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

DMillier wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Alternatively, the people here own and use Foveon cameras and understand what a leap forward the SD Quattro's are, and appreciate what they can do, as opposed to people who've never even used them and judge everything according to their own personal preference.

Isn't (bolded phrase) exactly what you are doing?

No, because you're taking the bold part out of its context, I am very familiar with foveon cameras and how they work, I've used them for years.

I have owned an used Foveon cameras for years (but not a Q) and I see no evidence that Foveon is really a leap forward. It's good at some things, not so good at others. There will be other technologies in future (maybe Fuji's organic sensor or quantum dot sensors?) that will be leaps forward that perhaps sweep aside existing Foveon and Bayer technologies, who knows at this point. But your claim that the Q is a leap forward is actually nothing more than your personal preference, not a fact.

I never claimed it was a "leap forward", simply that it is different, and in some ways better, whilst acknowledging it does have its drawbacks. I was quite clear in my review about that. My point is that no-one buys them for things they aren't good at, they buy them for the things they excel at, so marking the camera against a deficiency that is widely acknowledged (high ISO for instance) is completely pointless. It's akin to criticising a LandRover for it's slow 0-60m mph time, everyone knows that's not what it is designed for so why mark it against that? what's the point? No-one criticises a long telephoto lens for its inability to shoot wide angles do they?

-- hide signature --

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/