"But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to photoreddi, 8 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Photoredi wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

I'm just curious about your choice of gear/emthodology. While it's true that there are certain advantages to going this multiple camera w/ fixed lens route, you have to admit that it's kind of an unusual choice

No more "unusual" than someone carry a DSLR, with a few prime lenses. It is even better since it is a smaller package.

and I'm wondering why (besides protecting the sensors from dust) you arrived at this unusual solution. I wonder what kind of photographs you take and why you feel that these sort of cameras offer an advantage for doing that sort of thing....?

Simple, I value the best image quality.

But that comes with a price.

I know now exactly what comes with using any particular camera and lens; I've been doing photography since the 70s.

Welcome to photography, newbie.

If by that you mean you have been doing photography longer, then your post makes even less sense.

Well yes, I've been "doing photography" much longer, but if my post therefore makes even less sense to you, then that's your problem, not mine.

No, it's your problem because any objective and reasonable person that has been into photography for as long as you claim you have wouldn't be seemingly baffled at someone shooting in the ISO 100-400 range with prime lenses.

.

.

I've known some advanced amateurs and pros that use longer lenses for their landscape photography, 200mm and even longer.

Good for them.

Long lenses are also much more useful for sports, and musical events where you can't get close to the athletes and performers.

Neither of which I do.

Good for you. I assume that other Sigma owners also own other cameras because they have wider photographic interests.

Why do you "assume" that? That's photographic snobbery.

Because it would be ridiculous if not stupid to think that all Sigma owners share your preferences and all of them only own and use Sigma cameras.

Where have I said or suggested that "all Sigma owners" are only interested in shooting with their Sigma cameras? Many of us do just fine with just the Sigmas. For those of us that do, we obviously share "preferences. For someone that claims to be into photography for so long, that shouldn't be hard to understand.

.

Photographers were shooting with prime lenses and low ISO film long before digital photography came along, and for far longer. I think they did just fine.

Yes, but then they couldn't use what wasn't available.

That's not relevant to what was still accomplished.

When I was shooting with my first high quality camera (a Nikon F), ASA 16 Kodachrome was still being sold, but at that time I mostly shot B&W and did my own developing and printing. Before that, photographers could buy and use ASA 8 and ASA 10 Kodachrome. Some of them still managed to do pretty well with those slow films, but they could have done much better with more modern camera gear.

The desire to shoot with such slow film was to get higher resolution images. That was the only way to maximize resolution, putting aside lens quality. That same reality exists with Sigma's cameras since those cameras provide the highest level of detail of any sensor made for a given area.

Ansel Adams also used Polaroid cameras so we know that he embraced new technology. He may not have used digital cameras, but had he lived far longer he almost certainly would have switched to MF digital or FF DSLRs from either Canon or Nikon, since they also make tilt/shift lenses that are extremely useful for landscape photography. No swings, but that could be done with a bellows. It's a shame that there's nothing like that available for your Sigma cameras, don't you think?

What, a larger Foveon sensor?

Maybe you could provide the cash investment and engineering know-how to Sigma and turn that into a reality. In the meantime, we have by far the highest resolution sensors in small cameras with world class leading lenses that operate in the ISO 100-400 range that provide medium format film detail. I'm quite sure Ansel would have appreciated that. In fact, any reasonable and objective person who has been into photography as long as you claim would appreciate that.

.

If Sigma didn't make cameras it's possible that you would have sought some other manufacturer's small, high quality, fixed focal length cameras, but from what I saw you post in the now filled thread, it's also possible that you're just a garden variety Sigma fanboy.

The only logical conclusion based on my posts in the other thread is that I value the image quality that such cameras and sensor provide. It wouldn't matter who makes the camera.

If you suggest that I'm a "fanboy" once again, you will not get a further reply. I'm not going to engage in a childish and insulting discussion.

I didn't say that you are one,

Read more carefully. I said "suggest."

just that it's possible, given the way you've replied in the other thread. Anyone is free to read it to see what I mean. Would you like some quotes?

No reasonable, objective, rational and logical person would suspect I own my cameras for any other reasons than the *technical advantages I provided.* You can quote as many of my statements as you want and that will still be the case.

.

.

You may say that you have no interest in that type of photography, but part of that may be due to knowing in advance that a DP# stands no chance and could only duplicate the perspective and composition of the images by cropping, and then the image quality would be far lower than what you'd get from a much less expensive P&S camera that could zoom 300mm, 500mm, even 1,000mm while producing pretty decent image quality. No, it wouldn't be "pro" quality, but the value of many photos doesn't depend on resolution alone.

If I were interested in doing other types of photography then I would buy the type of camera and lens that would allow me to do it. This is not rocket science. I am not a child that doesn't know what he wants.

We can certainly agree on one thing. You know what you want.

You couldn't see that before?

Oh yes, indeed I did.

But yet you felt the need to try and and convince me otherwise? For what purpose?

But there's something that you didn't see as it flew over your head. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain it to you, or would you prefer that I spell it out?

What flew over my head? That you are illogically trying to convince me, and everyone else, that people can't be satisfied with Sigma cameras?

I will acknowledge though that in the other thread, there was one fanboy supreme, and it wasn't you.

I warned you. Last post.

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