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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Greg A A
Contributing MemberPosts: 798
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Well presented. I took a look at your gallery and was impressed! If anyone questions D800E image quality, just checkout Reilly's gallery.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 7 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

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.

But higher color resolution equals more resolution, resolution in terms of detail. It's fair to say that when the average consumer hears that a camera has more resolution they are also thinking about more detail.

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.

To make it easier for you to follow and not deviate, lets at least keep the sensors similar in size.

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?

Since it is well known, even by the detractors and haters, that Sigma cameras are ISO 100-400 cameras it makes no sense for you to be talking about high ISO.

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.

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.

And why don't they?

-- hide signature --

Erik

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Reilly Dishonestly Compares JPG to RAW, Again
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

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.

LOL I had to respond to you one more time. You're exposing your bias and dishonesty in this matter. You are comparing a jpg from the Sigma to a RAW from the Nikon! I'll repeat that one more time. You are comparing *** a jpg*** from the Sigma to *** a RAW*** from the Nikon!

And you talk about being "taken seriously?"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Greg A A, 7 months ago

Greg A A wrote:

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.

Which it excels at. Why is that hard for you to understand?

DPreview rates the SD1 as 71%, not a respectable showing.

Because they are considering other things such as high ISO.

Flaws of the DP1 are listed clearly in the DPreview of the camera.

First off, DPReview has never reviewed a Sigma *DP* Merrill series camera. That said, any so-called "flaws" they have, have zero to do with them having the best image quality at low ISO.

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.

If Sigma wanted to be competitive with other cameras for the mass market it would also make Bayer sensor cameras. Obviously they are not. In the CEO's own words, he would be happy if sales were simply "stable."

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

Read again what you just wrote. You said "for many photographers." Now try and explain your previous comment where you said: "The continued rant from Sigma fans shows their desperation to defend their choice of a mediocre camera."

In your own words you are admitting for some photographers it is obviously not a "mediocre camera."

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Sigma cameras suck, regardless of the arguments of the fanboys
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

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.

Which has zero to do with the topic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

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.

all this is great - but I have used both and like the Sigma better

when printed out the Sigma has a nicer "look"

here are images that I took with the no AA filter 7100 Nikon - I took it back.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

i like this look (old foveon camera - now very cheap to buy )

more than this look (new 7100 nikon - no AA filter)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,058Gear list
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

But higher color resolution equals more resolution, resolution in terms of detail.

Only for certain subjects and it's not something the human eye is good at seeing. Either way, it's not measured in MP.

It's fair to say that when the average consumer hears that a camera has more resolution they are also thinking about more detail.

For the types of shots they actually take.

To make it easier for you to follow and not deviate, lets at least keep the sensors similar in size.

Why? If MP truly measures resolution, it should be independent of size.

Since it is well known, even by the detractors and haters, that Sigma cameras are ISO 100-400 cameras it makes no sense for you to be talking about high ISO.

Why is resolution only important at base ISO in daylight?

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.

That if MP is a measure of resolution, it's only a measure of a max potential resolution, not what you get for all targets and all conditions. If there exists a target where a mosaic sensor can hit that value, then the number is valid. We've already established there are real world shooting cases where an X3 sensor will not always get 15MP or even simply more than a mosaic 15MP.

And why don't they?

Because most of them want all-round cameras that perform well for shot-to-shot time, battery life, zoom, and both indoor and outdoor shooting. Or they want shooting/sharing convenience like a cell-phone camera.

-- 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
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

the above photos were taken with a camera that you can now buy used for $300

or 1/10 the cost of a D800

The new Sigma camera will be 2 generations past this - in another world.

they already were ahead years ago as this SD15 image shows - now they are light years past this:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: But at low ISO, etc.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

be sure to triple click to full size to see the insaine detail a foveon sensor can pick up:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 7 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Basalite wrote:

But higher color resolution equals more resolution, resolution in terms of detail.

Only for certain subjects

Nonsense. Any subject with any detail is affected.

and it's not something the human eye is good at seeing.

If you can see the recorded picture then you can see it. It's obviously visible in the Sigma images.

Either way, it's not measured in MP.

Obviously, that's my point.

It's fair to say that when the average consumer hears that a camera has more resolution they are also thinking about more detail.

For the types of shots they actually take.

LOL. What the heck do you think people are planning to do with their cameras?

To make it easier for you to follow and not deviate, lets at least keep the sensors similar in size.

Why? If MP truly measures resolution, it should be independent of size.

I never said it did. On the contrary.

Since it is well known, even by the detractors and haters, that Sigma cameras are ISO 100-400 cameras it makes no sense for you to be talking about high ISO.

Why is resolution only important at base ISO in daylight?

Sigh. Do you even know anything about the cameras being discussed?

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.

That if MP is a measure of resolution, it's only a measure of a max potential resolution, not what you get for all targets and all conditions. If there exists a target where a mosaic sensor can hit that value, then the number is valid. We've already established there are real world shooting cases where an X3 sensor will not always get 15MP or even simply more than a mosaic 15MP.

I never said "MP is a measure of resolution." Read more carefully what I write.

And why don't they?

Because most of them want all-round cameras that perform well for shot-to-shot time, battery life, zoom, and both indoor and outdoor shooting. Or they want shooting/sharing convenience like a cell-phone camera.

And for those that care more about the best image quality at low ISO then the Sigma cameras are for them. See how easy that is?

-- hide signature --

Erik

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,245Gear list
Like?
Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

The mere act of typing endless posts on an especially silly blog does not make one an expert or even worth the few seconds to scan the thickets of verbiage, the endless scrolling down and down through the interminable back and forth in different colors.  It simply makes you a person with far too much time on your hands. Not a single pic taken by your beloved little cameras with which to back up your wild assertions. Probably don't have any.  Where would you find the time?

This doesn't cut it.

Now, I'll cop to having fun spooling you up to near hysterical levels, but I grow tired of it, as one must with an overstimulated child. The whole sigma vs DSLR thing just isn't that interesting.  The votes are all in and Sigma lost. Absolutely no one wants a camera whose picture falls apart at ISO 400.

As to being taken seriously, I don't really mind one way or another, but apparently I am being taken seriously by a solid majority. You, on the other hand, not so much. You have no crops to compare (you can't find any because they don't exist,) nothing but exactly two Sigma snapshot pics posted without attribution from who knows where and a load of Sigma fanboy shaky techno gobbledegook to which we will assign the correct value: zero.

And raw or jpg, the D7100 rules the $1000 camera roost:

D7100/DP1

Onward and upwards, over and out!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

REILLY-

here is your image with a $3200 Nikon D800E camera

here is my $100 Sigma  2002 SD9

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,610
Like?
Re: Reilly Dishonestly Compares JPG to RAW, Again
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

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.

LOL I had to respond to you one more time. You're exposing your bias and dishonesty in this matter. You are comparing a jpg from the Sigma to a RAW from the Nikon! I'll repeat that one more time. You are comparing * a jpg*** from the Sigma to * a RAW* from the Nikon!**

And you talk about being "taken seriously?"

Raw versus jpeg won't make much of a difference. What he showed is that the Sigma image is full of aliasing artifacts (aka false detail). It's not resolving better than the Nikon (nor can it) and that isn't going to change if it was raw.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Reilly Admits to Trolling
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

The mere act of typing endless posts on an especially silly blog does not make one an expert or even worth the few seconds to scan the thickets of verbiage, the endless scrolling down and down through the interminable back and forth in different colors. It simply makes you a person with far too much time on your hands. Not a single pic taken by your beloved little cameras with which to back up your wild assertions. Probably don't have any. Where would you find the time?

This doesn't cut it.

What does my empty gallery have to do with anything in this thread, the previous thread, and your dishonest attempt to compare Sigma jps to RAW Nikons?

Now, I'll cop to having fun spooling you up to near hysterical levels, but I grow tired of it, as one must with an overstimulated child.

You're the one that is acting"hysterical" and like a "child" if you think trying to "spool" people up is fun. That's also the definition of trolling. Shall I report you?

The whole sigma vs DSLR thing just isn't that interesting.

You put an awful lot of time into something you think "isn't that interesting"

The votes are all in and Sigma lost. Absolutely no one wants a camera whose picture falls apart at ISO 400.

How can "no one" want a Sigma when a very active Sigma forum exists on this site?

As to being taken seriously, I don't really mind one way or another,

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be spending so much time posting anti-Sigma posts.

but apparently I am being taken seriously by a solid majority. You, on the other hand, not so much.

Why would anyone take anyone seriously that posts comparisons between Sigma jpgs and Nikon RAWs? Why would anyone take anyone seriously that says: "The votes are all in and Sigma lost. Absolutely no one wants a camera whose picture falls apart at ISO 400."

You have no crops to compare (you can't find any because they don't exist,) nothing but exactly two Sigma snapshot pics posted without attribution from who knows where

They are from Sigmas site. What are you going to say next, they they did some Hollywood trickery to get them to look as they do?

and a load of Sigma fanboy shaky techno gobbledegook to which we will assign the correct value: zero.

This coming from someone that talks like that and that, in your own words, can't be bothered to even learn how the Foveon sensor works. Right.

And raw or jpg, the D7100 rules the $1000 camera roost:

Sure, because it certainly makes sense to compare a soft jpg to a sharp RAW. LOL.

D7100/DP1

Onward and upwards, over and out!

Hopefully you'll stick to your word and stop trolling.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,023
Like?
Re: Reilly Admits to Trolling
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Here is your Nikon D7000 FLOWER IMAGE

Here is what my $100 Sigma SD9 can do:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Reilly Dishonestly Compares JPG to RAW, Again
In reply to gaussian blur, 7 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:

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.

LOL I had to respond to you one more time. You're exposing your bias and dishonesty in this matter. You are comparing a jpg from the Sigma to a RAW from the Nikon! I'll repeat that one more time. You are comparing * a jpg*** from the Sigma to * a RAW* from the Nikon!**

And you talk about being "taken seriously?"

Raw versus jpeg won't make much of a difference.

Nonsense. Sigma RAWs are dramatically more detailed than the jpgs. RAWs are very noticeably sharper in Bayer sensor cameras too.

What he showed is that the Sigma image is full of aliasing artifacts (aka false detail). It's not resolving better than the Nikon (nor can it) and that isn't going to change if it was raw.

Please. Every authority on the subject, not to mention every review, has attested to the superior real detail rendered by the Foveon sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,245Gear list
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

Yes, TB, and just as before when you posted the same picture, you missed focus on the eye.  I also did not give you permission to post my picture, so don't do it again.

A critter pic with the eye out of focus is not worth the keeping.  It takes practice!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads