SD15 vs SD9....

lots of talk about the technicolor look of the SD9

(side note - watch the movie "the red shoes" - the classic technicolor look movie of all time)

back on track....but the talk I have read has been sd9 vs sd14 and sd10

how does the sd15 match up ? - sharpness, technicolor look ect.....

of you have a sd15 is it worth spending the $$$ to also pick up a sd9 ?

I threw mine away because of the dual battery system. You can use an external 6-volt battery in place of both of them, but I got tired of lugging around 6-volt batteries and making and repairing the cords for them. I did keep my SD-10 for portraits and as infrequently as I use it, I just buy AA batteries for it as needed. As far as my SD-14 is concerned, it's just a back-up body now. I'm thinking of selling it and getting a second SD-15.
--
William Wilgus

It's been a very long time since I used the SD-9, but I don't remember an special color qualities that it provided that can't be duplicated in post-processing. The 'vibrance' control in Adobe's PS and ACR especially comes to mind regarding 'Technicolor'.

--
William Wilgus

SD9 is sharper than any other Sigma DSLR compared with the same lenses.

It has a special yellow cast which makes that Technicolor look, you get deep blue skies etc, out of the cam. The pictures have just a special look. The SD14, SD15 and SD1 files have a digital cold lifeless look compared to it.
ISO is good at 100

The SD9 and SD10 have massive problems with the new HSM from the lens generation of the 150mm Macro (around 2005) and onwards.

You need 2 batteries, battery life is very low, especially when it is cold outside.

Under load with full buffer and continous shooting to keep the buffer full, the SD9 and SD10 will crashing and you must remove the battery to get it working again.

The mirror slap is like an earthquake(Be carefull at seaside it might create a Tsunami ) and when shooting from tripod, mirror lock up is a must.
The Flash system is not really working perfectly.

How can the SD-9 be sharper than the SD-14 and SD-15? Doesn't make sense to me, nor does it coincide with my experience.
--
William Wilgus

My SD9 was very sharp, but I had problems was blue skys, often what grainy.

But with the 50mm macro a great portret camera. No battery problems, just take a dozen with you.

And don't forget the Sd9 macro's. (50mm, 2.8





)

Mostly Lurking said:

How can the SD-9 be sharper than the SD-14 and SD-15? Doesn't make sense to me, nor does it coincide with my experience.

Click to expand...

Theoretically there are two possible explanations.

1. The SD9 has larger pixels. Therefore the lens will outresolve the sensor easily. So, a well focussed image without movement blur is sharp down to the pixels. This does not mean more resolution, but it is as sharp as it can be.
2. The SD9 has no micro lenses. Therefore the camera do a point sampling of the reality. Then you get more aliasing, which increases local contrast, which look sharper.

Now, of course. This is theory. ASnd I can only judge images I have seen on the net. And I cannot really say I prefer the sharpness of SD9 over other Foveon cameras. The colors are funky though! But ... I assume that SD10 should have the same colors. Or ... are they different?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

The SD9 has also the IR filter direct on the sensor and not on the glass filter.

The colors of the SD10 are different, probably because of changing the filter location and mostly because of other firmware.

stanislaw stitchanow said:

The SD9 has also the IR filter direct on the sensor and not on the glass filter.

Click to expand...

OK

stanislaw stitchanow said:

The colors of the SD10 are different, probably because of changing the filter location and mostly because of other firmware.

Click to expand...

I dont see how a firmware can change the RAW color behaviour. But, the IR filter certainly can. It might be a totally different filter.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Mostly Lurking said:

It's been a very long time since I used the SD-9, but I don't remember an special color qualities that it provided that can't be duplicated in post-processing. The 'vibrance' control in Adobe's PS and ACR especially comes to mind regarding 'Technicolor'.

Click to expand...

Somebody posted an SD9 versus Canon comparison a few days ago - the same scene shot with two cameras.

I tried the vibrance in Photoshop on them, but even at the most extreme setting the Canon was nowhere near the SD9 colours.

However, taking the Canon image into Lab mode and greatly increasing the contrast of the "b" channel (which represents blue-to-yellow contrast) did give something quite like the SD9 colours.

Those who have a full version of Photoshop (i.e. not Elements) may like to play.

I've owned two SD10s and four SD14s but got tired of fighting with them so I finally sold them and bought the SD15 and am much happier because of better functionality and ease of use, but I'll have to admit that I have been tempted to buy the SD9 just for its look, but have hesitated because after five years of using Sigma bodies I'm getting real tired of fighting with them.

But the color saturation and contrast of the SD9 is noticeably higher than the SD10 and others probably because the microlenses lower the contrast (I'm guessing they're uncoated). This produces a look different from all other dslr cameras. Whether this look is worth the hassel of using the camera is up to you.

We can be thankful it is not possible to turn Canon colours into the atrocity that is the SD9 by any normal manipulations ;-)

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Dunno if this is the firmware but as an example. All Nikon cameras are changing the read out values which are around zero directly to zero. This is giving deeper blacks, looks very pleasant in the out of cam jpgs but is making any Nikon DSLR useless for Astrophotography.
Canon on the other side is not touching the RAW at all.

When shooting with the SD15 in another color mode as neutral Lightroom can not handle the file anymore correctly, so Sigma is also changing the RAW file in some ways and so I just think this might have also happen with the SD10 files.
On the other side SPP is maybe also changed for correcting the colours.

Those SD9 colours btw. where people today are getting crazy of, was the biggest topic back in the days. People with yellow faces unnatural blue skies etc. That was declared as one of the major downsides of the SD9.

stanislaw stitchanow said:

When shooting with the SD15 in another color mode as neutral Lightroom can not handle the file anymore correctly, so Sigma is also changing the RAW file in some ways and so I just think this might have also happen with the SD10 files.

Click to expand...

This might be a fault in Lightroom.

It sounds strange that the camera do anything to the RAW file. It would be very easy to test by taking images and converting them with e.g. my X3F Tools and compare the results.

stanislaw stitchanow said:

On the other side SPP is maybe also changed for correcting the colours.

Click to expand...

Yes

stanislaw stitchanow said:

Those SD9 colours btw. where people today are getting crazy of, was the biggest topic back in the days. People with yellow faces unnatural blue skies etc. That was declared as one of the major downsides of the SD9.

Click to expand...

Hehe

It all boils down to what you want. I can understand that unusual colors is not generally what people want from a everyday camera. But ... tools that are different have their uses when you wnat to do something different.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

The sd9 was the first attempt at a completely new technology. Since that model, sigma/foveon have worked hard at taming colour issues as have the Bayer manufacturers.

None of them make cameras/software that yields forensically accurate colours - you can see this is tests, there is always some deviation from neutrality.

Usually that is deliberate: everyone is trying to find the magic formula that yields both believability and emotionally satisfying colour. It's not an easy balance to strike because they can't stray too far from neutrality because people have got used to digital colour being much more accurate than film and spot wrongness quickly.

Foveon has the most difficult task of all because the silicon depth filtration technique isn't very good at colour: it needs a lot of software tweakery. Gradually they are getting a handle on it and the Sd15 is pretty good (for a Foveon).

The SD9 is interesting. I regard its colour as a bit of an abomination but like any dramatic deviation from neutrality it provides opportunities for a different look if that is what suits a particular artistic requirement. Much like Cokin startburst and tobacco grads it has its place. For everyday regular straight photography, however, the permanent yellow cast, false polarised sky blue and feebly desaturated greens can be a challenge. I think of the SD9 as a special effects camera, useful when a certain look is desired but a liability for standard use.

As to why there has been a sudden re-newed appreciation of this prototype camera, I'm not sure. Maybe it's a reaction to the homogenisation of colour responses across brands that is the result of the improved colour accuracy offered by digital? In the film heyday you had a wide range of different colour interpretations available. If you wanted strong colour, you had Velvia and Kodachrome, for neutral colour you had Provia and Astia etc etc.

The thing that is maybe missing in the minds of a lot of digital photographers, is a realisation that digital colour is not a fixed look you have to buy into and can't change. Use the Adobe DNG editor and you can choose your own look by creating your own contrast curve and colour assignments. It's something that is rarely discussed or taught, but the option is there.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Happy new year, David. Lots of good observations and points in your post. I'm not very fond of the SD9, having learned the Foveon RAW and processing on the SD10. For my usage, the SD9 is more limited in useability because it needs 'better' light than the SD10. In fact, my SD9 is out on loan to adegroot again! The quick, out of camera 'color' of the SD10 is different from the SD9.. the SD10 is probably more neutral than the SD9, definitely than the SD14. The SD10's biggest disadvantage to me is resolution, size/weight, heavy shutter in that order. I can see more detail in landscapes on my SD14/DP1/DP2 shots than my SD10 shots. The SD9 reminds me of the saying, "when it's good, it's very, very good; when it's bad, it's awful."

Being New Year, I'm into my should-I-buy-another camera mode, not to replace the SDx/DPx, but perhaps replace the Pentax K20D. I've actually looked online at used Canon 5D MIIs.... The Pentax K20D just doesn't give me the oomph (good tech term) of the Foveon RAW. "Color" is such a human perspection... I like your point about what's believable vs pleasing. The Pentax seems to be so BLUE, I cannot tame the blueness, and I'm much more used to magenta/yellow/aqua types tones from the Sigma cameras I suppose. So what's "real" ... does reality matter? (see flickr link below for some recently posted examples).

I could always loan the K20D and lenses to our son-in-law..... he and daughter are heading to Hawaii for their belated honeymoon. He has my K100D at present.

I won't buy the SD1 at the present price, and I just don't think the SD15 offers enough resolution. What would you buy for mid US$1500 or under for primarily landscape? High resolution (and dynamic range) are my key features.

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

stanislaw stitchanow said:

SD9 is sharper than any other Sigma DSLR compared with the same lenses.

It has a special yellow cast which makes that Technicolor look, you get deep blue skies etc, out of the cam. The pictures have just a special look. The SD14, SD15 and SD1 files have a digital cold lifeless look compared to it.

Click to expand...

Funny I thought that the 14 did lose some of the "film look" that people were saying the previous Sigma cameras had. Is this the thought of the majority here??

Rich
ny

...should read 'perception' vs reality.. not the misspelling above!

interesting, I just posted what I think is is 'natural' looking Valley of Fire shot, and it was invited to join a "photos that make you say wow...." group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1317756@N20/pool/

I note that many of these are what I would consider over-the-top color, HDR type photos, rather than very natural lookiing. Whether they are HDR or combined photos or not, I'll have to study the group further. I tend to like natural, but I often bump up the contrast I know. I was looking around flickr for interesting landscapes group, and this is another
http://www.flickr.com/groups/landcape/
Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current, including discussed above)

The magic formula is easy.
It is the imperfection

That is the direct opposite of what is produced today. All companies are aiming for perfection.
Film was never perfect, the lenses where not perfect.

Why are ppl adding grain to their pictures? why are adding ppl vignetting to their pictures? To get imperfection.

Imperfection is chaotic, like nature and because of that, those pictures are more pleasing for the viewers eye than a cold perfect digital picture.

When you look carefully on M9 pictures, which where shot wide open, they often have a very pleasure vignetting, that is one of the things that let those pictures looking somewhat different.

The same is with the SD9, it was an imperfect camera, a camera with character. You can often see that this is a SD9 picture, but you can hardly see if it is a Canon, Nikon, Sony, SA14, SD15,SD1 or anything else picture is.