Sigma SD1 Merrill instead of 6D or 5D mark III Locked

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Jay Ell
Regular MemberPosts: 256
No - you make basic errors regarding optics, artifacts etc.
In reply to Kendall Helmstetter Gelner, 5 months ago

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:

Jay Ell wrote:

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:

Your problem is that the Canon probably would be better for milky-way pictures (although with a tracker, hmm...)

I wonder how Sigma handles long expsures? I am curious. Any heat issues or anything?

The SD1 camera only does max two min, the DP cameras 30 sec.

Thank you for the info.

But if you combine that with an intervolvameter shooting long exposures from a tracking mount, it should be able to do some interesting starscapes (I've had some luck shooting stars even with just a tripod and no tracking at ISO 800 & 1600).

This is hardly optimal.

If you combine ISO800 images, they are no longer ISO 800, but joining two of them makes a ISO 400, joining four and the output image is ISO200 and so on. This is nitpicking I guess

But the Sigma would be better for landscape, by far.

No it would not. It would have one possible advantage of maybe slightly higher resolution - with aliasing as drawback. Apart from that it is hard to see why it would be better and the colours can be a big issue.

The lack of color moire (aliasing) is a plus.

Alliasign and color moire are not the same. Color moire is a subset of aliasing. Because the SD1 has no AA-filter there is aliasing, though mostly relevant in man made subjects. Some people are very sensitive to aliasing even in natural world.

The Canons mentioned have an AA-filter which removes moire and other forms of aliasing (at least mostly - the strength of the filter varies from camera to camera), but introduce slight softening which should be undone by unharp mask or other sharpening. So saying that no moire is a plus is not telling the whole story.

But the other luminance aliasing is the whole REASON you use Sigma cameras over other cameras - because the aliasing mimics sub-pixel detail

No it doesnt. Aliasing does the exact opposite. If you have an anti-alias fillter, or for example shoot with very small aperture, the blur creates the illusion of sub pixel accuracy in detail - note I say accuracy in detail, not amount of detail.

(in a receding row of trees for example you get the impression of the branches and leaves that are below pixel level).

No, this is not true, but it creates the impression of artificial order in the image. If you order pixels into hard edged blocks, it does not create illusion of sub-pixel detail and I can't even imagine how one could think it does - instead images detail's positional accuracy is reduced. There is a good point in no-AA filter relevant to this and it is higher local contrast - not having to increase it in procesing means less noise and possible artifacts introduces.

<....>

If you don't like the aliasing then you should be shooting landscape through a vasiline smeared lens in a heavy fog; every sensor is made up of discrete pixels and so too should be your image if you desire the utmost in detail.

And every proper digital imager has a low-pass filter (AA-filter). What you talk is akin to what you blame of me. It is a pity Sony A7r does not have it, though considering the exit-pupil issue it's understandable.

Additionally aliasing is more visible in man-mande structures, like cityscapes.

You can easily blur something after the fact

Nonsense. Aliasing is difficult to cure - moire is the easiest subset, but regular jagged edges need heavy blurring to be fixed after the quantification - it is much less problematic to do it before sampling.

, you cannot take a smoothed image and provide more than a pale imitation of detail, like a watery diet coke next to the Real Thing.

I am sure you see nightmares then when 99.999% of all the images you see in the world are made with cameras using conventional image sensors if you indeed see all those images as pale imitations of detail. Funny how you see clear digitali artifacts, aliasing, as "Real Thing" or good representation of it.

<...>

I can understand how everyone does not like detail

You mean artifacts. Detail and artifacts are not synonyms.

(well actually I can't but intellectually I observe this to be true), but saying that you shouldn't choose a Sigma camera because of aliasing totally misses the allure of the cameras to many.

I pointed out other reasons too which you conviniently ignored - high noise, inaccurate colours often hard to process well and so on. Aliasing is one more issue. Yet you choose to make the statement that it's far better option for this purpouse.

Consider buying the Canon for astro work, then a Sigma DP-1M, possibly also a DP-2M for landscapes.

Or maybe Sony A7r or Nikon D800 for both astro and landscape?

Both are not as good as the Sigma for landscape, and from many example photographs I've seen it seems like the Canon cameras are better for astro work.

Both are better than any Sigma for landscape. Neither has AA-filter by the way (well, D800E doesn't, or the Sony). Both alias, just like you like it. Both are better for astro than Sigma. Or are you saying that 15Mp Sigma aliased image is better than 36Mp full frame aliased image when the Sigma has much lower SNR, more noise, inaccurate colours, limited processing support, lower image magnification need,...

Do you seriously think you're being objective?

Besides, lets say you do want to use them for landscape - what lens could you put on them that would work as well as the DP-1M lens?

Lot's of them work just as well or even better. And have a few more focal lengths.

There is nothing that performs as well in even the Nikon mount, the fact that both cameras are full-frame makes that an even harder task.

The Sony takes Leicas lenses if you like. Also the new Voigtländer 21mm is stunning.

The Nikon 14-24 is not exactly bad either.

And neither is locked to one focal lenght.

Also personally I think full-frame cameras are nice for portrait and other close scenes, but if you are trying to shoot a lot of stuff with a high DOF then a crop sensor camera really helps you out

Nonsense. The small sensor does not offer ANY DOF anvantage. Dof is a function of field of view, aperture (entrance pupil diameter, not the aperture number) and focus distance. If you use a 30mm lens on APS-C at f/4, you'll get an identical FOV and DOF on full frame with 45mm and f/6.

. Since there are no other crop sensor cameras with level of detail equal to the D800e, you are left looking at the Sigma cameras for landscape.

<....>

[MOD: edited to remove flamebait]

-- hide signature --

Copyright © Jay Ell

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow