Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions thread
MrSkelter Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

DMillier wrote:

The trouble with this line of argument is intellectual honesty.

For years we have heard people on this forum championing the Merrill "better than the D800e" entirely on the basis of its fierce micro-contrast compared to Bayer based cameras.

Now we have a new Foveon that doesn't seem to have that intense micro-contrast and the fans are championing it because it is more natural and realistic.

You see the problem, it all starts to sound like "we'll champion anything if it has Sigma on the front" and the reasons why start to sound like apologetics...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Of course some of us are bing honest. I own every major brand of camera at every price point. The Quattro's are the first Sigmas I've bought because they're the first which don't have the exaggerated image processing of the Merills. Whatever the M's are doing it's not realistic.

The problem is that hyped presentation has attracted a hardcore of fans here whose attitude to contrast and black levels is akin to Ken Rockwells approach to color.

Now Sigma have improved the sensors people whine about the loss of the filtering they liked.

As as someone said, it's just like the tube amp fans who miss the false harmonics they inject into audio who claim better amps lack "sparkle"

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow