fluke?

[aaronb]

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

 

[docmaas]

No, it's not a fluke, no, not every image has that kind of detail. The SD9, as a photographer's tool is capable of that kind of detail though and if you're looking for the best tool in terms of bang for the buck you've come to the right place. You can do better but only for a LOT more money.

Hang around, ask questions, study the experts who post here, the longtime users who can tell you the limitations of the camera and make your decision. Low light, for example, is not a strong point though certain folks have made it work quite well in low light. Likewise and for the same reasons, it isn't a great sports action camera unless you have sufficient light.

However, there isn't anything to compete with it when it comes to capturing detail and that is what draws most of us to the camera.

Mike

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn
with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

 

[Zone8]

Obviously would also depend on the lens and aperture used but the SD09 is capable, in the caring and knowledgeable users hands, I might add, of superb results.

Zone8

 

[Laurence Matson]

Aaron,

That looks a little less good than I see in other images now. Sharpening has been improved if you like that. Also, since it is downsized, it has lost some.

The autofocus on the SD9 works very well. It is considerably less sophisticated than that on the 10D. Just select what you want in focus and you're home free.

It does not bother me one bit to work in raw. I would probably be bothered if I used jpegs all the time. That is like only getting very nice Polaroids. No chance to go back and rework the negative.

If you have a chance try one. Otherwise, get one. Completely fitted out with a decent lens is less than the 10D body alone.

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

--
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Champa]

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn
with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

--
Aaron,

Fluke? I don't think so, with my limited experience with sd9 ( 1600pics), which I shot mainly autofocus because my eyes' site is not very good (-450/-425). Plus after shooting mainly with a mini p&s
CA
http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

 

[aaronb]

Champa & Laurence.

WOW! your stuff looks amazing. I was viewing "original" on pbase. Is there alot of photoshop done on those images? ( I assume no) I saved one of your images (the alder) and interoplated it up the the size of my 10D images and there is no comparison. The SD9 blows the 10D outta the water on crispness. I think the colors are great too.

A couple more questions

1. What are the things you wish were better about the SD9?

2. I here some people complain about the battery life and other say they get tons of shots?!?

3. I shot a LOT of macro stuff and telephoto stuff too. What lens would you guys recommend for superior image quality?

Thanks in advanced

--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn
with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

--
Aaron,
Fluke? I don't think so, with my limited experience with sd9
( 1600pics), which I shot mainly autofocus because my eyes' site is
not very good (-450/-425). Plus after shooting mainly with a mini
p&s
picture, 99.99% of my photos are handheld and autofocus. Under such
conditions that would make my photos (links below) underpar for
average sd9 users. So you can judge for yourself if sd9's autofocus
and details are living up to your standard.
CA
http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

 

[John Nuttall]

Simply don't like autofocus on anything - and I've had more digital cameras than pints of beer. Whatever your eyesight, you'll know that something is in range of say 10 feet to infinity, and it saves the nightmare of autofocus in poor light, or pix shot through a wire fence... simply select the best aperture setting on SD9 and the rest will follow.

Also - I LOVE RAW - all my digital negs are back-up'd to CR-R so I can tweak at a later date. There is little point (IMHE) in paying a small fortune for a camera and lens and then have it reduced to the price of a $250 camera because the firmware junks 80% of the detail. JPEG is 90% a throwaway system unless you plan to publish at 72 dpi on the web.

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn
with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

--
Aaron,
Fluke? I don't think so, with my limited experience with sd9
( 1600pics), which I shot mainly autofocus because my eyes' site is
not very good (-450/-425). Plus after shooting mainly with a mini
p&s
picture, 99.99% of my photos are handheld and autofocus. Under such
conditions that would make my photos (links below) underpar for
average sd9 users. So you can judge for yourself if sd9's autofocus
and details are living up to your standard.
CA
http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

 

[Champa]

WOW! your stuff looks amazing. I was viewing "original" on pbase.
Is there alot of photoshop done on those images? ( I assume no) I
saved one of your images (the alder) and interoplated it up the the
size of my 10D images and there is no comparison. The SD9 blows the
10D outta the water on crispness. I think the colors are great too.

A couple more questions

1. What are the things you wish were better about the SD9?

2. I here some people complain about the battery life and other say
they get tons of shots?!?

3. I shot a LOT of macro stuff and telephoto stuff too. What lens
would you guys recommend for superior image quality?

Thanks in advanced

--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

Is that image a fluke? or do all the images have that kind of detail?

I got a Canon 10D and It blows!! I cant hit the backside of a barn
with the auto focus. (my second body)

Is the autofocus good on the SD9? also, does it bother anyone that
it only shots in RAW??

Sorry for all the questions, just looking for a camera that would
make me happy!

Thanks guys.
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

--
Aaron,
Fluke? I don't think so, with my limited experience with sd9
( 1600pics), which I shot mainly autofocus because my eyes' site is
not very good (-450/-425). Plus after shooting mainly with a mini
p&s
picture, 99.99% of my photos are handheld and autofocus. Under such
conditions that would make my photos (links below) underpar for
average sd9 users. So you can judge for yourself if sd9's autofocus
and details are living up to your standard.
CA
http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

--
Aaron,
I still learn how to take photo properly so I would not know yet for question 1.

Most of my images are straight from pp, I used ps to crop some images (I suppose this answer 1, that I wish, I can crop with pp than I'd be exceptionally happy).

2. The first 1300 pics. I used 2 sets of 2-cr-v3 batteries and now on the 3rd. set of 2, the count for pics are 450 and counting. The use are vary from person to person, I think may be Laurence reported to get 845 out of one of his test. There are others report less, so I would say my number should be around the average.

3. As you can see, most of my photos are macros, with my limited experience, the 50mm is the best one for me and 20-40, 105, 14 and 8mm fisheyes produced good results for me but I tend to keep coming back to 50mm, it is my favorite lens.

I think others, more experienced sd9ers can answer you more indept on these questions.
So that's my 2cents, hope that help!
CA
http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

 

[Laurence Matson]

Aaron,

Images from the SD9 tend to be sharp straight out of the box. If you work carefully in Photo Pro, the raw processing software, you will have very little to do in another image editing program. This includes somewhat unusual effects, an area not explored here much yet.

1. What are the things you wish were better about the SD9?

I don't know. This camera works so well in my hands, that I don't think about it much. The autofocus works well, but sometimes "jams" me when it doesn't find what it wants and I forget to switch it off. But that is really a minor detail. Probably the major improvement I would like to see is in the mirror mechanism. It is very hard to keep that from moving the camera on a tripod for shots between 1/30 and 1 sec.

2. I here some people complain about the battery life and other say
they get tons of shots?!?

Batteries have never been an issue for me. I use a power pack with a gruntload of the best rechargeables. I have courageously tested CR-V3s in the original, first-edition tray. As Champa said, these batteries, which now have a place of honor on my desk, lasted 845 images. Comparing that to Champa's results shows you the range and also tells you that there are certainly ways of stretching them if necessary. I was pretty sure I would get 1000 images, since a rare use them except for the actual image taking. I will next try 4 of them in the power pack, which will be trying in the extreme, I'm sure.

3. I shot a LOT of macro stuff and telephoto stuff too. What lens
would you guys recommend for superior image quality?

Both the 50 and 105 macros perform very well and are conveniently sized. All of the EX telephotos seem very good. There also appear to be one or two non-EX telephotos that produce good results, n.b. the 70-300 APO.

Nice site, btw. You will have to increase the size of your "full-size" window if you want to accomodate an SD9 image though.

Laurence

--
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)