ISO 800 ZERO NR SD1 TEST (very low light)

nick_webster said:

I'm surprised Kendall didn't mention it in his other replies but it is not the lens at fault - see his reply here for "proof" - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=38773039 . I hope you apologise for any slur on Sigma equipment as you and not the lens are obviously to blame ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, although I said any prime, I wasn't thinking of the 30 at the time (even though I own one). I don't think edge to edge it's going to be as good as the other primes, probably more on the order of the 8-16 in terms of sharpness...

A revised 28mm prime would be great, and there appears to be talk of a re-designed 12-24 which might be really good.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Thank-you very much.

and your retorts are deadly - I'm utterly defeated.

stevielee said:

Had any optometrist visit lately???

Click to expand...

and it looks like I need to see another doctor rather sooner than later:

stevielee said:

They probably are'nt "telling" you "anything" because it appears that you are just not listening to what they have might have to to say to you

Click to expand...

stevielee said:

Seems that one man's "pathetic", is another's sublime. Go figure!

Click to expand...

I'll have to wait and see what the doctors tell me before I can go figure, I figure.

stevielee said:

It's all in the eyes and skill of the beholder it would seem.

Click to expand...

'Would' or 'is'? Your are certain?

stevielee said:

Some of the most average-to-horrid SD1 images are hailed by a few as "worth showing" and "amazing" -- while a couple of the best images are dissed & dismissed as pathetic and the worst ever.

Click to expand...

Congratulations - you seem to have perfect pitch when it comes to judging pictures.

And horrid is a nice adjective - like in what horrid kitchen shots.

cinefeel, I along with others am quite glad you are posting both the images and the open questions as you are here. They're useful and interesting to anyone curious about the new camera.

It's also quite evident that you are engaged in learning the tools and situations.

That's precisely and exactly the way any others here with acknowledged expertise gained theirs, and it was over years, truly. Your carefulness in approach is apparent, and I think will readily become appreciated in the group.

Laurence has been someone personally known to me since days we were both living in Switzerland. He has a very generous side; and another which he used to describe, perhaps quite precisely, as involving dyspepsia.

He's also an experienced teacher, and I know will come around on the side of anyone learning.

The rest, for many here at the moment; well, we could all do our part to lower the level of high-pitched talking, couldn't we.

Regards to each,
Clive

mrkr said:

Member said:

Had any optometrist visit lately???

Click to expand...

and it looks like I need to see another doctor rather sooner than later:

Click to expand...

I agree.

Member said:

Member said:

They probably are'nt "telling" you "anything" because it appears that you are just not listening to what they have might have to to say to you

Click to expand...

Member said:

Seems that one man's "pathetic", is another's sublime. Go figure!

Click to expand...

I'll have to wait and see what the doctors tell me before I can go figure, I figure.

Click to expand...

I do wish you a speedy recovery .

Member said:

Member said:

It's all in the eyes and skill of the beholder it would seem.

Click to expand...

'Would' or 'is'? Your are certain?

Click to expand...

Yes!

Member said:

Member said:

Some of the most average-to-horrid SD1 images are hailed by a few as "worth showing" and "amazing" -- while a couple of the best images are dissed & dismissed as pathetic and the worst ever.

Click to expand...

Congratulations - you seem to have perfect pitch when it comes to judging pictures.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Member said:

And horrid is a nice adjective - like in what horrid kitchen shots.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you liked it.

It could also be used this way: 'What a horrid and unbelievably stupid thing Sigma just did to it's loyal user/fan base/, or....who in the h@ll was responsible for hiring those supposed "professional" photographers who posted those horrid sample photo's on Stigma's Official EssDeeOne site? Talk about bad eyesight and bad "judgement" to boot.' Or as one reviewer right said: "they are worse than horrible".

And for me, the "kitchen shots" are priceless masterpieces by comparison.

I'd be interested in finding out what your doctor/says. I hope it's not too serious - with the color blindness and deeply impacted "judgement" and all....

Best of everything and get well soon.

Thank so much for sharing. Like many of people here said, the images are some of the best coming out from the SD1. Keep it up.

Die Musik.

You know, justified as my original reply was it's not not helpful to encourage further such unproductive nonsense so I've removed it.

in this matter.

What is this, 2002? ISO 800 stopped being an issue for cameras nearly a decade ago.

Faintandfuzzy said:

What is this, 2002? ISO 800 stopped being an issue for cameras nearly a decade ago.

Click to expand...

This is great news for a foveon sensor, where high iso has turned out to be much more difficult to handle than on bayer sensors (maybe because of light absorption through the layers)

Of course the true image quality of any sensor comes a base iso, so the need for high iso is for outside studio situations, thus defining the areas of photography the sd1 can be used

I have seen sd1 as primarily to be used for low-iso jobs, ie studio, architecture or landscapes, after my experience with dp1 and dp2, where street photography etc works better with b&w to eliminate foveon high-iso colour noise
--
Collected user advice for dp1 and dp2 (including s and x)

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB )