the reason not to buy the sigmas

[hybybyte]

.. but i can wait. Important things don't need to be solved in a day, but i do hope we'll get the list before ..let's say.. christmas ( the riddles of quantumphycs should have been solved once and for all a long time before that)

But if it's the case of me being too demanding i'll settle for a list of four forum-memers now.

--
regards, Harry

http://album.zoom.nl/user/hybybyte (dutch)

 

[Roland Karlsson]

For myself, I have some ideas why I prefer the Foveon images. Every
time I hear an argument about why they are no better than Bayer
images I think with amusement at the unhappy cries from those wish
that Sigma would make a Foveon camera with a Nikon mount. End of
argument.

Nicely put - but I do not agree.

The property "better" is a complex creature that has many dimensions.

There may be several reasons why you want a Foveon sensor with a main stream mount - not all are about image quality. So - this is also multi dimensional.

There are several people involved - all with different priorities. More dimensions.

So - your conclusion is by far too simplistic.

It is fully possible that one person can come to the conclusion that (according to him/her) the Foveon sensor is not better - and still there are people that wants a Foveon sensor in their favorite mount.

My personal view is that I do not like Bayer CFA reconstruction. I have seen lots of examples of weird artifacts at pixel level. You can probably find them in any sharp image if you look carefully. I know why they appear. The reason is that the three color channels are sampled at different spatial phase, i.e. they are misaligned. Very, very hard to write a software that preserves the sharpness where the artifacts are removed.

Therefore I welcome solutions like Foveon's imagers and would like one with a Pentax mount.

On the other hand - test shows that the gain is not extremely substantial - at least not if you print at reasonable sizes. So - it is not essential for me making good images. So - buying a new set of lenses is not all that interesting. And buying the non main stream SA lenses sux.

Maybe I shall do like DaSigmaGuy. Get an SD14 and then get good and cheap lenses that I convert and use them manually. Not optimal - but at least reasonable.

--
Roland

 

[DavidMillier]

I think that, considering the tone and intent of the opening post of this thread, you can neither lay claim to any kind of moral highground, nor indeed does your 'challenge' deserve a response.

Fortuitously, the thread has meandered off-track onto a couple of rather more interesting issues.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[DavidMillier]

richard stone wrote:
This is a very well presented line of reasoning.

You will be unsurprised to learn I have a number of thoughts in response. You might be more surprised to find me reluctant to share them. It's called 'socialisation'...an oft painful process.

This is where we see how very easy it is to go wrong with the idea of
"truth," with the idea that one can "know" the "truth," and the idea
that there is a "mob" of relativists ready to crucify the seeker of
truth. The idea that there is one simple truth is so seductive. It
gives the impression, the illusion, that a seeker will find it, and
report back.

The idea of truth involves the perspective of the seeker, and that
cannot be avoided. This is not the only way of approaching the
meaning of truth, but it is perhaps the best. The simple idea that
there is a one truth that can be viewed from outside of any
perspective is, of course, simplistic. See "Truth, A Guide," by
Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Truth involves both Popper and Hume. And yet this is just an
analysis of "Western" concepts of truth, as if the entire world is
composed only of the intellectual and cultural descendants of Ancient
Greece.

As to alchemy and astrology, the idea of science and truth involves
dis-provability, not the same thing as truth. If a proposition
cannot be disproved it is of no use. Truth is not exactly part of
the discussion. Second, as I recall, Einstein started out at least
one part of his work with the goal of disproving the idea of an
"ether," a concept essentially from alchemy, and that idea, however
false, at least inspired him to disprove it.

The idea of the mob of social relativists: In a somewhat different
vein from the book above, I recommend "Idiot Proof" by Francis Wheen,
published in the UK as "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World; A Short
History of Modern Delusions, 2004. You can't find the truth by
voting on it. So many are misinformed. And the truth is out there,
right? And it will set you free?

Will reading these books cure any of us messianic and seemingly
self-destructive urges? I do not post the information for that
purpose, but probably not. The desire of some of us, indeed possibly
all of us, to "help" others and save us from ourselves runs too deep.
But urging us to think for ourselves, by repeatedly telling us what
the observer sees, and urging us to see things in the same way,
involves a serious and yet amusing contradiction.

One can only admire Harry's humor. A thread of hijacked quatsch.

For myself, I have some ideas why I prefer the Foveon images. Every
time I hear an argument about why they are no better than Bayer
images I think with amusement at the unhappy cries from those wish
that Sigma would make a Foveon camera with a Nikon mount. End of
argument.

Richard

--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[hybybyte]

quod erat demonstrandum
--
regards, Harry

http://album.zoom.nl/user/hybybyte (dutch)

 

[ThunderLance]

I am not posting that much in here as I once did because of too many things that keep coming back and sometimes feels like this place is a spinning wheel for hamsters.

It is sad when one person is able to ruin a thread in this forum but we are still talking about one or two persons.Think about Canon forum where the camp is divided in just about every single question of a camera!!

One side argues for and other against Full-Frame sensor and then half of the pro camp is against the other side when argueing on ammount of MPs!

In the end, I do think that some people should learn to BE ABLE to acknowledge that Sigma isn't perfect camera for everyone. I mean there are things that weren't executed smoothly and there are shortcomings with SD-14 but that doesn't mean it's unusable, just means that you have to make a small changes in your workflow. IF you don't like it, then there are other cameras out there.

Critics should also be able to see that quite a few people are not saying that Sigma cameras are like God's gift to humanity but it is a bit different. So why should those things that are different be chased like a witch hunt?

I still use my SD9 and not looking to upgrade to SD-14 since I don't see that much of an upgrade for me and the way I take photos. I do know few who bought the SD-14 because they can utilize it to the max. Maybe next time around I might get the next SD-xx...

--
'It could be worse but I dont know how'

'It doesnt matter that you are sitting on the right track, you're still going to get hit by train!'

http://filipsphotos.fotopic.net/

 

[SandyF]

Hi Thunderlance, if you don't read the forum often, you might have missed this thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25589622 I found interesting the opinions of SD14 being a preferable choice to an SD10 (or by extension to an SD9). Just FWIW, thought I'd bring it forward from a back page --
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[Roland Karlsson]

In the end, I do think that some people should learn to BE ABLE to
acknowledge that Sigma isn't perfect camera for everyone. I mean
there are things that weren't executed smoothly and there are
shortcomings with SD-14 but that doesn't mean it's unusable, just
means that you have to make a small changes in your workflow. IF you
don't like it, then there are other cameras out there.

Now - I get confused - who do you talk about?

Who says it is unusable?

Who do you mean shall acknowledge that it is not perfect?

Critics should also be able to see that quite a few people are not
saying that Sigma cameras are like God's gift to humanity but it is a
bit different.

This is even more confusing.

What critics are we talking about?

Who are those "quite a few people" that say it is "a bit different"?

I assume that you also mean hat some do say it is "a gift from God".

So why should those things that are different be
chased like a witch hunt?

Eh?

More confusion in my mind.

Who are chasing what? Difference?

Sorry Thunder - what you write does not match my view of the world. It looks like a pure theoretical construct to me.

I think we already have enough different opinions here - and do not have to invent theoretical ones that does not exist.

--
Roland

 

[DavidMillier]

Hi Roland

Good to see you on form! Does that mean you are feeling a bit better? Any improvement in the vision?

best wishes

David

In the end, I do think that some people should learn to BE ABLE to
acknowledge that Sigma isn't perfect camera for everyone. I mean
there are things that weren't executed smoothly and there are
shortcomings with SD-14 but that doesn't mean it's unusable, just
means that you have to make a small changes in your workflow. IF you
don't like it, then there are other cameras out there.

Now - I get confused - who do you talk about?

Who says it is unusable?

Who do you mean shall acknowledge that it is not perfect?

Critics should also be able to see that quite a few people are not
saying that Sigma cameras are like God's gift to humanity but it is a
bit different.

This is even more confusing.

What critics are we talking about?

Who are those "quite a few people" that say it is "a bit different"?

I assume that you also mean hat some do say it is "a gift from God".

So why should those things that are different be
chased like a witch hunt?

Eh?

More confusion in my mind.

Who are chasing what? Difference?

Sorry Thunder - what you write does not match my view of the world.
It looks like a pure theoretical construct to me.

I think we already have enough different opinions here - and do not
have to invent theoretical ones that does not exist.

--
Roland

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Good to see you on form! Does that mean you are feeling a bit better?
Any improvement in the vision?

Thx

The problems with the vision comes and goes.

It is of course much better than when I left the hospital.

But I think it has leveled out now - very slowly getting easier to handle
while my brain adapts to its new visual input system

Driving a car is out of the question - but fortunately I don't own a car

--
Roland

 

[ChromeLight]

The idea of truth involves the perspective of the seeker, and that

cannot be avoided. This is not the only way of approaching the
meaning of truth, but it is perhaps the best. The simple idea that
there is a one truth that can be viewed from outside of any
perspective is, of course, simplistic. See "Truth, A Guide," by
Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, 2005.

--

Ah, then perhaps China is making a grave error in copying without permission our math and physics textbooks. I'd hate to see them waste their time learning things at are apparently only true in the West.

Only pass judgement upon the prints you see. Your 100% crop is a shadow on the wall of a cave.

 

[DavidMillier]

Good point.

I'm happy to consider at face value an idea like, say, that the electron is 'only' a concept, one of many possible such concepts and just the concept we have happened to chose as the product of the accidents of our culture.

But it a very different thing to accept this and also the idea that this somehow gives us completely free reign to argue any alternative description.

The electron concept embodies a wide range of experimentally determined characteristics of the entity/property; and to have any useful meaning, a replacement electron concept would need to replicate all the observed features of our current electron.

And it would be quite strange if such a replacement entity didn't end up looking very like our current electron concept just with a different name.

In this sense the truth isn't really something we can have alternative versions of without breaking the consistent description we have of what nature is "like".

The idea of truth involves the perspective of the seeker, and that

cannot be avoided. This is not the only way of approaching the
meaning of truth, but it is perhaps the best. The simple idea that
there is a one truth that can be viewed from outside of any
perspective is, of course, simplistic. See "Truth, A Guide," by
Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, 2005.

--

Ah, then perhaps China is making a grave error in copying without
permission our math and physics textbooks. I'd hate to see them waste
their time learning things at are apparently only true in the West.

Only pass judgement upon the prints you see. Your 100% crop is a
shadow on the wall of a cave.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm