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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,694
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to Aaron801, 10 months ago

Aaron801 wrote:

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.

.

.

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.

.

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. 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.

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?

.

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, 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?

.

.

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 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?

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

Hmmm... you seem really intent on showing how silly Basalite is for using the gear that he chooses to use. I asked my initial question not to try to get the man to admit that he's an idiot for going the way that he has with his gear, but because I was genuinely curious about his unconventional choices.

No, Basalite already showed how silly he can be but I wasn't in any way trying to show that his choice of cameras was silly. If you look back in what you quoted, you'll see that Basalit wrote

>> Simple, I value the best image quality.

and I replied with

> But that comes with a price.

That doesn't make anyone look silly and it's a perfectly reasonable reply. There are many prices to be paid for Sigma's image quality, and some of them (such as higher ISO performance) result in greatly reduced image quality.

.

Obviously they are pretty limiting and surely not the kind of setup that I'd every see myself going with

So here you're agreeing with my point. Thank you.

.

, but I can understand that for a certain kind of photography, these instruments work very well.

Yes they do, and I didn't say that they don't, but I also added that for some of the same types of photography (landscape photography, not fixed lens photography), some landscape photographers can only get some particular shots if they use a long focal length lens because to get the same perspective with a Sigma, the image would have to be cropped well beyond the point of poor image quality. That's not saying that a Sigma camera can't take great landscape photos, just that it reduces the number of great landscape photos that can be taken because of the camera's design.

.

Limitations aren't really an issue if you can work within them and if you can, in the case of these Sigma cameras, it seems that you can get some great really IQ.

Of course, but I haven't disputed that, have I?

.

There's no reason to get into some kind of battle about who's been doing photography longer than the other. Suffice to say that both of you have been doing it for long enough to know what you like and that should really be the end of the story.

You're right again, but you're leaving out an important point. Who introduced the seeming importance of photographic experience? That's easy. It was the guy that wrote

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

Was it unreasonable to reply "Welcome to photography, newbie." ? I could have said that I was using my Nikon F back in 1962 and that I had shot with lesser cameras for several years before 1962 (my old Kodak Hawkeye and my father's Argus) and developed and printed my Nikon F photos. But I chose to take a more lighthearted approach than to engage in a "camera experience" pi$$ing match so I didn't get into details of my experience.

.

Getting the lowdown about a person's choice of gear and working method is interesting and perhaps even educational, witnessing an argument about who might be more knowledgeable about what really isn't...

Then why did you address your reply to me and not to Basalite? The way he then continued his personal vendetta against others from the previous thread said much about his agenda too, don't you think?

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)
(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