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

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,752
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 9 months ago

Basalite wrote:

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

I refer you to any textbook on human vision.

Humans can't see chroma detail as well as luma detail. This is a fact.

You can pretend that's not the case, but you would be incorrect in doing so.

As I said, you can blur the colour (and by quite a bit too) before it's even noticeable.

For like the third time now, find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

Aside from being pure rubbish, let's assume for the moment it's true.

You're claiming (or "you are" for those who failed English) that a new camera can outperform one that's several years old. Aside from being an invalid comparison, it's not a particularly impressive feat.

Entry level SLRs are now 24MP and for less money than Sigma's offerings.

But the bigger problem is you are moving the goalposts, as usual. The issue is not whether another camera can match the Sigma, but whether humans can see chroma detail as well as luma. They cannot.

It's also not 'almost as good' by any rational comparison (i.e., objective measurements).

People that are knowledgeable, and more importantly, objective, know better.

People who are knowledgeable and objective and especially those who have even just a basic understanding of signal theory know when something is not physically possible and can't help but laugh at those who insist it's true. They also know that the results are largely aliasing and sharpening.

Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

I have no personal bias against you or anyone else.

Please. I can quote you many times showing otherwise.

Then you have delusions.

I do, however, have a problem with gushing fanboism, contradicting statements and factually incorrect information.

And yet every review I have read on the Sigmas contradicts you and every other anti-Sigma person in this, and the previous thread. Why is that? Are they seeing false detail too?

Aliasing is a given with an input signal at or near Nyquist and certainly above Nyquist, particularly when there's no anti-alias filter to band-limit it. It's unavoidable.

That means what they're seeing is false detail that wasn't in the original scene. They might like that effect (some do) and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but the camera is not accurately resolving real detail.

Adding to that, Sigma's software sharpens by quite a bit, even when set to 0. That means that the comparisons are invariably between images with different amounts of sharpening. Guess what happens when you compare an image with a lot of sharpening with one that has little to no sharpening.

Nevertheless, cameras with high ISO outsell Sigma, so obviously many people do want it.

What does that have to do with many other people being happy with their Sigmas?

This isn't about whether someone is happy with their Sigmas. If someone is happy, that's great.

It's when people claim the impossible that's a problem.

And the fact that Sigma has under 1% market share is evidence that a lot more people are happier with something other than Sigma.

Can a mosaic camera resolve 15MP of detail with the right target and algorithm? It seems that 15MP is a max theoretical resolution not a guarantee.

I have no idea what you are talking about and how that relates to anything I have said.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is.

What was wrong with using you are instead of you're if they are the same thing? What does that have to do with the topic? What is wrong with you?

If they're (they are) the same thing, then it doesn't (does not) matter which one I use.

But what's (what is) really bizarre is that you're (you are) actually complaining that I wrote you're instead of you are.

If using a contraction has confused you, then how in the world can you understand technical topics such as Bayer or Foveon?

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