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

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
Aaron801
Contributing MemberPosts: 652
Like?
My take... as if you need yet another opinion
In reply to TRIODEROB, 8 months ago

I see these Sigma cameras as being a pretty odd concept... and that's really OK as I think that it's great that we live in a world where there are so many choices for things like cameras. In this way everyone can find a tool that works best for their own individual style.

Thant being said though it seems to me that these cameras lack a lot of features/attributes that are what make cameras attractive for many/most of us. Fixed lens on a really large body, not too much in the way of features (like an articulating LCD), no viewfinder, low performance in higher ISO... and yet the images really are amazing. I get that it isn't just resolution that gives an image detail, otherwise there'd be serious photographers lined up to buy that cell phone that take 40 megapixel photos, right? Forget about the megapixel number, the photos displayed taken with these Sigma cameras really ARE incredibly sharp. There's a lot of detail that most other cameras are going to miss... I'm certainly not as knowledgeable about gear as lots of other folks on here, but yet this fact seems obvious to me. I've looked at images from enough other cameras to know that there are few that capture this level of detail.

As far as the limitations that this camera has in ISO performance... I guess that I can understand that if the design results in something that takes images with this level of detail, then you're limited to using a tripod for an awful lot of the work, understanding that this is the sort of working method for which this camera is designed for (like and old-school view camera, right?). Still, I don't exactly agree that the folks who like to shoot clear photographs with high ISO settings are somehow "inexperienced photographers who don't understand history and film." For a lot of us, photography is as much about capturing a moment and capturing a certain quality of light as it is about capturing lots of detail. Sure, lots of film photographers shot with very low speed film, but if they had access to much higher speed film that was still really capable of lots of detail, they might have used that stuff... and the work might have been different. Capturing a quality of light is much different than just brining you're own so that "learning how to properly use a flash" doesn't quite apply here. I'm old enough that I do remember an age where lots of photographers where shooting super-low ISO film, Ectachrome, Kodachrome and such... and for the most part I'm not really too nostalgic about that as I remember buying photo mags and seeing so much work that seemed to so much about detail and accurate color and so little about anything else... Give me grainy photos that have some verve to them rather than static ones that allow folks bragging rights on their gear and technique! That being said, I think that there's the possibility to do great work with all kids of different kids of emphasis and with that in mind I know that there's some really thoughtful work that has lots of detail (maybe partly BECAUSE of the detail), it's just that so much work in this category to my mind is pretty uninspired.

Finally, though I certainly realize that these Sigma cameras are niche items (the very definition of), the fact that they don't have interchangeable lenses is the oddest and most problematic aspect to my way of thinking... Sure they're, bulky, odd sized, not loaded with features that other cameras have, poor low light performance, have to use a tripod... but no interchangeable lenses? I read about how they felt like the fact that there's no lens mount gives an addition level of sharpness in that the lens lines up to the body that much more perfectly... but how much? Would there really enough of a difference to tell? Even if they made the system with only three lenses, the ones that they already offer fixed to the cameras, that would start to make the thing seem that much more useful. I do understand the appeal of fixed lens cameras like the X100 in that they are pretty versatile in every other way than multiple focal lengths not to mention that they're very, very portable. I see far less good reason for expecting this limitation on a camera like the Sigma.

Still... if you're looking for a camera with the max level of detail, shoot with a tripod and like to use the very same focal length for all of your shots (and there's nothing wrong with that in my book, limitations ca be OK) and aren't going to spend tens of thousands for a digital medium format camera, then I can certainly see the appeal of something like this. Too limiting for me to ever think about buying one (I'm not that obsessed with detail either), but it certainly is intriguing and if I could borrow one for a weekend trip I certainly would and I'd try to exploit all of that fabulous image quality...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,278Gear list
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

6000X4000? You'll need a 36MP or higher camera.

There are two forms of "resolution" used in digital photography.

No, actually Basalite, there are not, any more than there are two or three forms of specified resolution for your 720p vs 1080p vs 4K computer monitor or TV or Bluray vs DVD.  Pixels is pixels, period.  If you had Photoshop, you could zoom to the pixel grid and view each individual pixel and count all the way from one side of the picture to the other.  The finer you chop up the analogue input, the better.  More pixels equals higher resolution, period.  Everyone except you seems to know that.  If you're trying to tell us that 4000 pixels can ever somehow magically formulate a more detailed picture than 6000, you have drunk deep of the wrong KoolAid.

In the past, you even claimed the Sigma could outresolve the D800, but I see you have backpedalled on that.  Baby steps.

The first one simply defines the size of the image (pixel dimensions) recorded by a particular sensor, which is inexplicably the only one you mentioned.

The most important "resolution" is how much *actual detail* a sensor can discern and record within those pixel dimensions. Since current Foveon sensors record all three colors at each pixel, at least at low ISOs, and since they do not use a blur filter, they record far more detail than an equivalent, and beyond, *megapixel* sensor.

If that were even slightly true, as per every professional review rating the Sigma at about 16-18MP as opposed to rabid Sigma fanboy internet floop, the end result would be a jpg you could actually post which had higher resolution and better detail than the newer high res cameras.  But you can produce no such picture, because it can't physically exist.

The consensus by those who know such things is that it takes a doubling, or so, of Bayer pixel dimensions to match an equivalent level of Foveon pixel dimensions. In other words a 30MP, or so, Bayer sensor of high quality that does not use a blur filter. This shouldn't be surprising since much of the image data with a Bayer sensor is simply interpolated. Most of those sensors also use a blur filter, something the Foveon does not need or use.

You're out of date.  Not any more.

So, no, there is no 24MP camera, APS or 35mm sized sensor, than can record as much detail as the Foveon sensor at around 15MP. It's very easy to test and see. I suggest you look into that.

There is as well a lot of grainy noise, some of which has to be down to oversharpening.

You must be used to the typically soft, low resolution images you see with Bayer sensors that have their resolution ruined by excessive noise reduction and a blur filter. Perhaps you are even a jpg shooter.

Your bridge picture is noisy, period.  The overetched outlines around the bridge and buildings are nothing to write home about either, also the result of overzealous processing.  The noise is a very significant detriment for your pic or any other landscape photo.  You tried to crank up the sharpness to impress us and to make the Sigma appear sharper than what it actually can produce given the number of pixels available and paid the price in crud.

As to blur filter, once again, you need to catch up.  You'll be looking at the individual, unblurred pixels with the new stuff.

It looks more like ISO 1600 on an APSC camera. In any event, it is not what I would call a relaxed presentation of fine detail.

Good luck getting such detail with a Bayer sensor camera that is not the D800e or medium format.

It's as easy as pie with a D5300 at a very reasonable price with far better results in every department.  Anyone who would choose this cheap piece of junk Sigma camera over say, the Sony a6000 would have to have rocks in their head.

There are maybe 18 or 20 "perceptual" MP worth of apparent "sharpness" owing to the high degree of microcontrast, which is standing in for actual resolution.

That's ridiculous. I suggest you go learn how the Foveon sensor works.

I don't need the technical hooha, thanks anyway.

I can certainly understand the appeal of a fairly high res camera in such a compact package, but how limited do we really want to be for ISO, lens selection and overall camera performance?

Maybe you are young and inexperienced if you can't appreciate the fact that most film photography was done at the low ISOs the Sigmas excel at.

Once again, you're as wrong as wrong gets.  Don't you ever tire of that, perchance?  Well over fifty years shooting everything from a Brownie to 4X5 and all film sizes in between. And yes, I now own a D800e and some nice lenses, because I'm dedicated enough to true high res photography and don't mind carrying the weight or paying the money.  It's a lot lighter and cheaper (and better) than 4X5, that's for sure.

Lens selections? One could buy all three cameras and have world class leading primes in three small bodies. You never heard of photographers using prime lenses? They are the kind of people that actually understand what resolution means.

Great.  Three cameras where one with say a SIGMA zoom would do better.

Enjoy your Sigma, there are one or two worse cameras, but stop with the B.S. claims already, you're making a spectacle of yourself.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,091
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 8 months ago

all I know is that the foevon sensor has the look i like

double click my image to see the detail - view at 100 % and pan around

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,278Gear list
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 8 months ago

Well, liking the way a particular camera renders is all well and good.  I've got no problem with that, any more than I have an issue with triode vs. pentode :^)  The pic you posted is fine, and I appreciate the full size jpg. It has about the same degree of res as a very good 16MP file, maybe a touch better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,321Gear list
Like?
If the Dynamic range is much better, I think he could be right.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 8 months ago

Currently, the sigma's have it all in low ISO. If the scen is not too demanding they are already near MF. But for landscapes, Dynamic Range is very important. The DP2m etc are a let down here.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,091
Like?
Re: If the Dynamic range is much better, I think he could be right.
In reply to Jorginho, 8 months ago

yes - I agree - the dynamic range could use improvement.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Contributing MemberPosts: 652
Like?
Re: If the Dynamic range is much better, I think he could be right.
In reply to Jorginho, 8 months ago

Jorginho wrote:

Currently, the sigma's have it all in low ISO. If the scen is not too demanding they are already near MF. But for landscapes, Dynamic Range is very important. The DP2m etc are a let down here.

Well... if you're all about "slow photography" (with low ISOs and using a tripod) then you could do some nice HDR kind of shots, if you wanted higher dynamic range, right? There's no rule that says that you need to process then to look all cartoony and "hyperreal" like so much of that HDR stuff (which I thought was much cooler when I first discovered it and now looks like a garish cliche!).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,830
Like?
Re: Lets hope Sigma have made a big leap forward!
In reply to Sonyshine, 8 months ago

Sonyshine wrote:

We shall see - I have often been tempted to get a Sigma camera but the negatives ( especially RAW software) have always out weighed the positives.

I would be very tempted by this new camera if they have fixed many of the disadvantages of their cameras and kept their stunning IQ - even if high ISO is none too clever.

That's the big question for me, they seem to have changed the sensor layout towards something rather more conventional involving more interpolation. One 20 MP layer for luminescence and two 5 MP layers for colours rather than triple 15 MP layers.

Personally I think if Sigma are really going to make money from this tech on the scape they do from lenses then they probably need to sell sensors to someone else. That would solve alot of their handling issues more likely which are probably mostly down to a lack of investment. It would also mean that even if the camera is designed for base ISO performance it would still have a market, people could own a conventional body plus a Sigma sensor body and use the same lenses on both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Ritchie
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,779
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to D Cox, 8 months ago

I think you may also be missing a key point - or at least choosing to leave it out of the discussion. The Bayer sensor in your example does, in fact, have more resolution in the luminance channel, because it has more sensel locations, or physical 2-dimensional sampling points. It is true that each of these is filtered detect primarily one color, but the different colors can all contribute  a similar resolution in luminance. The Bayer sensor has more locations devoted to green than blue or red because that's the way human vision works - it's roughly twice as sensitive to green.

The 16 MP Foveon sensor in your example has fewer sensel locations, but more information about color at each location - potentially allowing it to have more accurate color. But more accurate color at fewer physical locations does not equate directly to higher resolution in the X-Y plane. The Sigma marketing mantra that the sensor is "48 megapixels" is misleading, since although there are three "pixels" at each physical sampling location, but these "pixels" are also not of equal quality, because they are located at different depths in the chip and have different levels of noise and color shift.

What it amounts to is that a 24 "MP" Bayer sensor has higher luminance resolution than a 16 "MP" Foveon, and lower color resolution. I think of the Bayer sensor design as being somewhat like conventional color television design, where a higher resolution black and white image is essentially "colorized" by a much lower resolution wash of color.

I don't think you can exactly compare the resolutions of a 24 MP Bayer and and a 16 MP Foveon by any known analytical technique, because not only are their "pixels" are not the same, but neither samples all three color channels with equal resolution at each physical location. You end up making comparisons of "perceived resolution," or something of the sort, and it's made more "apples and oranges" by the fact that most comparisons are of images processed by totally different software packages, so that it becomes difficult to separate the inherent capabilities of the sensor from the ingenuity of the algorithms used to render raw sensor data into final images. And of course, it's pretty rare to find a Foveon image compared to the exact same image shot on a Bayer camera, as well.

It would be interesting to see some 16 MP Foveon images in black and white compared to the same images shot with a 16 MP Bayer sensor with no AA filter. I suspect the two would look much more similar than most of the color comparisons we see in these debates.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to Ray Ritchie, 8 months ago

How hard would it be to visually compare an A3 print from various sensors, disregarding the megapixels they tout? The winner is the one that looks and feels best to the human eye or eyes of a jury panel.

no? yes?

 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: what I've learned from this thread
In reply to TRIODEROB, 8 months ago
 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
What gimmick is this?
In reply to TRIODEROB, 8 months ago

ISO rating is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light (courtesy wikipedia).

That said, if Foveon sensor is able to capture more details at low ISO, which in turn means it is more sensitive to light coming through, is it really LOW ISO ? or is it merely fooling around with methods of measurement?

 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Ritchie
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,779
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to enemjii, 8 months ago

I think it's actually quite difficult. First of all, you can't truly disregard the megapixel count entirely, because a 36 MP Bayer is clearly going to win over a 4.7 MP Foveon, and a 16 MP Foveon is more than likely going to win over a 16 MP Bayer. And it's certainly possible to pick subject material that favors one technology or the other. And finally, the test needs to be done by someone with expertise in subjective testing and without an axe to grind - and that seems especially hard.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to Ray Ritchie, 8 months ago

Ray Ritchie wrote:

I think it's actually quite difficult. First of all, you can't truly disregard the megapixel count entirely, because a 36 MP Bayer is clearly going to win over a 4.7 MP Foveon, and a 16 MP Foveon is more than likely going to win over a 16 MP Bayer. And it's certainly possible to pick subject material that favors one technology or the other. And finally, the test needs to be done by someone with expertise in subjective testing and without an axe to grind - and that seems especially hard.

-- hide signature --

Respectfully, I disagree that we cannot disregard megapixel count. That is for the bean counters who need key metrics to define success. A warm and fuzzy opinion does not cut it for them.

It is possible, and I would really appreciate if somebody who owns Sigma and other Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji brands to provide a side by side comparison.

 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,364Gear list
Like?
Re: High ISO is for dunderheads who simply don't know how to use a camera
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Basalite wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Most photographers obsessed with high ISO are young and inexperienced.

Do old and experienced photographers only take photos of dead people?

You're showing your inexperience.

You got me. I am inexperienced at having one, and only one, option for getting quality pictures of people in low light. I have never been so constrained in all my time shooting with Nikon DSLRs (since 2009). Certainly, since purchasing a D3S about a year and half ago, I have never felt I didn't have at least a chance of getting a decent shot in any available light situation, moving subject or not.

Not everyone has such a requirement.

How is this a defense of your comments above? Are you saying that most of those young (and old) photographers obsessed with high ISO do not have the requirement of shooting humans in low light? I'd beg to differ.

Have you also heard if a thing called a tripod?

What does a tripod do for moving subjects? Even with a subject who is posing and trying to stay still, how much sharpness are you losing due to that person's small movements during your long exposure at lowish ISO? How many shots are you missing while you perfectly frame things with your tripod and prime lens? How contrived are all of your photos where you must tell everyone to freeze for 15-30 seconds (at least) while you frame and shoot?

If you may, please fill me in on how depressing it used to be when the only option you had was flash.

Not "depressing" at all. Great photographs at low ISOs were being produced long before you were born. Photography didn't with the digital age.

I am aware of that. I shot ISO 400 black & white film in college for a semester. I thought I got some pretty decent images and saw many more at that time that far exceeded my own. I didn't bother trying to shoot moving subjects indoors though. And a great part of every criticism of the original professional digital cameras came down to lack of quality at high ISO (worse than the high speed films of that time).

Considering that you've constrained yourself as such for this long, you must have TONS of experience with this.

I do, and its reflected in much better quality photographs.

And a distinct lack of live subjects in ambient lower light.

Just to be clear, I have plenty of experience using flash in low light situations either as a main light or fill light with low to medium ISO settings respectively, on and off camera, with and without modifiers, but I have never been so limited as you have as always been where high ISO shooting was not an option.

That you feel I am "so limited" only shows that your experience level in photography is not very high.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that the majority of the photography I do tends to be of people indoors. For those few landscape only shooters who lock their cameras in at base ISO, you might not seem limited. To me, you are, and it has nothing to do with experience as much as you want to keep throwing that term around.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,364Gear list
Like?
Re: What gimmick is this?
In reply to enemjii, 8 months ago

enemjii wrote:

ISO rating is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light (courtesy wikipedia).

That said, if Foveon sensor is able to capture more details at low ISO, which in turn means it is more sensitive to light coming through, is it really LOW ISO ? or is it merely fooling around with methods of measurement?

Digital camera "ISO" is not the same as film speed ISO. From the "Film Speed" Wiki page:

"For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure."

Notice the lack of the word "sensitivity." Your digital camera sensor does not capture light any differently at low ISO settings than it does at high ISO settings. The captured data is processed differently, though.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: What gimmick is this?
In reply to joejack951, 8 months ago

joejack951 wrote:

enemjii wrote:

ISO rating is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light (courtesy wikipedia).

That said, if Foveon sensor is able to capture more details at low ISO, which in turn means it is more sensitive to light coming through, is it really LOW ISO ? or is it merely fooling around with methods of measurement?

Digital camera "ISO" is not the same as film speed ISO. From the "Film Speed" Wiki page:

"For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure."

Notice the lack of the word "sensitivity." Your digital camera sensor does not capture light any differently at low ISO settings than it does at high ISO settings. The captured data is processed differently, though.

Yup. Which is why I used the word "GIMMICK". This is truly a world class gimmick pulled off by the digital camera world.

 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enemjii
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
compared to others
In reply to enemjii, 8 months ago

enemjii wrote:

Ray Ritchie wrote:

I think it's actually quite difficult. First of all, you can't truly disregard the megapixel count entirely, because a 36 MP Bayer is clearly going to win over a 4.7 MP Foveon, and a 16 MP Foveon is more than likely going to win over a 16 MP Bayer. And it's certainly possible to pick subject material that favors one technology or the other. And finally, the test needs to be done by someone with expertise in subjective testing and without an axe to grind - and that seems especially hard.

-- hide signature --

Respectfully, I disagree that we cannot disregard megapixel count. That is for the bean counters who need key metrics to define success. A warm and fuzzy opinion does not cut it for them.

It is possible, and I would really appreciate if somebody who owns Sigma and other Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji brands to provide a side by side comparison.

Search and ye shall receive.

Here is one such person. this is a foveon DP2 sensor compared to a FF Sony A850. Can you say which is which without looking up the original article?

One more

 enemjii's gear list:enemjii's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,278Gear list
Like?
Re: At low or high ISO, there are quite a few.
In reply to Ray Ritchie, 8 months ago
 it's pretty rare to find a Foveon image compared to the exact same image shot on a Bayer camera, as well.

It would be interesting to see some 16 MP Foveon images in black and white compared to the same images shot with a 16 MP Bayer sensor with no AA filter. I suspect the two would look much more similar than most of the color comparisons we see in these debates.

This is a good post, Ray, but I've always found the Imaging Resource raws to be where the theorizing stops and image quality gets down to brass tacks.

I would recommend to anyone wanting to demystify the tech to take the time to go to the Imaging Resource website, download some raws and make up your own mind which files look better deep down in the boiler room.  I will say that the unfiltered D7100 pixels look a bit less nervous than those from the the SD1. The excessive contrast and odd (incorrect) color balance of the SD1 don't really make me want to warm up to it either.  Blame it on Silkypix if you wish.

LR5, D7100 Camera Standard, defaults.

The "P" in Proportional Scale" is represented by 19 pixels in height by the D7100, 15 pixels by the SD1. There isn't any appreciable difference in the quality of the pixels that I can see zoomed in to the grid in Photoshop, regardless of the technology used to produce them. The faded "slop" pixels around the text equal 1/16th of the "O" using the SD1, 1/20th of the total width on the 7100.

Imaging Resource still life SD 1

D7100

SD 1

D7100

No color tweaking

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,278Gear list
Like?
Re: compared to others
In reply to enemjii, 8 months ago

Without even zooming, I can tell the Sony is on the right.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads