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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,609
Like?
Re: "But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:
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.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.

Not only does Foveon interpolate, but it interpolates more than Bayer does.

The interpolation it does is different, but it's stil interpolation.

Contrary to Sigma's claims and the diagrams on their web site, the layers are not RGB. The three layers have overlapping spectra, from which RGB is derived. The transform is non-trivial and partly why the cameras and software are so slow. There's a lot of calculations going on. That means there is interpolation, or as the Sigma fanbois like to say, 'guessed'.

It's also why delta-E is higher in Foveon and why there can be metamerism and colour casts and why overexposed red can sometimes become orange.

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.

Not only is it not clear, but it's not possible. The number of pixels defines a hard limit as to what it can theoretically resolve, and because of aliasing, that limit remains theoretical.

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

It's an anti-alias filter, something which is required by discrete sampling systems to band-limit detail beyond Nyquist. If you omit the anti-alias filter, you will get alias artifacts, aka false details. There is no getting around this.

In other words, that detail you think the sensor is resolving was not in the original subject.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,016
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

what do think of the Foveon colors ????

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,057Gear list
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Nonsense. Any subject with any detail is affected.

Not B&W resolution charts.

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

Use them indoors and out, mostly for casual and candid photos of family and friends.

I never said it did. On the contrary.

Then we don't need to keep it simple - there is no single number that will rank image quality. For similar systems, MP has a decent correlation with detail but that's it.

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

Where I joined the discussion was the statement "Is it fair to call a 15MP Bayer sensor camera 15MP when much of the color is interpolated?" Can I help it that you forgot what your were saying?

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

It's quoted above - tell me what else that question means.

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?

Yes, it so easy to change the subject even though you are the one that brought up what the "average consumer" might think.    "Those who care more" will arrange to shoot with the various cameras and make up their own minds and not depend on marketing claims from either side.

-- 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: 1,016
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 7 months ago

Reilly-

i do like your deer image - very good !

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 gaussian blur, 7 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:
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.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.

Not only does Foveon interpolate, but it interpolates more than Bayer does.

The interpolation it does is different, but it's stil interpolation.

Contrary to Sigma's claims and the diagrams on their web site, the layers are not RGB. The three layers have overlapping spectra, from which RGB is derived. The transform is non-trivial and partly why the cameras and software are so slow. There's a lot of calculations going on. That means there is interpolation, or as the Sigma fanbois like to say, 'guessed'.

It's also why delta-E is higher in Foveon and why there can be metamerism and colour casts and why overexposed red can sometimes become orange.

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.

Not only is it not clear, but it's not possible. The number of pixels defines a hard limit as to what it can theoretically resolve, and because of aliasing, that limit remains theoretical.

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

It's an anti-alias filter, something which is required by discrete sampling systems to band-limit detail beyond Nyquist. If you omit the anti-alias filter, you will get alias artifacts, aka false details. There is no getting around this.

In other words, that detail you think the sensor is resolving was not in the original subject.

Show me then a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can resolve as much detail as the 15MP Foveon. Good luck.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,238Gear list
Like?
Where are your pics?
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

The live-in troll from a hundred 149 post threads calls anyone else a troll, that is rich.  Full marks for crust, zero for actual photographs.

Where are your pics that aren't borrowed from who knows where, oh great defender of the Sigma cult?  We can't see them.  Don't hide the greatness, old son, help us to see the error of our DSLR ways, lol.  The borrowed without credit cityscape and bridge 5MP jpgs certainly didn't help your case.  You must seemingly have thousands of your own by now, such a knowledeable practitioner of the photographic arts, all at ISO 100, of course.  There must be some way you can make a Sigma 4700 wide full size jpg into a 6000X4000 file.  Should be dead easy for a technical adept such as yourself.

How about one? One of yours.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EthanP99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,106Gear list
Like?
Re: "But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA Pt. 2
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:
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.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.

Not only does Foveon interpolate, but it interpolates more than Bayer does.

The interpolation it does is different, but it's stil interpolation.

Contrary to Sigma's claims and the diagrams on their web site, the layers are not RGB. The three layers have overlapping spectra, from which RGB is derived. The transform is non-trivial and partly why the cameras and software are so slow. There's a lot of calculations going on. That means there is interpolation, or as the Sigma fanbois like to say, 'guessed'.

It's also why delta-E is higher in Foveon and why there can be metamerism and colour casts and why overexposed red can sometimes become orange.

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.

Not only is it not clear, but it's not possible. The number of pixels defines a hard limit as to what it can theoretically resolve, and because of aliasing, that limit remains theoretical.

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

It's an anti-alias filter, something which is required by discrete sampling systems to band-limit detail beyond Nyquist. If you omit the anti-alias filter, you will get alias artifacts, aka false details. There is no getting around this.

In other words, that detail you think the sensor is resolving was not in the original subject.

Show me then a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can resolve as much detail asthe 15MP Foveon. Good luck. 

Dont need to, since we have 24 and 36mp to work with now.

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony SLT-A99 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,609
Like?
Re: Marketing Hyperbole
In reply to Basalite, 7 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.

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

Completely wrong.

Humans can't see colour detail anywhere near as well as they can luminance detail.

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

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 luminance detail, not chroma.

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.

Then why do you keep comparing a DP camera to a Nikon D800?

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.

Yes it does, because that's what people want to use. High ISO opens up so many new opportunities, and they can still use lower ISOs if they want.

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

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?

Because there are a wealth of issues, as well as not being sold in very many stores.

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 EthanP99, 7 months ago

EthanP99 wrote:

gaussian blur wrote:

Basalite wrote:
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.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.

Not only does Foveon interpolate, but it interpolates more than Bayer does.

The interpolation it does is different, but it's stil interpolation.

Contrary to Sigma's claims and the diagrams on their web site, the layers are not RGB. The three layers have overlapping spectra, from which RGB is derived. The transform is non-trivial and partly why the cameras and software are so slow. There's a lot of calculations going on. That means there is interpolation, or as the Sigma fanbois like to say, 'guessed'.

It's also why delta-E is higher in Foveon and why there can be metamerism and colour casts and why overexposed red can sometimes become orange.

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.

Not only is it not clear, but it's not possible. The number of pixels defines a hard limit as to what it can theoretically resolve, and because of aliasing, that limit remains theoretical.

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

It's an anti-alias filter, something which is required by discrete sampling systems to band-limit detail beyond Nyquist. If you omit the anti-alias filter, you will get alias artifacts, aka false details. There is no getting around this.

In other words, that detail you think the sensor is resolving was not in the original subject.

Show me then a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can resolve as much detail asthe 15MP Foveon. Good luck.

Dont need to, since we have 24 and 36mp to work with now.

LOL. The fact that you have to resort to much higher MP Bayer cameras show how capable the Foveon sensor is.

There is also no 24MP camera that can match the 15MP Foveon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,238Gear list
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

In general, I would say foveon colors are correct and everyone else is wrong or vice versa :^)

Now, if  person prefers incorrect colors, that is certainly allowed.

At ISO 400 and up, things completely fall apart for the foveon, and who in the world would want such a camera?

I already corrected your statement that Bayer can't do purple by showing you an actual side by side comparo with the identical scene which showed better, more intense purple and every other color by far with the A7r.  The rest of the late model Sony sensors perform similarly.  It won't take but a few minutes of your time to examine the Imaging Resource raws yourself, rather than letting me do all the work.

Once again, guys, we don't really want to see any of your snapshots.  If they please you, fine, but don't ever mistake them for evidence of anything other than your position on the photographic learning curve,

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

gaussian blur 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.

Completely wrong.

Humans can't see colour detail anywhere near as well as they can luminance detail.

You can blur the colour in an image by quite a bit before it becomes noticeable.

Then find me a 15MP Bayer sensor camera that can even come close to the 15MP Foveon.

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 luminance detail, not chroma.

The consumer simply expects to see more detail. I refer you also to my previous comment.

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.

Then why do you keep comparing a DP camera to a Nikon D800?

Where am I doing that? As far as I recall someone else brought up the D800. Put aside your irrelevant and silly personal bias against me and you'll be able to see that.

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.

Yes it does, because that's what people want to use. High ISO opens up so many new opportunities, and they can still use lower ISOs if they want.

No, that's not what all "people want."

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

Last time I checked, you are and "you're" are two forms of the same thing.

Others can also think for themselves.

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?

Because there are a wealth of issues, as well as not being sold in very many stores.

So how does that prevent someone that values the best image quality at ISO 100-400 from enjoying their cameras?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,238Gear list
Like?
Reilly Compares JPG to Jpg and the outcome is exactly the same.
In reply to gaussian blur, 7 months ago

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.

True.  I redid the comparo with the jpg.  No matter what I did there, there was no way some fool wasn't going to try to shoot holes in the result with some lame objection.  The result converted to jpg was indeed the same (yet another advantage inherent in high MP count) and was posted.  Unmangled by DPR compression, the outcome is clearer yet on the home screen.

Spiky foveon artifacts, misplaced pixels and overboosted contrast do not more detail make, any more than you can blow helium into a 4700X3136 jpg and make it 6000X4000.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Where are your pics?
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

The live-in troll from a hundred 149 post threads calls anyone else a troll, that is rich.

You admitted you were trolling. If I were a troll, especially in the way you describe, I would have been banned a long time ago.

Full marks for crust, zero for actual photographs.

Where are your pics that aren't borrowed from who knows where, oh great defender of the Sigma cult? We can't see them. Don't hide the greatness, old son, help us to see the error of our DSLR ways, lol. The borrowed without credit cityscape and bridge 5MP jpgs certainly didn't help your case. You must seemingly have thousands of your own by now, such a knowledeable practitioner of the photographic arts, all at ISO 100, of course. There must be some way you can make a Sigma 4700 wide full size jpg into a 6000X4000 file. Should be dead easy for a technical adept such as yourself.

How about one? One of yours.

My lack of photos has zero to do with anything posted and discussed. If you used a bit of logic in your thought process you would understand that.

Why do you keep posting to a thread where you said the subject has little interest to you? The answer is because in your own words you are trolling.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Reilly Compares JPG to Jpg and the outcome is exactly the same.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

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.

True. I redid the comparo with the jpg. No matter what I did there, there was no way some fool wasn't going to try to shoot holes in the result with some lame objection. The result converted to jpg was indeed the same (yet another advantage inherent in high MP count) and was posted. Unmangled by DPR compression, the outcome is clearer yet on the home screen.

Spiky foveon artifacts, misplaced pixels and overboosted contrast do not more detail make, any more than you can blow helium into a 4700X3136 jpg and make it 6000X4000.

To compare the maximum resolution of cameras you compare RAWs, not jpgs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TRIODEROB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,016
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 7 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

In general, I would say foveon colors are correct and everyone else is wrong or vice versa :^)

Now, if person prefers incorrect colors, that is certainly allowed.

At ISO 400 and up, things completely fall apart for the foveon, and who in the world would want such a camera?

I already corrected your statement that Bayer can't do purple by showing you an actual side by side comparo with the identical scene which showed better, more intense purple and every other color by far with the A7r. The rest of the late model Sony sensors perform similarly. It won't take but a few minutes of your time to examine the Imaging Resource raws yourself, rather than letting me do all the work.

Once again, guys, we don't really want to see any of your snapshots. If they please you, fine, but don't ever mistake them for evidence of anything other than your position on the photographic learning curve,

you have got to t be kidding me talking this way.

I looked at your galley and one image after another shows poor photographic judgement.

you do have few good images but most are way off. bad composition, bad color harmony, distracting backgrounds, basic cinematography rules, poor cropping, leaving out foregrounds.

lots of novice mistakes

get off the high horse - you are not that good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,238Gear list
Like?
Re: Where are your pics?
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Full marks for crust, zero for actual photographs.

Where are your pics that aren't borrowed from who knows where, oh great defender of the Sigma cult? We can't see them. Don't hide the greatness, old son, help us to see the error of our DSLR ways, lol. The borrowed without credit cityscape and bridge 5MP jpgs certainly didn't help your case. You must seemingly have thousands of your own by now, such a knowledeable practitioner of the photographic arts, all at ISO 100, of course. There must be some way you can make a Sigma 4700 wide full size jpg into a 6000X4000 file. Should be dead easy for a technical adept such as yourself.

How about one? One of yours.

My lack of photos has zero to do with anything posted and discussed. If you used a bit of logic in your thought process you would understand that.

Really?  I thought it had everything to do with the purported superiority of foveon as seen by you in your own pictures, which you stoutly refuse to post.  Aren't they as good as you say they must be, given the superior technology?  You've shared a picture of your bag, or at least we are being led to believe it's your bag, who knows, you might have Googled or Flickrd it too.  A bag which could just as easily have held one great D7100 and a couple of lenses instead of two jumped up plastic point and shoots.

Why do you keep posting to a thread where you said the subject has little interest to you? The answer is because in your own words you are trolling.

I don't mind wasting a few minutes here and there correcting your many errors.  Like it or lump it, Basalite.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gaussian blur
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,609
Like?
Re: Reilly Compares JPG to Jpg and the outcome is exactly the same.
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

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.

True. I redid the comparo with the jpg. No matter what I did there, there was no way some fool wasn't going to try to shoot holes in the result with some lame objection. The result converted to jpg was indeed the same (yet another advantage inherent in high MP count) and was posted. Unmangled by DPR compression, the outcome is clearer yet on the home screen.

Spiky foveon artifacts, misplaced pixels and overboosted contrast do not more detail make, any more than you can blow helium into a 4700X3136 jpg and make it 6000X4000.

To compare the maximum resolution of cameras you compare RAWs, not jpgs.

That won't change much of anything. It's not going to magically make the aliasing go away. The aliasing already happened before there even was a raw image and can't be removed without also removing real details. The damage is done.

You might like the look of aliasing (and apparently, you do) but don't confuse that with accurately resolving detail. Alias artifacts are false details that weren't in the original subject.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Contributing MemberPosts: 562
Like?
Re: More of the same...
In reply to photoreddi, 7 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.

.

.

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.

Hmmm... you seem really intent on showing how silly Basalite is for using the gear that he chooses to use. I asked my initial question not to try to get the man to admit that he's an idiot for going the way that he has with his gear, but because I was genuinely curious about his unconventional choices. Obviously they are pretty limiting and surely not the kind of setup that I'd every see myself going with, but I can understand that for a certain kind of photography, these instruments work very well. Limitations aren't really an issue if you can work within them and if you can, in the case of these Sigma cameras, it seems that you can get some great really IQ.
There's no reason to get into some kind of battle about who's been doing photography longer than the other. Suffice to say that both of you have been doing it for long enough to know what you like and that should really be the end of the story. Getting the lowdown about a person's choice of gear and working method is interesting and perhaps even educational, witnessing an argument about who might be more knowledgeable about what really isn't...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,238Gear list
Like?
Re: Basalite Schooled Again.
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

Triode Bob, I've been lenient with the snapshots you insist on posting, and I will maintain the high road for the moment.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlos roncatti
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662Gear list
Like?
"But at low ISO nothing can beat this camera." - CEO SIGMA
In reply to TRIODEROB, 7 months ago

TRIODEROB wrote:

the owner of Sigma has stated that the new "Quattro" camera coming out in approx summertime will be unbeatable in sunny conditions.

comments ???

The Sun is not always there...

-- hide signature --

To understand photography, you must understand that the experience must be much more important than the result ....
Carlos Roncatti Bomfim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeCYthMbd0
http://www.weweh.com/carlos

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads