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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to gaussian blur, 10 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

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.

Feel free to post a quote and a link from any review that likens the 15MP Foveon to a 15MP Bayer. Good luck.

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?

LOL. Did I just step into the Twilight Zone? Are you freakin kidding me? First off, *you* are the one that brought up grammar correction and second, I never criticized your grammar. I couldn't care less whether you choose to use "you're or "you are." Quit your grammar nonsense already and stick to the topic.

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.

Good Lord. How am I correcting your grammar? I'm criticizing you for bringing up grammar corrections! You are the one that brought up grammar corrections and you are the only one making them! Get a grip on reality!

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.

That's bizarre reasoning. Are you suggesting that 15+/- MP sensors in *current* Bayer sensor cameras of today don't take advantage of any "technology" developed in the past "5 years?"

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.

LOL. There are *current* Bayer sensor cameras available "today" that are around 15MP. If you have to resort to 24MP Bayer sensor cameras to try to compete with the 15MP Foveon then it obviously proves that a 15MP Foevon sensor performs much better than a 15MP Bayer sensor.

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.

I have done this a number of times. I am not going to do it for someone who will obviously deny the results. If you were openminded and objective on the matter I would.

Anyone can download sample Sigma images and sample RAWs from any Bayer sensor camera and they can easily see the difference for themselves, and they don't have to be of the "same subject in the same conditions." If you think that then it shows you to not be a very experienced photographer.

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.

You said "entry level SLRs" are cheaper "than Sigma's offerings." Of course you can buy a prime lens for the SLR but then you'd have to figure in the cost of a 28mm prime, as in the case with the Sigma DP1M. Where's your SLR cost advantage now?

Then of course you don't have the Foveon sensor to go with your SLR.

Many of them are much better than anything Sigma offers,

See my previous comment.

plus there is a much greater selection of lenses and accessories than with Sigma

LOL. Who was talking about "accessories?" I don't need any "accessories" to go with my Sigmas.

Lenses? Soon I will have three prime lenses that just so happen to come with tiny camera bodies attached to them. I'll be good for 28-75mm. That's good enough for me.

and you aren't limited to just one lens either. You can have as many lenses as you want (and can afford).

I'm OK with the three I mentioned.

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.

Both are obviously related to resolution, or detail rendered, what was being discussed. It is what is always being discussed by Sigma users. It's why they buy such cameras in the first place. Perhaps you should read the title of this thread.

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

Good Lord. So who wrote all the nonsense below?

This was *the first grammar correction* made in our discussion: "You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else."

Then you followed up with this: "It's a good thing you checked. Now you know what a contraction is."

Then this: "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."

Those are you're words! Anyone can go back and confirm that. You are acting, and lying, like a thief that says the victim stole from him.

This now ranks as one of the more bizarre fabrications I have ever experienced in any forum. Mind boggling.

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.

What detail are they seeing? Surely they are experiencing dramatically more detail or they wouldn't mention it.

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.

Tell them that then. Perhaps you can give them a grammar lesson while you are at it?

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.

So are they all lying, like you are with your bizarre grammar accusation?

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

No, you are simply seeing well defined pixels, that are much blurrier in Bayer sensor cameras. The Foveon sensor is also not subject to color moire, as Bayer sensors are.

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.

This coming from someone who thinks I am the one that brought up grammar corrections and I am the one doing grammar corrections.

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.

So? What does that have to do with a 15MP Foveon clearly out-resolving a 15MP Bayer?

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.

So you know better than all those professional photographers and reviewers? Interesting.

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.

Hmm, "raging lunatics?" Well, I guess that's one way to go about trying to debate a topic. 

Wow.

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