A potential convert with doubts and questions

[GregGory]

"I'm wondering, that cyan sky stuff, is it DR related or can it be
fixed without shifting the overall picture hue."

That's why I use the magic wand on the sky, so I can adjust it alone
without affecting the rest of the picture.

Here are my adjusted shots using 1.05:

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sd14_iso_50

Looks good, but this wand is not available in LR if I'm not mistaken, only in CSx?

 

[GregGory]

It takes a long time, about 6 seconds, to process each shot
and has a small buffer, so it is not a rapid fire camera. So you can
see that it is a series of tradeoffs, speed vs IQ. Which is more
important is up to you.

One of the things that I noticed in a lot of reviews is that the
reviewers remembered that the SD9/10 could only shoot RAW. So they
compare RAW performance (best quality) with JPEG lower (best
"performance) quality files on other cameras.

For example, one Canon model claims 36 frame buffer - but it's
actually 11 RAW. SD14's is 6 RAW. Reviewers will often present this
as 6 to 36 as a comparison - in fact, JPEG Low allows the Sigma to
shoot 24 frames on the buffer.

Whilst it's still not remotely "class leading", 24 vs. 36 and 6 vs 11
is not so bad given the other compromises made. The SD14 is not as
slow as machine-gun shooters would make out - and I'm a D3 user, I
know what "fast" is

Buffer size and frame to frame speed is a non-issue for me. A 3-frame RAW buffer is more than adequate for my stile of shooting. So no worries in this regard.

 

[light_reaction]

just click on "hue" in the hsl section, move your mouse over the sky, click, hold and hue it to your liking. Or use the blue channel hue in the calibration tab. In both cases, watch out for errors at the borders of the sky (trees, clouds, horizon)

O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ollivr/popular-interesting/
http://seen.by.spiegel.de/ollivr-1

 

[GregGory]

I've had three SD14s - one a year ago - one in may which had AF
issues and was replaced with Cam No3 which was fine for AF...All
three had Green cast issues to the point where I'm not interested in
ever owning another SD14, if you get one with it, it's a pain to
correct for as it varies from image to image, SPP compounds the
problem with its clumsy colour wheel and lack of ability to copy
settings to a batch of images (all it needs is that and Kelvin & Tint
sliders) - the DP1 and SD9 may need the odd nudge in AWB occasionally
on a difficult shot but nothing like the SD14s I've encountered ..
I love the colour from my SD9s, it's not Natural, just like Velvia or
an Oly E1 isn't natural but likewise it's lovely (the SD9 is more an
Artists camera than a stock photographers ;-) -- I love the colour
from my DP1 also which IS as natural as Foveon gets (doesn't have
that jeckyl and hyde nature with colour either) , I'm sure the SD15
will sort all the SD14 sample & WB inconsistencies as the DP1 is
fine..

Suppose the proof is in the pudding. No matter how many opinions I read regarding this issue, guess I have to try it for myself for the final judgment. The truth be told, I don't intend to use this Sigma as my work horse, no 2000 frame vacation batches.... So even if I have to correct it frame by frame, I suppose I can live with it as long as I get the results I'm looking for. But really think that I'll either hate the outcome and all the toil and trouble and sell it off, OR I'll fall in love and don't care about the laborious work flow.

 

[GregGory]

1) All this "Green cast" talk about the SD14, is this a non-issue if
I use eg. LR2 with a preset, or is it necessary to correct it picture
by picture (depending on the lighting)? I'll only shoot RAW, so JPGs
is not an issue.

I have never had an issue with the SD14 producing a green "cast" -
but when the very, very first models came out before ACR was updated,
there was a green noise pattern. This was firmly shoved in the
history books when ACR was updated, and it wasn't an issue with SPP.

(Can't comment on 18-200 non OS, I have the OS one).

3) Some of the used SD9s and SD19s are bundled with the

18-55 DC
18-50 ??
55-200 DC
28-105/2,8-4,0

Which of these are 'decent' to begin with, and how do they compare to
the 18-200?

On the whole the SD9s are bundled with older technology lenses (mine
came with the Aspherical 24-70 f3.5-5.6 for example). They're not
close to the 18-200's performance; I've used the current 18-50
f3.5-5.6 DC HSM and the older model that was provided with my SD10
twin-lens kit, and they're like chalk and cheese, the older lens has
quite a lot of fringing. It's a cheap kit lens, I don't expect much,
but the current HSM model is much improved.

f2.8 is a different beast entirely.

It's ages since I've used the kit 55-200, but again, I think the
18-200 will be superior.

4) Is there a comprehensive and fair review of the SD14 to be found
somewhere?

Heh. Fair is a funny word.

5) I've read mixed things about the viewfinder in the SD14 and the
SD9. According to
http://www.neocamera.com/feature_viewfinder_sizes.php?order=size
the SD14 OVF is quite small. What size is the SD9 OVF, and does it
use a prism too?

Both use prisms; the SD14 is a 98% coverage, the SD9/10 are 105%
coverage with a "sports finder" greyed out area. The SD14's
viewfinder is not that much of a backwards step but a lot of people
missed the sports finder.

I really think that if you can afford it, the SD14 and 18-200 OS is a
fantastic all-purpose kit. The SD14's batteries are less of a fiddle
to charge, it uses UDMA cards (150x), the built in small flash is
quite useful, you've got a PC sync socket, the ability to fire out
JPEG files if you just want to get some snaps for web use - and it
feels like a slightly denser, solid camera. Also the shutter noise on
the SD14 is something else.

Thanks, there's no doubt SD14 + 18-200 OS would be the best combo, but even at €500 I have to hold off for some time ( got a nasty letter last week, have to sort that out first :s ) Until then I'll keep scanning the used ones, and if the right offer pops up, I'll go for it.

 

[GregGory]

Even not being that big as some have, i have with mine. Here are
quick( very quick) examples of three different settings: sunlight,
auto and custom WB...You judge if there is any kind of green cast...

Thanks for the demo. Colour is relative and subjective... Difficult to judge, and since I wasn't there to observe the 'true' colours, I cannot really make judgment, but the middle pic has a green cast on the (white?) building. Nothing offensive in my eyes without seeing it in real life. I've decided not to be put off because of the 'green cast issue', and if I do decide that I don't like the outcome anyway, I promise I won't start a bit* ing thread about it every day...

YOu will have to understand other limitations of the camera( buffer,
not so fast autofocus and etc...), but otherwise is a very fine
camera...The only problem with Sigma is its poor QC...but their
customer service is excellent....

No worries in this department. I'll keep my drebel for the high ISO/ fast stuff.

 

[Timberwolfpuppy]

Regarding your "green sky" problem. It is possible that you white balanced on a white cloud, or you white balanced on a shady sidewalk. This adds a yellow cast, and this added yellow to your blue sky makes the sky go green or cyan. Clouds aren't pure white, they are bluish!

 

[SandyF]

The "magic wand" is available in the consumer-grade Photoshop Elements (I paid

Also note with even Elements (PSE5... and I updated to ACR4.6 version to handle DP1's.. you need at least that version not earlier ACR4.x..) you can work on separate color channels, for example in early firmware versions of SD14 I'd sometimes increase the blue channel to make bluer skies and/or change the saturation and hue. Under menu item Enhance/Adjust color.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flckr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (Sedona photos, more today)

 

[yvind Strm]

Greg

...

Suppose the proof is in the pudding. No matter how many opinions I
read regarding this issue, guess I have to try it for myself for the
final judgment. The truth be told, I don't intend to use this Sigma
as my work horse, no 2000 frame vacation batches.... So even if I
have to correct it frame by frame, I suppose I can live with it as
long as I get the results I'm looking for. But really think that I'll
either hate the outcome and all the toil and trouble and sell it off,
OR I'll fall in love and don't care about the laborious work flow.

You should read my SD14 compendium;
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/SD-usertips.htm

you might see it as a kind of review, but only with facts and workarounds, no opinions.

I have 15.000+ shots with the SD14 now, and use only SPP3. SO I do not think the workflow is cumbersome.

The result is awsome, but for me a tripod is necessary. The small sensor makes movement relatively large.

Here is an example:



SPP3 with 5 seconds adjustment, then saved as JPEG half size. My favorite album program, Porta, takes care of producing images for web in various sizes.

A few series:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
(also non-Sigma shots - the 10 first)
h ftp://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/GoldenMorning/index.html

A small factual error provided elsewhere in this thread:

The viewfinder coverage is neigther 98 or 99%, but 96%. The 98% coverage figure comes from horisontal and vertical coverage which is 98% each.

Also, a decent split screen for the SD14 is not available.

Finally a comment about the green cast problem.
There are no doubt that a number of SD14s DO have a green cast problem.

It is also certain that the exact cause is unknown. It is possibly due to variation in production, something with the sensor.

• Some have it.
• Some have it and do not see it.
• Some do not have it.

From your initial post and responses, I think you will like this camera.

--
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
http://www.norwegianviking.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/SD-usertips.htm
SD15 Specs and more:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/SD15/SD-15-specs.htm

 

[GregGory]

Well, I got a nasty letter last week, which means I'll have to show utmost restraint with my fiscal policy at least for some time. So the SD14 seems a bit farther than last week, even more so concerning the OS version. But I've been browsing some sigma pics at various sites, and the ones that really caught my eyes were primarily taken with the SD9. These pictures are mad, insane, inspiring, enchanting, sometimes vulgar and clearly over the top, not very realistic... But this is what I'm looking for in a Sigma. It's a Citroen DS without wheels... a Monet painting, but thanks to no Bayer it's an oily one, no 'watercolour effect' There are dozens of shortcomings. If somebody wants utmost colour accuracy, fast AF, burst, high iso, no-fuss JPG images, infinite lens options, don't want to feel like the odd boy in the crowd, there are other much better options... But I'm looking for the opposite for this camera... So I picked up a used SD9 with a kit lens at a reasonable price. I should get it in a week or so. I'll start out with the kit lens and see how much luck I have with MF and probably get a m42 converter.

Thanks for your input, all of you.

 

[alantan]

actually,

I have requested someone who CLAIMS to have zero green cast SD14 to take a outdoor pic with blue sky under auto WB and post the raw file. NOBODY can show me a good raw file yet....

I have NEVER SEEN a good outdoor pic using auto WB for the SD14.

I have taken many pics with the SD14 and I have to individually correct them if I use auto WB. The auto WB is a MESS. All other DSLRs have good auto WB for daylight. Only SD14 is totally wrong...

--
my gallery
http://www.keehian.com/gallery

 

[Adam-T]

sometimes vulgar and clearly over the top, not very realistic... But
this is what I'm looking for in a Sigma. It's a Citroen DS without
wheels...

This is why I like the SD9 the best, it just Makes ART in its own sweet way - if I want total colour accuracy I'll do the job properly and use a Fuji, Canon or Nikon though I do love the little DP1 . The only reason I kept the greeny cast, cheap bodied inergonomic SD14 for the 6 months I did was because Sigma had my SD9 to use as a calibration tool to setup my 28-70EX F2.8 DG Macro (Sigma Japan messed up three times getting a working circuit to Sigma UK) - as soon as it came back, the SD14 was sold and I'll never own another.....

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[mike earussi]

Using 1.05 I produced these with AWB:

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106124017

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106124019

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106124022

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106124025

Except for a slight cyan cast to the skys I really didn't have and green problem.

 

[SandyF]

actually,

I have requested someone who CLAIMS to have zero green cast SD14 to
take a outdoor pic with blue sky under auto WB and post the raw file.
NOBODY can show me a good raw file yet....

It's hard to most people to upload RAWs..

I have SD14s with what you'd probably call 'green' cast... I call it yellow/green. But I can STILL often take fine auto wb shots with it (the current I've just had since August) depending upon the light. I realize now, having shot sunlight wb all the time in sunlight, that sunlight white balance in the Arizona light was usually too yellow/green BUT not always. So the output depends upon the LIGHT.

Plus I could show you a RAW from my camera, but that doesn't help YOU shoot your camera and post process properly. The SD14 is really, really sensitive to light temperature/color. Understand this and you'll be much better in using the camera satisfactorily. The SD14 seems to 'see' light temperatures that our eyes barely do.

I have NEVER SEEN a good outdoor pic using auto WB for the SD14.

I recall that Laurence Matson has told me he shoots mostly auto WB** when not in custom WB for example for his panos. You should study his work.
....

added: this might not have been Laurence, but someone else of the very experienced SDx users (I call them my 'guru's' ) I was collecting data for my own reference on who shoots what white balance usually ... surprising to me.. some replied sunlight... some replied auto wb... some replied always custom wb... some replied sometimes auto wb sometimes custom wb... so it's really variable. I'm more & more convinced it's all about the light... and the post processing skills. EVERY RAW photo frankly needs some post processing.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann