Sigma SD9...your thoughts?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by GC, Aug 30, 2005.

  1. Wrong as usual.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 7, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. My eyes are obviously better than yours are, go see an optometrist. Now
    you're sounding like Steven Scharf - both of you repeat the same mantra over
    and over. Little minds think alike.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 7, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. GC

    mark Guest

    The ads you are referring to never ever state that the camera has a
    10.2 MP output resolution. The camera does have (and they advertise
    this) 10.2 MP input resulution, in that it has 10.2 MP of light
    sensors, placed in a matrix of 3.4MP*3 layers. The fact that you are
    unable to understand this is clear evidence that comparing bayer and
    foveon on specs is comparing apples with oranges. Compare the
    photographs, that will lead to much more interesting discussions that
    this one.
     
    mark, Sep 7, 2005
    #63
  4. WTF is your problem? The Sigma is *NOT* a 10MP camera. It is a 3.42MP
    kiddie toy that yields Homer Simpson skin tones.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 7, 2005
    #64
  5. There are only so many ways to state the facts:

    3.42MP
    Proprietary lens mount
    Yellow skin tones

    There's the facts. It's an overpriced piece of junk.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 7, 2005
    #65
  6. Oh, that would be the over-sharpened samples that they use. Skin tones
    from the Sigma aren't even close to being natural. Get over it. It's a
    3.42MP kiddie toy.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 7, 2005
    #66
  7. GC

    mark Guest

    Back to your mantra. But never any facts...
    Maybe youre not a christian, but this malignant lying you do is a big
    sin in my book...

    So I still believe youre nothing more than george preddy
     
    mark, Sep 7, 2005
    #67
  8. GC

    mark Guest

    And by the way: some people actually use cameras and are not forced to
    use only samples, but take pictures with one.
    Maybe a concept?
     
    mark, Sep 7, 2005
    #68
  9. GC

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Yes, and it's worded in such a way as to be misleading and imply that
    the camera is a 10MP camera. The average consumer should not be
    expected to know the difference, since the vast majority of people
    refer to MP in regards to the output.

    But this is all moot. The general consensus is that Sigma cameras are
    sub-par, especially in comparison to models from Canon, Nikon, Minolta
    and other highly reputable camera companies. What are you trying to
    argue, that Sigma is a leader in camera quality and technology? As
    someone else put it, there is no reason to buy into oddball technology
    that uses proprietary mount systems and gives questionable results,
    when you can buy standard technology that uses standard mount systemss
    and gives excellent results.

    The OP asked for thoughts on the SD9, and these are mine and several
    others' thoughts. You have your own thoughts, which you're free to
    state, but what is the point of arguing with those whose thoughts are
    different? Unable to handle a variety of opinions? How about if you
    just state your case on its own merits and be done with it?
     
    Mike Kohary, Sep 7, 2005
    #69
  10. The general concensus among whom? Those who've never used a Sigma DSLR?
    The reviews certainly seem to support that photo quality is on a par - if
    not surpassing - the competitors. One can argue that Sigma is a leader in
    technology because they offer a technology no one else does in a DSLR.
    I've stated my case and have offerred some other's view to bolster it.
    Besides other Sigma users, my opinion is shared by others as I've
    demonstrated.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 7, 2005
    #70
  11. The only facts are that you are rude, predjudiced, and that you offer
    nothing substantive to this newsgroup other than to insult others. You are
    a waste of bandwidth.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 7, 2005
    #71
  12. And you're an idiot for buying an overpriced piece of junk.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 8, 2005
    #72
  13. And what, exactly, have I lied about?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 8, 2005
    #73
  14. GC

    mark Guest

    Mike Kohary schreef:
    The average consumer doesn't know what a bayer is. Your statement here
    definately shows to me that comparing bayer with foveon is apples and
    oranges.
    No, I an arguing that comparing foveon with beyer is apples and
    oranges. I am arguing that stating that the sigma dslr are kiddy toys
    with homer simpson skin tones is flatout malignant lying. If you want
    to compare the results of a sigma with the results of a
    Canon/Nikon/etc. you will have to compare actual pictures, and you will
    see that both have strenghts and weaknesses.
    Mount is only applicable to people with large investments in lenses, or
    people with a unlimited budget. I will restate here that the results of
    both types of camera/sensor have strenghts and weaknesses.
    I think it is valuable to discuss the line of thoughts of this threat,
    so the OP can decide for himself. Remember, I only reacted to overly
    simplefied statements/half truths/untruths that keep on appearing here
    everytime someone asks for advice. You stated that sigma advertises
    that it *outputs* 10 MP. I asked you for quotes of this statement, but
    never got it. And now you say it advertises ambiguous. All I did was
    asking you to backup your claim. If you can, please do, but I have
    never (and I am repeating myself here) seen any advertisement of sigma
    or foveon, where the claim of 10MP output was made. As for the claim of
    10MP input, it is a valid claim. And because the bayer sensors have
    no discrepancy between in-and output (when we adopt the definition of
    pixel as is generally used, because of the predominance of bayer in the
    market) I will have to conclude we are comparing apples with
    oranges...(again).

    I bet you agree with most of what I'm saying.
     
    mark, Sep 8, 2005
    #74
  15. GC

    mark Guest

    <And what, exactly, have I lied about?

    in this threat only: (start quote)
    -------------------------

    You're far better off with what you've got rather than an overpriced
    3.42MP kiddie toy that produces Homer Simpson skin tones.

    hell, even
    my old QuickTake 150 would do better than the Sigma. And the 10D will
    smoke that Sigma any day of the week.

    If you like paying a fortune for a 3.42MP kiddie toy that creates Homer
    Simpson skin tones, I guess it's a pretty good deal.

    The 10D, when new, went for $1,500. Even $750 is too much for the
    Sigma. You can get better 3.42MP cameras for much less. And they won't
    give you yellow skin tones.

    I wanted 6.3MP, a choice of lenses, and natural skin tones.

    3.42MP does not equal 6MP.

    Who cares what reviewers say. It's real world results that count.
    3.42MP does not and can never equal anything more than 3.42MP.

    I thought they only kissed Canon's ass.

    Somebody needs a visit to the optometrist.

    Doctor! Another eye exam needed here!

    Drugs are a terrible thing to become involved with.

    It shines right off the shiny head of Homer Simpson and those yellow
    skin tones.

    Looka at any of their advertisements in the last year. And even if it
    was 10MP, you still have no choice of lenses and the colors suck.

    Look at the advertising again. They multiply 3.42 times 3 and come up
    with 10MP...an out-and-out lie.

    WTF is your problem? The Sigma is *NOT* a 10MP camera. It is a 3.42MP
    kiddie toy that yields Homer Simpson skin tones.

    Maybe the quotes back up your baseless claims, but real-world results
    don't.

    3.42MP does not equal 6.3MP...never did and never will. And I won't
    have to zap the yellow out of my skin tones. I can even buy lenses from
    other manufacturers than the people that made my camera. You can't.

    No, I'm not. Just someone out there hoping that others don't waste
    their hard-earned money on crappy technology.

    Peter S. is blind to reality. But in his defense, he spent a lot of
    money for a camera that just doesn't cut it and he has to defend his
    decision.

    There are only so many ways to state the facts:

    3.42MP
    Proprietary lens mount
    Yellow skin tones

    There's the facts. It's an overpriced piece of junk.

    And you're an idiot for buying an overpriced piece of junk.

    Oh, that would be the over-sharpened samples that they use. Skin tones
    from the Sigma aren't even close to being natural. Get over it. It's a
    3.42MP kiddie toy.

    And what, exactly, have I lied about?

    ---------------------------------------

    See the pattern? Take a threat where Preddy entered and quote only his
    commants: striking similarity!

    And the worst thing is that I (probably naive) think that you really do
    know more than this, and just pretend to be ignorant.

    But then (personal note) yesterday there was a soccer game between the
    Netherlands and andorra, and I was amazed about the way the dutch
    players (pro's) let themselves be provoked by the andorrian players
    (amateurs). I guess I am letting myself be provoked by you here, and
    thats probably what your trolling is all about.

    You still haven't gotten an answer from you on the reference to the
    sigma ad that states the 10.2MP output resolution. Don't cut this out
    of your quote!
     
    mark, Sep 8, 2005
    #75
  16. A 3.42MP camera ain't much these days, nor was it when the Sigma was
    first introduced.

    As for yellow skin tones, that's what the Sigma does well. Homer
    Simpson's skin is yellow - the skin tones produced by the Sigma are
    yellow. Maybe they're not as intense as Homer's, but they're definitely
    yellow.

    Whether when it was introduced or today, the Sigma is a poor value in
    the digital camera market.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 8, 2005
    #76
  17. GC

    mark Guest

    Randall Ainsworth schreef:
    Look up "perseveration" and "frontal lobe dysfunction" on google.
     
    mark, Sep 8, 2005
    #77
  18. GC

    Mike Kohary Guest

    No, Randall isn't a troll. He's a dick, but he's not a troll. And he
    really doesn't like Sigma equipment.
    I'm looking at an ad for the Sigma SD10 from the August 2005 issue of
    Outdoor Photographer, my favorite magazine. The ad shows a large
    close-up of an eye, a very nice photograph. But here is the ad text:

    "Sigma. 10.2-million-pixel resolution true color reproduction will
    open your eyes."

    (Ok, they need to work on their grammar as well.)

    The line is repeated verbatim at the bottom of the ad as well, so you
    read it twice:

    "10.2-million-pixel resolution true color reproduction will open your
    eyes."

    In the fine print at the bottom, it says this:

    "Major features: Number of pixels 10.2 million (3.4MP Red + 3.4 MP
    Green + 3.4 MP Blue)..."

    That's as close as they come to admitting the SD10 isn't a 10.2MP
    camera. If you didn't particularly know what a Foveon sensor was,
    you'd have no idea that the camera was only a 3.4MP camera, and not
    10.2MP. Now do you see where some of us have a problem with Sigma's
    grossly misleading ad campaign?

    I think it's a flat-out lie, because the original line is structured
    in such a way as to be deliberately ambiguous. The improper grammar
    is no accident; it's structured in such a way as to be unclear as to
    what exactly their talking about, while still leaving the impression
    of 10.2MP on casual reading. I can only think that was intentional,
    therefore a lie (lies of ommission or deception are still lies). They
    should be sanctioned for running such an ad, and you Sigma owners
    should lay low when the topic comes up, because you have no ground to
    stand on.
     
    Mike Kohary, Sep 8, 2005
    #78
  19. Look up "Sigma" - it will be right before "turd".
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 9, 2005
    #79
  20. GC

    mark Guest

    Mike Kohary schreef:
    No reference to *output* here, so thats one for me...
    thats 2...
    Thats exactly true then...
    Show me one single ad of Canon/Nikon/etc. that clearly states that
    theit output resulution is single-colour, interpolated to full-colour,
    and I will totally agree with you. I am convinced (admittingly without
    data) that most Sigma buyers are aware of the properties of a foveon
    sensor. I am just as convinced most bayer buyers (that rhymes!) are
    not. Your problem with the ad is that it describes oranges, and you
    think people mistake them for apples, not knowing they have to discart
    the skin of the orange...

    So, summerizing: Sigma didn't claim 10.2MP output resulution in the ad
    you cite.
     
    mark, Sep 9, 2005
    #80
    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.