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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
"But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
10 months ago

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.

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.

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.

photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
More of the same...
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

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.

.

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. 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.

.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to photoreddi, 10 months ago

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

.

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?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,567
Like?
Stop squabbling like children (nt)
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago
No text.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Re: Stop squabbling like children (nt)
In reply to darklamp, 10 months ago

Starting another thread to continue the agenda driven purpose of the previous thread that maxed out was the first childish act. Addressing it to someone in an aggressive manner (and that someone in this case was me) has often resulted in moderation such as deleting/locking the thread or worse.

Concluding the OP with "I am not a child that doesn't know what he wants." says it all. Starting this thread was an unwise and (ironically) a childish act.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: "But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

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.

First off, you are just you, not "us." Others in this discussion can think and speak for themselves.

Oxford definition of resolution: "the degree of detail *visible* in a photographic or television image."

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

You are lying. I said the finest detail, *for the level of resolution recorded,* will be finer since the Foveon does not interpolate image data. Feel free to quote me.

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,

Oxford definition of resolution: "the degree of detail *visible* in a photographic or television image."

as per every professional review rating the Sigma at about 16-18MP as opposed to rabid Sigma fanboy internet floop,

LOL, what review has rated the Sigmas at "about 16-18P?" I thought you also said that resolution boils down to "pixels is pixels, period?"

the end result would be a jpg you could actually post which had higher resolution and better detail than the newer high res cameras.

I never claimed the Sigmas have "higher resolution" than say the D800s or the new Sony equivalent. I did say *for the amount of resolution the Sigma is capable of* *the finest detail* will be superior since the Foveon doesn't interpolate image data, something a Bayer sensor does.

That said, it is clear that the Sigmas deliver higher resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, and in this case not just at the finest detail for their given resolution (megapixels), than any 24MP camera on the market, APS or 35mm sized sensor, further supporting the widely accepted claim that the current Foveon sensor is delivering resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, at around the same resolution a 30MP Bayer sensor would, if one existed.

But you can produce no such picture, because it can't physically exist.

LOL. There are plenty of Foveon sensors online for you to sample. I have posted a couple.

I would work on understanding what the meaning of resolution is, first.

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.

Negative. The vast majority of Bayer sensor cameras still use a blur filter.

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.

  • It's not my picture.
  • There will be a bit more noise noticeable in such night shots.
  • No reasonable person and no knowledgeable photographer would consider that "significant" noise.
  • Number of pixels is just one measure of resolution. See the Oxford definition I provided, again.
  • Someone who prefers lower resolution, as per the Oxford definition, would likely see better detail as "crud."

As to blur filter, once again, you need to catch up.

No, as I said, the vast majority of Bayer sensor cameras still have blur filters.

You'll be looking at the individual, unblurred pixels with the new stuff.

I thought you said "pixels is pixels, period?"

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.

No, because you simply couldn't. I proved that to you and everyone else in a previous thread. You were in denial then and you still are.

Anyone who would choose this cheap piece of junk Sigma camera over say, the Sony a6000 would have to have rocks in their head.

Hyperbole, that you actually believe in, is a good indication of less than objective thinking.

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.

Sure, that makes sense. Why bother learning how something works before dismissing it? 

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 yet you, for some bizarre reason, have no grasp on the definition of resolution.

And yes, I now own a D800e and some nice lenses, because I'm dedicated enough to true high res photography

Bayer sensors interpolate most of their image data. How is that in accordance with "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.

A Sigma DP series camera costs a fraction of the price of a D800e and delivers resolution, as per the Oxford definition provided, that is almost as good. That's what really bothers you, doesn't it? You showed that in the previous Sigma thread.

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.

LOL. Find me an interchangeable lens camera with the same sensor *and a zoom lens that is as good as the lenses on each Sigma DP series camera at each of their focal lengths* and I'll buy them. You couldn't achieve that even with Sigmas own DSLR, the SD1. Why? Because no such lens exists.

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.

"BS claims?" That coming from some that says "I don't need the technical hooha, thanks anyway."

You're in deep denial and you have a bizarre obsession over trashing Sigma's cameras in other threads. You don't even have a basic grasp of what resolution is. I've concluded that your anti-Sigma/Foveon behavior has to do with simple photographic snobbery. It bothers you greatly that such a tiny camera at such a cheap price can come so close to the image quality of your D800e. You showed that in another thread.

One last thing before my final post to you. You know your D800e still works as I use my Sigmas, right?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
The _real_ squabbling.
In reply to darklamp, 10 months ago

Unfortunately, Basalite didn't heed your advice and with his latest post, confirmed what I wrote, continuing his agenda with an even more outrageous reply to Reilly Diefenbach.

You are lying.

...

You're in deep denial and you have a bizarre obsession over trashing Sigma's cameras in other threads. You don't even have a basic grasp of what resolution is. I've concluded that your anti-Sigma/Foveon behavior has to do with simple photographic snobbery. It bothers you greatly that such a tiny camera at such a cheap price can come so close to the image quality of your D800e.

...

One last thing before my final post to you...

Basalite's final post to Reilly should have remained in the previous thread. There seems to be only one person squabbling here. Let's see if his agenda has him take on someone else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to photoreddi, 10 months ago

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.

No, it's your problem because any objective and reasonable person that has been into photography for as long as you claim you have wouldn't be seemingly baffled at someone shooting in the ISO 100-400 range with prime lenses.

.

.

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.

Where have I said or suggested that "all Sigma owners" are only interested in shooting with their Sigma cameras? Many of us do just fine with just the Sigmas. For those of us that do, we obviously share "preferences. For someone that claims to be into photography for so long, that shouldn't be hard to understand.

.

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.

That's not relevant to what was still accomplished.

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.

The desire to shoot with such slow film was to get higher resolution images. That was the only way to maximize resolution, putting aside lens quality. That same reality exists with Sigma's cameras since those cameras provide the highest level of detail of any sensor made for a given area.

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?

What, a larger Foveon sensor?

Maybe you could provide the cash investment and engineering know-how to Sigma and turn that into a reality. In the meantime, we have by far the highest resolution sensors in small cameras with world class leading lenses that operate in the ISO 100-400 range that provide medium format film detail. I'm quite sure Ansel would have appreciated that. In fact, any reasonable and objective person who has been into photography as long as you claim would appreciate that.

.

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,

Read more carefully. I said "suggest."

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?

No reasonable, objective, rational and logical person would suspect I own my cameras for any other reasons than the *technical advantages I provided.* You can quote as many of my statements as you want and that will still be the case.

.

.

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 yet you felt the need to try and and convince me otherwise? For what purpose?

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?

What flew over my head? That you are illogically trying to convince me, and everyone else, that people can't be satisfied with Sigma cameras?

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

I warned you. Last post.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
A Reasonable Person Finds Another Thread To Read
In reply to darklamp, 10 months ago

darklamp wrote:

If the discussion bothers you then the only reasonable thing to do is go read another thread, where you can hopefully make on topic comments.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

...

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?

What flew over my head? That you are illogically trying to convince me, and everyone else, that people can't be satisfied with Sigma cameras?

No. Take another look.

I am not a child that doesn't know what he wants.

We can certainly agree on ONE thing. You know what you want.

.

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

I warned you. Last post.

Thank you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Stop squabbling like children (nt)
In reply to photoreddi, 10 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Starting another thread to continue the agenda driven purpose of the previous thread that maxed out was the first childish act. Addressing it to someone in an aggressive manner (and that someone in this case was me) has often resulted in moderation such as deleting/locking the thread or worse.

Nothing I said to you was "aggressive." You simply did not like reason, facts and common sense as a response to your post, one where you also suggested I was a "fanboy."

Concluding the OP with "I am not a child that doesn't know what he wants." says it all.

It was a perfectly valid response to you trying to convince someone that they really don't know what they want.

Starting this thread was an unwise

No, it was simply to continue the other thread, as is often done in forums. You don't get to decide what knowledge is interesting or valuable for other readers. The only reasonable thing for you to do at this point is to simply find another thread to read and post to. If you don't, then it will show hypocrisy and that your intentions are not honorable.

and (ironically) a childish act.

What is "childish" is using the term "fanboy." What is "childish" is trying to turn a discussion into a personal attack on someone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edispics
Senior MemberPosts: 1,671
Like?
Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

If anyone is wondering what the Quattro is and how it differs from previous Sigma Foveon attempts, here's a quick look. Reading through this initial attempt to describe what the heck a Quattro is quickly illustrates the Sigma jabberwocky surrounding the Sigma Foveons which makes it so hard to describe and makes it so easy to have endless arguments:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sigma-dp2-quattro/sigma-dp2-quattroA.HTM

Of course there will be those who take issue with the article itself, but others might find it interesting reading.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to edispics, 10 months ago

edispics wrote:

If anyone is wondering what the Quattro is and how it differs from previous Sigma Foveon attempts, here's a quick look. Reading through this initial attempt to describe what the heck a Quattro is quickly illustrates the Sigma jabberwocky surrounding the Sigma Foveons which makes it so hard to describe and makes it so easy to have endless arguments:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sigma-dp2-quattro/sigma-dp2-quattroA.HTM

Of course there will be those who take issue with the article itself, but others might find it interesting reading.

Thanks. Thom Hogan updated his take on the Quattro yesterday. It's also worth reading.

http://www.gearophile.com/newsviews/what-should-we-make-of.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to edispics, 10 months ago

edispics wrote:

If anyone is wondering what the Quattro is and how it differs from previous Sigma Foveon attempts, here's a quick look. Reading through this initial attempt to describe what the heck a Quattro is quickly illustrates the Sigma jabberwocky surrounding the Sigma Foveons which makes it so hard to describe and makes it so easy to have endless arguments:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sigma-dp2-quattro/sigma-dp2-quattroA.HTM

Of course there will be those who take issue with the article itself, but others might find it interesting reading.

I read the part on the sensor and it was well written and brings up the concern many current Sigma users have, that while the new sensor will produce an image with larger dimensions it will compromise the resolution of two of the three colors. I have my doubts that it will not be noticeable. If I am right, then the current Sigmas, with the current Foveon sensor, will see Sigma in a terrible situation where the outgoing cameras are more sought after then the replacements.

As for the way Sigma sums up the amount of pixels, it is in fact more accurate than the way Bayer sensors are summed up *if* you are considering resolution as it relates to actual image data being recorded. The fact that they have drastically reduced the sum from 44MP to 29MP shows they are being honest about it.

Is it fair to call a 15MP Bayer sensor camera 15MP when much of the color is interpolated? After all, the implication is that a higher MP sum will yield a higher resolution photo than something less. If that were true then a 15MP Bayer sensor camera should be able to get comparable image quality to a 15MP Foveon sensor. The only accuracy in the way Bayer MP are summed up is in how large the final image will be.

For the average consumer neither is helpful in the presence of the other.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edispics
Senior MemberPosts: 1,671
Like?
Thanks for the Hogan ref, interesting. n/t
In reply to photoreddi, 10 months ago
No text.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,389Gear list
Like?
But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

I don't deal in theories or flights of fantasy.  If it isn't in the pictures, it doesn't exist.

The statement has been made that the Sigma will outresolve a 24MP DSLR.  This is false.  Here is the DP1 losing out to the D7100.  The D7100 file is also 62% larger, which will allow a much smoother picture overall at any given size.

Imaging Resource Test shots

Moving on up to a very moderate ISO 800, a setting everyone would find essential for day to day photography we find this:

ISO 800  Imaging Resource

What is up with that?

As we approach the resolution limits of each camera, some very strange things start to happen with the Sigma.  Lines which should be in one place get moved to another, thickening and thinning willy nilly.  The D7100 is not immune either, but is altogether more coherent at maintaining an orderly taper:

DP1

D7100

This characteristic is in my view essential for relaxed, non-crunchy presentation of fine detail.

The AA filtered D7000 does not fare as well, clearly losing to the Sigma in terms of resolution at ISO 100:

DP1/ D7000

But at 24MP, the overwhelming number of pixels puts the D7100/D5300/K3 etc. well ahead of the Sigma in every way.  With these test chart results, we can pretty accurately place the Sigma where it belongs on the resolution totem pole: 18MP unfiltered with high microcontrast (too high, I would say) standing in for actual somewhat higher resolution.

No one should take my word for any of this.  Do your own research with the tools provided.  Just don't show us half-a$$ed snapshots and expect to be taken seriously.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

The continued rant from Sigma fans shows their desperation to defend their choice of a mediocre camera. It has it's novel sensor that has only one use. DPreview rates the SD1 as 71%, not a respectable showing. Flaws of the DP1 are listed clearly in the DPreview of the camera. All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that Sigma hasn't yet learned how to build a camera competitive with the other manufacturers.

Someday Sigma may build a decent camera, but today it's not a good choice for many photographers.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,389Gear list
Like?
Re: Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Greg A A, 10 months ago

Some of us may even recall the ill fated attempt by Sigma to charge nine thousand seven hundred dollars for a plastic pos "48MP" DSLR.  Nice!  Google "Sigma SD-1 original price" for a good belly laugh.

Now, that same camera is somewhere around $2100 and no doubt deservedly gathering dust on the shelves.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,101Gear list
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 10 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Is it fair to call a 15MP Bayer sensor camera 15MP when much of the color is interpolated?

Yes, because technically MP is not a measure of (color) image resolution.

After all, the implication is that a higher MP sum will yield a higher resolution photo than something less.

And for most cameras of a similar type in similar conditions this is approximately but not exactly true.  But if you compare a cell phone to a DSLR in dim light it will not be true.

If that were true then a 15MP Bayer sensor camera should be able to get comparable image quality to a 15MP Foveon sensor.

Note you are switching from "resolution" to "image quality" in this sentence.  Does a Foveon sensor have 15MP of "image quality" (or resolution) at ISO 3200 under tungsten light?  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.

For the average consumer neither is helpful in the presence of the other.

The average consumer has no interest in Foveon-based cameras so the exception is of mainly pedantic interest.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads