Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions thread
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: what's 3-D?
2

webrunner5 wrote:

Erational wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

When multiple people at major shows (PhotoKina, PMA, etc.) make nearly identical unsolicited comments about Sigma prints using the words "3D," one has to rethink the "placebo" assumption. I've spent many hours at Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sigma booths just listening to conversations about the prints hanging on the walls. The ONLY booth where I consistently hear the words three dimensional look is Sigma. There surely is a reason. What that reason is I do not know, nor do I really care.

+1 Lin. I really do not care how the subtle 3D effect is created, either, I just know it's there.

The idea Truman puts forth that Sigma has created a 'Placebo' effect is laughable. This 3D-ness is nowhere in Sigma's marketing efforts that I personally have seen. Sigma cameras have been called "One trick ponies"- but with one very fine trick. The M and Q line are the most consumer-unfriendly cameras I know of; there is no EVF, no on-board flash, no extending LCD, no IR remote, ISO performance is awful, WB isn't that accurate, colors can be sketchy, very little brick-n-mortar support exist, there is very little 3rd party products for Sigma, the files take forever to write, one must dive into the camera's menu often due to the lack of direct-access keys, even the Q battery doesn't last that long, there are only 9 points for (slow) auto-focus, the conversion software takes forever to process files..... one could go on and on. We Sigma camera users know well the limitations of our products vis-a'-vis competing cameras. So, the idea that Sigma camera's are a superior product, thus giving a 'Placebo' effect is a joke.

Erational I could not have said it any better.

Do you have anything except the anecdotes? Any objective data?

They are a total pain in the rear.

That seems to be a universal agreement, no argument here.

But they put out shots no other camera I have ever had can.

What would that be? A per pixel resolution? -- Yes, but why does it matter? And it looks like Sigmas are quite behind in every other aspect.

I tell people on DPR and in real life once you have ever owned one you are hooked.

I did own one, it was quite a disappointment. So your assertion is already false.

No way I can ever NOT have have one of some kind. They are a magical camera

And that was exactly what reasonable people were suggesting all along. Magic is what some people believe in here, we call it placebo effect just not to offend the believers.

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