far from impossible. The Leica R8 and R9 are prepared
    for backs. But, it comes at a price. The estimated price when
    the thing shows up is 4500 euro. That might be 7000 dollar I
    think. And the R9 camera is $2000 (body only). And you have
    a hard time finding _any_ lens under $1000, most above $2000.

    It is much cheaper to buy lots of digital bodies from Nikon
    or Canon than planning to buy some interchangable backs for
    Leica R9.
    Kodak had something called "Kodak Digital Back". It was for medium
    format cameras. There were rumours about a 35 mm product. I tried
    to find something on the web - but could not find it. What I found
    though was that the Kodak 500 series is based upon EOS-1N and
    "Kodak Digital Back" and the the 600 series is based upon
    Nikon and "Kodak Digital Back". What this means, I have not the
    slightest idea.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 5, 2004
  14. Lex Mathews

    E. Magnuson Guest

    You keep using english past tense verbs.
    This implies that the product currently exists.
    Can you buy one today? Can you even pre-order it
    at a fixed price from a dealer?
    At what (original) price? (Remember "economic" is part of the challenge.)
    Also notice that Kodak does not make them anymore (for 35mm).
    Why do you think that might be? Perhaps you should look at the
    size/weight/cost of some of those early Kodaks.
     
    E. Magnuson, Aug 6, 2004
  15. Have your cake and eat it too...

    Sigma SD9 generates 13.72MP images from 10.3M large sensors.
    Canon 1Ds only generates 11.1MP images, from 11.1M small sensors.

    And the old Canon costs 8x more and doesn't provide the basic digital
    features of the cheapest DSLRs today, like a magnified review mode. A
    firmware hack is finally available to provide a 100% view (still way
    too small) provided you remember to turn it on before taking each
    picture, and you don't mind using switches that are improperly label
    to work the $8,000 camera.
     
    George Preddy, Aug 7, 2004
  16. Lex Mathews

    Crownfield Guest

    George Preddy lied:
    well, no.

    the sigma wide ass guesses little 3 mp images
    all the way way way way way up to 10,11,12,13 mp extrapolations
    (whatever the preddiot is claiming today, it changes daily)
    as only non pro cameras try to do.

    but sigma has no other choice,
    they have only one camera, their users only one lens source.
     
    Crownfield, Aug 7, 2004
  17. (George Preddy) wrote in
    What? Did not Canon 1Ds generate 3 MP images?
    I thought you said it was needed 4 Bayer sensors for each pixel.
    Pleas be consistent in your madness.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 7, 2004
  18. Lex Mathews

    Mike Kohary Guest

    False, the SD9 is only 3 megapixels. That's a mathematical fact.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Aug 8, 2004
  19. Yepp - it is only 3.4 Mpixels with any sound definition of pixel.
    It can never resolve more than 3.4 million spatially separated samples.
    You know that, I know that, most people here know that but for some
    pixel is just a word (like bag or bug) that can be used in any way that
    suits you. Mr Preddy is one of those that thinks pixels shall be counted
    in the (for Foveon) most favourable way, simply because Foveon sensors
    are soooo much better than Bayer sensors. But actually, worst is Foveon -
    they are trying to both eat the cake and still have it. They say that
    the sensor in the Sigma camera have 10 million full color pixels. To say
    that it has 10 million pixels is highly questionable (according to any
    sound definition of pixel), but to say that they have 10 million full
    color pixels is a lie. Companies (and their marketing department) very
    seldom lies. They bend the reality some to suit them. But to actually
    lie shows that something is sick. They are so desperate to get stinkin'
    rich on their clever invention that they are prepared to do almost
    anything. So - beware - they are not honest people - people that you
    can trust.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 8, 2004
  20. http://www.vistek.ca

    These are top quality backs, for large format cameras. Check them out.
    Interchangeable, just what you want.

    rtt
     
    Richard Tomkins, Aug 10, 2004
    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.