maceoQ

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Joined on Jan 18, 2012

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Do these new Sigmas perform better at ISO above the base? Hasn't that been a problem for them ?

Nobody knows if Sigma made some improvements over the current DP Quattro cameras. But i would not expect it. Sigmas are low ISO cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 08:45 UTC
In reply to:

fatdeeman: The upper settings seem pretty useless for most every day purposes although I guess they might serve a purpose in some situations like proving the existence of a rare animal or something?

But let's ignore that for a moment and appreciate the fact that this camera is as good at ISO 25,600 as my 350D, D70 and E-410 were at ISO 1600 10 years ago. It has the same quality viewed at 100% at 16 times the ISO with over twice the pixels.

And people say sensors are running out of room for improvement!

25'600 is actually "only" 4 times (or stops) better, not 16.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: WHY? 70-200 2.8 for FF lenses are just as light and cheap.

@svillav: exactly
And i guess the Sigma will perform better than any 70-200 2.8 on the market. (just a guess)

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: WHY? 70-200 2.8 for FF lenses are just as light and cheap.

"FF f2.8 is equivalent to APS f1.8, in case you don't know."

No, it's not.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

NoMirror99: This should be really really good since Trey worked on it. He's the #1 goto guy for HDR.

Hmm..i didn't know Trey Ratcliff, but when i'm looking at his images on google, my eyes are hurting :-/

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2015 at 19:23 UTC
On article Welcome to our studio test scene (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

olimpero: where Sigma cameras,
SD1 for example?

So Adobe is the reason that we don't see any Sigma camera in the comparison tool?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 17:03 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6