RKGoth

Still no Sigma SD1 support. So frustrating, the SD1 needs software to deliver a better workflow than SPP allows.

I haven't had a back to back of the 17-70 and 17-50 - so my only real impressions between them aside from build quality was that the 17-50 had "better" contrast. It's hard to be accurate when...

The 645DF is a 645. So rotating it would be a bit pointless, you'd want a 6x6 body for that like the RZs.

However, there's a vertical grip for the 645 - handles fairly well and adds to the body...

But for commercial users, you can go through 100 rolls in a day and are being paid for the work they capture on MF already -- (let's not even get into modern weddings); every 15 shots costing up to...

On SD1: 8-16 - fantastic. 17-50 - awesome, really can't fault it. Old 70-200 HSM II - snappy focus, sharp (good sample - I have had both when using Nikon, but APS-C flatters everything) -...

It's a language thing. Sigma have had it since the SD14 I believe - it's just "part of the specifications". For some reason they really highlighted it on the SD15. -- GeekGoth, Writer <-- What...

Looks like a very fair review to me, I'd agree with all their conclusions, with the caveat that the writing times really aren't correctly attributed to the immense file sizes until the very end....

They already support the DP1, DP2, and previous SDs. It's the 15.4x3 "Merrill" sensor that lacks support, not "all Foveon cameras". It supports the Polaroid x530 too.

Foveon pioneered binning. The reason the video is VGA is that it's a side effect of the live view feed, no more, no less.

Well, Sigma's by no means "done" with the camera market, let's hope they put something together that's makes the SD1 tech more affordable for users. I know I've got one, but I wouldn't be sad to...

The SD1 seemed to inspire more personal attacks, based on the SRP, than any real critique or discussion. It's why I stepped back from it, it was counterproductive. The SD10 was actually, in...

What most think is irrelevant. The law is pretty clear - this is a deliberate act of infringement, regardless of how original the claimant's work is. Again, I have said elsewhere that I feel a...

Loving this whole thread. In fact...

I'm lovin' it.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78257203

Liking this whole thread. In fact...

I'm lovin' it.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78257203

Read the judgement. The image is not actually the important bit.

Not only are both images manipulated, the judgement details the ways in which they are manipulated.

Also, as far as I am aware, you couldn't buy a Sony DSLR in 2005, let alone use a selective...

"one guy decided to make a photo he has seen before..."

One of the crucial points in the judgement is that the claimant's evidence is that they have NOT seen such an image before. And as they are...

The 'treatment' is not the salient point in this as a judgement on copyright infringement, it is merely an element of similarity.

Read the ruling. it explains it all, and yes, it was photoshopped.

I think if he had sought expert testimony as to the relevance of composition, angle and framing, and the final use of the image, then the case may well have been dismissed.