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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,613
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

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.

And yet *every* review will tell you otherwise.

Nope, not every review.

You're claiming (or "you are" for those who failed English)

Nothing wrong with you are in place of you're since they mean the same thing.

Then why did you criticize my use of you're versus you are and why are you making a big deal out of it?

That's the second time now. People that resort to grammar and spelling corrections are showing themselves to be on shaky ground.

Says the person who is doing just that. Hilarious.

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.

What camera did I compare the Sigmas to that is "several years old?" Choose any current Bayer 15MP, or so, camera.

15 megapixel Bayer cameras started appearing around 2008, thus by insisting it be compared to another 15 megapixel camera, you are saying "pick something obsolete and old." Technology moves very fast and 5 years is a very long time for products.

What matters is how it fares against other cameras that are available today, not what came out 5 years ago, and the answer is not very well. Entry level SLRs are 24 megapixels, and it goes up from there.

But since you're so convinced, why don't you provide two images, one taken with a Sigma camera and the other with a new 24 MP camera (which you said it would also outresolve), taken of the same subject in the same conditions with the same processing (including the same levels of sharpening). Unless you normalize all of the other variables, you can't attribute any difference to the sensor. Even something as simple as a focus error could make a difference.

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

That don't come with an exceptional prime lens or an exceptional sensor that out-resolves any 24MP camera. The reviews say the same thing.

Do you not know what an SLR is? SLRs come with any lens you want, or just the body if you already have lenses.

Many of them are much better than anything Sigma offers, plus there is a much greater selection of lenses and accessories than with Sigma and you aren't limited to just one lens either. You can have as many lenses as you want (and can afford).

But the bigger problem is you are moving the goalposts, as usual.

"As usual?" Grammar corrections and now characterizations.

What "goalposts" have I moved?"

Read the relevant posts. It was about human vision and then you changed it to 15 megapixel cameras.

And I'm not the one correcting anyone's grammar. That would be you.

The issue is not whether another camera can match the Sigma, but whether humans can see chroma detail as well as luma. They cannot.

So what is every reviewer seeing when they describe Sigma's exceptional detail? Are they imagining it? Is it a conspiracy?

They certainly aren't seeing additional chroma detail.

They can't, unless they're aliens with different visual abilities than humans, in which case that would be much bigger news than whatever these aliens wrote in their reviews.

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.

So you know better than all those professional reviewers out there?

What I know is that some things are not possible and no amount of wishful thinking or fanboism is going to change that.

Just look at the resolution charts. The Sigma cameras are riddled with aliasing. That's not resolving. An example of that was posted already.

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.

You mean like the same "delusions" all those reviewers have when they see something that you supposedly can't?

No. Your delusions are very different.

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.

So you are in effect saying you know better than all those professional reviewers out there that say the Sigmas are resolving much better than Bayer sensor detail. That's quite a claim. And you say I have "delusions?"

There is always an upper limit to what a sensor can resolve.

If the reviewers think that Sigma managed to get around that limit, then they ought to be talking to MIT or UC Berkeley about their findings rather than writing camera reviews.

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

It would also be fair to say that most people have no idea what the Sigmas can do. You've certainly proved that.

What's fair to say is that some Sigma users are raging lunatics who think the camera is a magical device that can trump the laws of physics and do the impossible.

It's not unlike audiophiles who insist that merely by using a different speaker cable, the sound is 'warmer' or 'fuller' and they can now hear instruments they never heard before. If you tell them that the very same wire can be bought at a hardware store for a tiny fraction of the price and whatever they think they're hearing is all in their head, they get all bent out of shape. Show them that the electrical properties of the wire are identical and they get really mad.

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