Another quirktastic camera from Sigma....... Locked

absquatulate wrote:

Mackiesback wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

richard stone wrote:

TN Args wrote:

Mackiesback wrote:

Quirky handling, poor iso performance, slow, average or below in 4 out of 7 categories, and you give it 5 stars? 5 stars as in there is no room for improvement?

All this squabbling over a fundamental mistake (by you).

If you buy a large, diesel 4WD vehicle for 4WD-ing, then you go to write a review of it on the biggest car forum, but their standard review template makes you score it for F1 Racing Ability, and Multi-story Carpark Agility, giving it a low rating on those attributes doesn't mean the car needs to be improved.

Also, 5 stars in a personal review does not mean it is unimprovable, it means you are fully satisfied when using it the way you intended when you bought it.

Agreed.

Honestly, there are some people who are entirely involved in speed of use, speed of getting to the final image, speed in terms of high ISO settings, etc. Maybe they have properly identified cameras that work for them and meet their needs?

Sigma has made some progress in making their cameras more versatile (as I see it, and my term, not theirs necessarily). For some people, obviously, the camera doesn't go far enough in that progress (if indeed we want to call it progress), and it therefore doesn't work for the needs of people who need speed, etc. The simple answer, for those still unsatisfied people, is for them to buy another brand of camera, one that works for them, not to mock the camera the reviewer likes. That much is childish, as I think (almost) everyone seems to recognize.

As I write this, I wonder how the posters critical of the SDQ might react to a good review of a view (8x10?) camera? Too slow? Set-up time too much? Not good for BIFs? Horrible for weddings? Annoying and unnecessary (?) film handling? Costs too high per image?

It seems fair enough to disagree with a review, and without even using the camera, perhaps, but it strikes me that the two posts critical of the review and the Sigma cameras indicate not problems with the Sigma cameras exactly, but perhaps indicate how well the other manufacturers have identified their customers AND how sensitive and unhappy those users are when they learn that their equipment is not really as good as they have been led to believe.

Richard

I don't see anyone disagreeing with the review....only the final score. That is the debate. With obvious issues admitted to by the OP in his review, it doesnt add up to a 5/5. It has nothing to do with speed, blah, blah, blah. Just the final score. Not sure why some are struggling to grasp that.

Exactly. What does 5 stars even mean anymore?

It means, that in my opinion, as the reviewer, l don't see anything comparable, for even close to the price l paid for it, that does what it does. One of the biggest plus points for this camera is in its value for money, there isn't even a category for that. I can get incredible image quality, with a £200 zoom lens attached, for less than the price of a lens that many people pay for the very best full frame cameras. Not only that but l get a significantly smaller and lighter set-up than most of those cameras to boot. I also get an infrared camera as part of the deal, therefore getting two cameras for the price of one. This for me makes it a 5 star camera, it's as simple as that.

Then you basically lied in your review stating 3 areas were average and one was weak.  You can't have it both ways.  Case in point, I have never, ever seen any review site that has tested a camera, notes a series of weak areas, and gives a perfect score....it's as simple as that.

Lets just give all cameras 5/5 because we like them.