Sigma SD9...your thoughts?

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

  1. GC

    mark Guest

    You didn't replie to me previous mail, randall...
     
    mark, Sep 9, 2005
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. My news server bites and often misses things. What was the question?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 9, 2005
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. GC

    mark Guest

    Randall Ainsworth schreef:
    LOL!

    Reading back isn't your stong point is it?
    I bet you can find it. Its under "google".
     
    mark, Sep 9, 2005
    #83
  4. GC

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Mark, be serious. In the rest of the English-speaking world, that
    sentence states that the SD10 is a 10.2MP camera.
    And still incredibly misleading. I think you know it, and are simply
    defending a position out of stubborness, so I'm not going to dignify
    this silly tactic of yours with further argumentation.
    Canon and Nikon ads tend to state the actual MP of the camera, just
    like every other digital camera manufacturer does. Nobody else takes
    a common term like MP and misuses it in the fashion that Sigma does.
    Sigma has no right to redefine a common industry term to their
    benefit. It's a 3.42MP camera, period.
     
    Mike Kohary, Sep 9, 2005
    #84
  5. GC

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Ok. But it's not - they are both digital camera sensors and have the
    same function. Surely one is better than the other, or they are
    equivalent. Why wouldn't you compare them?
    I believe you will see that the output of the Canon 10D (which was the
    competing camera brought up in this thread) is superior. Reviews on
    every major website confirm this as the consensus opinion, and I
    believe there would be few in this newsgroup that would argue it as
    well. Not many people would choose the Sigma SD9 over the Canon 10D
    with regards to quality. The only thing the SD9 has going for it in
    comparison is price.
    No it's not, what a bizarre statement. It's an SLR camera - one would
    expect that anyone with an SLR is going to be interested in changing
    lenses sooner or later, even casual users. The mount system being
    used is a very important consideration.
    Then I will restate that the strengths of the Canon 10D outweigh the
    strengths of the Sigma SD9, while the SD9's weaknesses far outweigh
    the 10D's weaknesses.
    Fair enough, but don't confuse Randall's rudeness with truth or lack
    of it. He hasn't stated anything false - it's a 3.4MP camera and is
    somewhat notorious for rendering poor skin tones, often cited as
    turning out yellow.
    We're on this in another post.
    I'm sorry, but I don't. I believe you're defending a purchase you
    made, nothing more. The fact that you purchased this camera does
    nothing to bolster your extremely weak justification of Sigma's
    deliberate deception.

    Bottom line: the OP asked for opinions on the SD9, and he sure has
    gotten them. No mainstream review would put the SD9 on a par with
    similar market Canon, Nikon, Minolta or several other manufacturers'
    cameras. The point of their misleading ad is somewhat of a
    distraction, but a pet peeve of mine I thought worth bringing up
    anyway. After all, how can you trust a company that would mislead
    potential customers like that?
     
    Mike Kohary, Sep 9, 2005
    #85
  6. A Canon 10D captures 1.5 MPs red, 1.5 MPs blue, and 3 MPs green and it's
    considered a 6 MP camera. The SD10 captures 3.4 MPs red, 3.4 MPs blue, and
    3.4 MPs green. Using the same standard as the Canon, that would make the
    Sigma a 10.2 MP camera.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 9, 2005
    #86
  7. GC

    RSD99 Guest

    No ... using any of the industry-wide "standard" definitions of what a
    pixel is, the Sigma SD10 isn't even a 3.4 MegaPixel camera! (See below).

    They are flat-out LYING to the world ... and hoping that the unsuspecting
    customer won't look at the real specifications ... which say that the
    sensor size is:

    2268 x 1512 pixels

    Which calculates to:

    3,429,216 pixels

    Which then calculates to:

    3.270355 MegaPixels

    So ... the Sigma SD10 is *actually* a 3.2 MegaPixel camera.

    You posted "... The SD10 captures 3.4 MPs red, 3.4 MPs blue, and 3.4 MPs
    green. Using the same standard as the Canon, that would make the Sigma a
    10.2 MP camera. ..."

    Sounds to me like "con man's math" ...only useful if you are a used-car
    dealer!

    FWIW:
    Definition of a pixel ... courtesy of Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

    A pixel (a portmanteau of picture element) is one of the many tiny dots
    that make up the representation of a picture in a computer's memory.

    Definition of a pixel ... courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary:

    ix·el (p¹k“s…l, -sµl”) n.
    Computer Science.
    The smallest image-forming unit of a video display.

    Definition of a pixel ... courtesy of whatis.com:
    http://whatis.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid9_gci212793,00.html

    pixel
    The pixel (a word invented from "picture element") is the basic unit of
    programmable color on a computer display or in a computer image. Think of
    it as a logical - rather than a physical - unit. The physical size of a
    pixel depends on how you've set the resolution for the display screen. If
    you've set the display to its maximum resolution, the physical size of a
    pixel will equal the physical size of the dot pitch (let's just call it the
    dot size) of the display. If, however, you've set the resolution to
    something less than the maximum resolution, a pixel will be larger than the
    physical size of the screen's dot (that is, a pixel will use more than one
    dot).

    The specific color that a pixel describes is some blend of three components
    of the color spectrum - RGB. Up to three bytes of data are allocated for
    specifying a pixel's color, one byte for each major color component. A true
    color or 24-bit color system uses all three bytes. However, many color
    display systems use only one byte (limiting the display to 256 different
    colors).

    A bitmap is a file that indicates a color for each pixel along the
    horizontal axis or row (called the x coordinate) and a color for each pixel
    along the vertical axis (called the y coordinate). A Graphics Interchange
    Format file, for example, contains a bitmap of an image (along with other
    data).

    Screen image sharpness is sometimes expressed as dpi (dots per inch). (In
    this usage, the term dot means pixel, not dot as in dot pitch.) Dots per
    inch is determined by both the physical screen size and the resolution
    setting. A given image will have lower resolution - fewer dots per inch -
    on a larger screen as the same data is spread out over a larger physical
    area. On the same size screen, the image will have lower resolution if the
    resolution setting is made lower - resetting from 800 by 600 pixels per
    horizontal and vertical line to 640 by 480 means fewer dots per inch on the
    screen and an image that is less sharp. (On the other hand, individual
    image elements such as text will be larger in size.)

    Pixel has generally replaced an earlier contraction of picture element,
    pel.

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    The only conclusion is that Sigma is lying ... and that the SD10 is
    actually a 3.2 MP (MegaPixel) camera.
     
    RSD99, Sep 9, 2005
    #87
  8. GC

    Mike Kohary Guest

    You must be putting me on. I won't insult your intelligence by
    explaining to you what you already know.
     
    Mike Kohary, Sep 10, 2005
    #88
  9. I think you're too much of a gentleman to insult me, you exhibit more
    civility than that "other guy". The bottom line to me is that comparing a
    Bayer and a Foveon is like apples and oranges. I was simply illustrating
    that if one is to use the standards of how a Bayer sensor is rated, then the
    Foveon could be considered 10.2 MPs. Is it really? I wouldn't say so since
    MPs are measured by a standard (Bayer) that the Foveon cannot be compared
    to. I only care about the image output, whatever the MP rating is. The SDx
    produces as good, and sometimes better, images than a 6 MP Bayer. I would
    say it is the equal of that - a 6 MP Bayer - in terms of photo quality. Is
    it up to the level of the latest crop of 8 MP sensors? It's close to the
    20D, IMO, and just as good as the E300. How should Sigma market the camera?
    I am not advocating deception, don't misunderstand me on that, but to call
    it a 3.4 MP camera when it can perform as well as any 6 MP Bayer camera is
    not exactly indicative, is it? It's like an AMD Athlon cpu that runs at a
    clock speed of 1.7 ghz yet outperforms an Intel Pentium that runs at 2.8
    ghz. The numbers are all some consumers care about. How fast is it, how
    many megapixels, etc. Remeber what Phil Askey posted in his review of the
    SD10:

    "With the advent of the SD10 both Sigma and Foveon are taking the (braver
    but) more logical position of using the number 10 million to represent the
    number of photodetectors, I'm sure this decision will be debated ad nauseam
    but it's easy to see their position, in our previous experience the X3
    sensor delivers approximately twice the resolution of a standard mosaic
    sensor with the same number of horizontal and vertical pixel locations."

    None of it really matters to me, I only care about how good the images are
    and we Sigma users are very happy with what our camera can do. Not all of
    us are brand snobs (I use a Fuji FinePix also), some are, but there are
    brand snobs for every brand. And this crap that a few people post about us
    Sigma users having to "justify our bad purchase decision" is pure drivel
    that is regurgitated ad naseum by Steve Scharf and now Randall "I never met
    a usenet user I liked" Ainsworth. We like our camera and we don't hesistate
    to say so when asked or when others post misinformation.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 10, 2005
    #89
  10. GC

    mark Guest

    RSD99 schreef:
    I will get to that below then
    Which, again, desribes the output size of the camera, not the input of
    the sensor. Let me engage a thought experiment with you (I am really
    trying to understand your viewpoint, so bear with me). If I buy a
    camera, which has a 3.2 MP sensor (3.2 MP of distinct input pixels),
    and the firmware of this camera interpolates this to a 6MP jpeg, what
    would be the resolution of this camera. Following your definition of a
    pixel (quoted below) it would be 6MP.

    quote:
    "A pixel (a portmanteau of picture element) is one of the many tiny
    dots that make up the representation of a picture in a computer's
    memory"

    As the resolution of said camera is quite obviously 3.2MP, and we
    probably agree on that, we should adopt a distinction between input and
    output resolution. Bayer images are build from 3 different sets of
    monochrome pixels. The luminance of the image is mainly captured by the
    green pixels, and they are therefore doubly dense spaced in the sensor.
    A 6MP bayer sensor has 3MP of green sensors/sensor positions. The
    luminance resolution is therefore higher in a foveon 3.2MP / 3.4MP
    sensor than in a 6MP bayer. As for the other colours, foveon is even
    more 'in front'. But, dr Bayer was not dumb, and showed that you can
    create stunning output by interpolating the coulours missing at each
    location with the colours surrounding it. Therefore, it is nonsense to
    call a bayer 6MP camera a 1.5MP camera, because of the resolution of
    the least samples colours. So how can we compare the performance of
    each of these totally different systems?
    As its Canons/Nikons/etc math, I tend to agree.
    No dispute, as these are all definitions of display pixels. A totally
    different thing from input pixels of a sensor. Remember our thought
    experimant with the interpolating camera.
    Hmmm, how many RGB pixels does a 6MP bayer have then...
    If you want to hold on to that, Ok.
     
    mark, Sep 12, 2005
    #90
  11. GC

    mark Guest

    #Ok. But it's not - they are both digital camera sensors and have the
    #same function. Surely one is better than the other, or they are
    #equivalent. Why wouldn't you compare them?

    You can compare the result, but the sensor attributes. It's like
    comparing a Porche with a Ferrari. Both have 4 wheels, so lets not
    compare them on that... Lets compare how they drive.
    #<shrug> There's no lie there; that's his opinion. He's entitled to
    #it.

    If thats an opinion, I can discuss it,can't I?
    #I believe you will see that the output of the Canon 10D (which was the
    #competing camera brought up in this thread) is superior. Reviews on
    #every major website confirm this as the consensus opinion, and I
    #believe there would be few in this newsgroup that would argue it as
    #well. Not many people would choose the Sigma SD9 over the Canon 10D
    #with regards to quality. The only thing the SD9 has going for it in
    #comparison is price.

    Thats an opinion. And basing it on reviews is excellent. Yore entitled
    to it!
    #No it's not, what a bizarre statement. It's an SLR camera - one would
    #expect that anyone with an SLR is going to be interested in changing
    #lenses sooner or later, even casual users. The mount system being
    #used is a very important consideration.
    #Then I will restate that the strengths of the Canon 10D outweigh the
    #strengths of the Sigma SD9, while the SD9's weaknesses far outweigh
    #the 10D's weaknesses.

    Good, an opinion. No nonsense about kiddy toys or the like. Your
    opinion, and you are entitled to it. It's not mine though...
    #Fair enough, but don't confuse Randall's rudeness with truth or lack
    #of it. He hasn't stated anything false - it's a 3.4MP camera and is
    #somewhat notorious for rendering poor skin tones, often cited as
    #turning out yellow.

    And many times confirmed to deliver excellent skin ton rendition. I
    would like to make a clear distinction between what you state here (its
    a 3.4MP camera) and what Randall raves about (its a kiddy toy). I would
    like to discuss the virtues and drawbacks of the foveon design with
    you. I would like it if you would see that simply stating output
    resolution is not the whole story when you compare cameras. You make
    claims that *can* be discussed, and I thank you for it. Randall just
    vents hot air.
    #We're on this in another post.

    Fair enough.
    #I'm sorry, but I don't. I believe you're defending a purchase you
    #made, nothing more. The fact that you purchased this camera does
    #nothing to bolster your extremely weak justification of Sigma's
    #deliberate deception.

    Why would I defend my purchase?

    #Bottom line: the OP asked for opinions on the SD9, and he sure has
    #gotten them. No mainstream review would put the SD9 on a par with
    #similar market Canon, Nikon, Minolta or several other manufacturers'
    #cameras. The point of their misleading ad is somewhat of a
    #distraction, but a pet peeve of mine I thought worth bringing up
    #anyway. After all, how can you trust a company that would mislead
    #potential customers like that?

    I thought we were on that in another post? I do not think the ad you
    are referring to is misleading (my opinion, and the opinion of the
    advertising standards authority).


    #--
    #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    #Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
    #
    # Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    # Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks

    Take care,
    Mark
     
    mark, Sep 12, 2005
    #91
  12. GC

    mark Guest

    #Mark, be serious. In the rest of the English-speaking world, that
    #sentence states that the SD10 is a 10.2MP camera.

    There is a distinction between input and output. And when comparing
    bayer with foveon, it becomes suddenly important. I asked for a backup
    of the claim that Sigma advertised that its camera had 10.2MP output.
    That was what fist was claimed here. The quoated ad does not claim
    that.
    #And still incredibly misleading. I think you know it, and are simply
    #defending a position out of stubborness, so I'm not going to dignify
    #this silly tactic of yours with further argumentation.

    Mike, please tell me what is so incredably misleading in the calim
    stated here?
    #Canon and Nikon ads tend to state the actual MP of the camera, just
    #like every other digital camera manufacturer does. Nobody else takes
    #a common term like MP and misuses it in the fashion that Sigma does.

    Do you really think that a majority (or even large minority) of
    non-professionals actually know that their 8MP camera only has 4MP of
    green sensors, 2MP of red, and 2MP of blue sensors?

    I bet most sigma buyers do...
    #Sigma has no right to redefine a common industry term to their
    #benefit. It's a 3.42MP camera, period.

    Whatever...
    --
    #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    #Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
    #
    # Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    # Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    greetz,
    Mark
     
    mark, Sep 12, 2005
    #92
  13. The technology looks great on paper. Unfortunately, it works poorly in
    real life.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 12, 2005
    #93
  14. GC

    mark Guest

    Randall Ainsworth schreef:
    Well, most of my pictures end up on paper, but hey.

    Bet you never seen any foveon picture in real life.
    Good crop of my post though. Still havent awnsered my question,
    Randall.

    keep on venting
     
    mark, Sep 12, 2005
    #94
  15. I've seen enough Sigma photos to know that it's crappy technology that
    doesn't work.

    What is the question?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 12, 2005
    #95
  16. GC

    mark Guest

    Randall Ainsworth schreef:
    Lying again, Preddy...
    Now, to waste some bandwith, I will repeat my questions to george
    preddy:



    <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 12, 2005
    #96
  17. GC

    RSD99 Guest

    <snip>

    You posted

    "... No dispute, as these are all definitions of display pixels. A totally
    different thing from input pixels of a sensor. ..."

    Wrong.

    A pixel is a pixel is a pixel.

    Oh ... and BTW ... that's by ISO definition.
     
    RSD99, Sep 12, 2005
    #97
  18. GC

    RSD99 Guest

    You posted:
    "... I thought we were on that in another post? I do not think the ad you
    are referring to is misleading (my opinion, and the opinion of the
    advertising standards authority).
    ...."

    That statement *IS* misleading.

    The Sigma / Fovion is actually a 3.2 megapixel camera, both in terms of the
    number of sensors, and also in terms of the number of output pixels.
     
    RSD99, Sep 12, 2005
    #98
  19. George (Steve in real life) was a Sigma advocate. I am not.
    Ignorant about what? You couldn't give me a Sigma product.
    No trolling here. Just continued statement of facts. And who gives a
    shit about soccer?
    Sigma ads for at least the past year have claimed that it's a 10MP
    camera. Now, if you want to play semantics, that's your thing. But they
    claim that by adding 3.42+3.42+3.42 you get a 10MP camera. No you
    don't. It's still 3.42, and it still gives crappy yellow skin tones.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 13, 2005
    #99
  20. GC

    mark Guest

    Randall Ainsworth schreef:
    You often got into sicussions with yourselve before, george, so why
    would this be different. Youre just another alter ego of steve...
     
    mark, Sep 13, 2005
    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.