A potential convert with doubts and questions

[GregGory]

Hi there,

I've had envious eyes on the Sigmas since the SD9, but the price range has been beyond reach, until now... Some of the prices I've seen are quite crazy, €399 for a 18-200 SD14 kit(!) or €499 for the OS version... For comparison, the Nikon/ Canon mount versions sell for €340!!! Then I checked out Ebay for the used ones, these prices are even more crazy...

I have a few questions, hopefully some of you will be able to answer them.

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.

2) Is there any difference between the 18-200 and 18--200 OS, apart from the stabilization of course? Is it worth spending another €100 on it?

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?

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

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?

Many thanks

 

[SandyF]

Thanks for your post, valid collection of questions... I'll respond to some in line in your text. Others will probably add their comments too. Be sure to read through the top page or two of threads; many of your concerns have been discussed.

Hi there,

I've had envious eyes on the Sigmas since the SD9, but the price
range has been beyond reach, until now... Some of the prices I've
seen are quite crazy, €399 for a 18-200 SD14 kit(!) or €499 for the
OS version... For comparison, the Nikon/ Canon mount versions sell
for €340!!! Then I checked out Ebay for the used ones, these prices
are even more crazy...

I have a few questions, hopefully some of you will be able to answer
them.

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.

Be sure to see this thread about "green cast"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=29958213
I wrote extensively on it about white balance, so I won't say more there.

The SD14 in my opinion is VERY sensitive to light conditions (that's actually good). Light conditions vary a lot in color, when you really begin observing light closely.

2) Is there any difference between the 18-200 and 18--200 OS, apart
from the stabilization of course? Is it worth spending another €100
on it?

No personal experience, see Gary Mercer's post about his 18-200 OS.

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

There are several versions of 18-50mm lenses... be sure to get the model you actually desire. There is a 18-50 DC "kit" lens, which is okay, but nothing exceptional. I'd judge it a starter lens; I have two and don't use them frankly. The 'best' current 18-50mm is a 18-50mm EX Macro.. the newest. There are older EX version(s) too. The Sigma lens catalog is an excellent reference not only about current lenses, but it explains a lot about lenses and their build.

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

I have the 55-200mm DC... it's a basic lens, considered a "kit" lens but not bad. I don't use it too often... My main problem with it is it needs lots of light; it's not a 'fast' lens. I'd think for someone starting out the 18-200 OS might be a better option or a 17-70mm.

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

Not that I can think of offhand.

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?

The SD9 and SD10 have a different appearance in the viewfinder, you see a grey area around your actual photo frame. Frankly to me the viewfinder on all three, SD9, SD10, SD14, are fine, I have no problems with one or the other. I don't think it makes much difference. I DO like the lines on the SD9/10 viewfinder though which help me keep my horizons straight(er).

There are a lot more significant differences between the SD9/10 and SD14... again, my recommendation would be to read the top couple pages of threads for anything relevant. I have all three cameras; all are actually rather different. Related: siblings, definitely. But each with own characteristics. When I reach for a camera though, I generally select the SD14 for all-around versatility.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[Robert Flores]

http://www.sigmauser.eu/content/view/143/47/

Checkout the above link for fair and comprehensive review

 

[APBaker]

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

I think Mike Chaney's comparison of his SD-14 and 5D at http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ is interesting, and probably worth reading.

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Hi there,

I've had envious eyes on the Sigmas since the SD9, but the price
range has been beyond reach, until now... Some of the prices I've
seen are quite crazy, €399 for a 18-200 SD14 kit(!) or €499 for the
OS version... For comparison, the Nikon/ Canon mount versions sell
for €340!!! Then I checked out Ebay for the used ones, these prices
are even more crazy...

A decent lens for the SD14 need only cost a few Euros...There are plently used M42 mount lenses on ebay that cost peanuts and can be used via an M42-SA adapter...So I would forget about a kit bundle and concentrate on finding the cheapest SD14 body you can.

I have a few questions, hopefully some of you will be able to answer
them.

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 a green cast problem, yet I only use Auto WB...I still think it may be firmware related as I have'nt upgraded to the latest FW.

2) Is there any difference between the 18-200 and 18--200 OS, apart
from the stabilization of course? Is it worth spending another €100
on it?

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?

I'm not sure why you are only considering zooms?...Zooms are always a compromise. Primes are the way to go if you want to maximise the quality of your images. They are often lighter than zooms, nearly always faster than zooms (sometimes by at least 2-3 stops) and they suffer from far less CA too. As primes are usually much brighter, they are much easier to manually focus too, irrespective of the camera they are used on or the size of their VF's and you can take advantage of their shallower DOF when used at wide apertures than its possible to obtain using a zoom.

I only use primes on my SD14 and my collection currently ranges from 14mm to 1100mm focal length...All of them manual focus and only one of them is a Sigma (the 14mm).

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

A review is only as fair as the reviewer, and some reviewers show really obvious bias, either for or against the product they are reviewing depending on what side of the bed they got out of in the morning...I would'nt trust any SD14 reviews to give you the whole picture so the best way to guage if the SD14 really is for you is to look at lots of samples images taken with it and compare them at 100% to similar sample images from other cameras that you may be considering too.

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.

The most important consideration to look at on that list is viewfinder coverage...The SD14's 99% actually puts it near the top of that list.

The size of the SD14's VF is a bit larger than VF of the SD9 and SD10 and its more than adequate size to allow easy focussing of manul focus lenses...I use nothing else...Whereas you continually hear of problems focussing manual focus lenses on many of the cameras that according to that list have larger VF's...Many Canon EF users for instance complain they simply cant manage it unless they get a focus confirmation bleep...I dont need a focus confirmation beep to tell me when a manual focus lens is in focus with the SD14, so that should tell you something.

--
DSG
--



--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

 

[mike earussi]

The only green problem I've ever seen with mine is a slight cyan cast to the sky that wasn't there in the SD10. But this is easily corrected in PS by clicking the magic wand on the sky and adjusting accordingly. The viewfinder is bigger on the SD14 than on the 9/10 and the shutter is the quietist of any camera on the market. The resolution is equivalent to the Nikon D300 and can produce finer grain because of it's iso 50 setting, but it does have a lot of noise compared to Bayer sensors at higher speeds of 400 and up, though I find that degraining programs can eliminate a lot of that. The battery life can vary a lot between camera bodies--mine gets about 150 shots. The autofocus works better on the 14 than the 9/10 but is still not as good as any of the other DSLRs on the market. It is very sensitive to color temp and hates tungsten light unless it's color balanced with a blue filter first. Conversaly it loves sunlight and under ideal conditions will produce the best IQ of any DSLR camera. 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.

 

[Ed_S]

I accept at face value the experience of those who have issues with the green cast - I started a thread on it a while back and there were those who did and many of us who didn't experience it. If it's there and if you're ok with various light balance strategies when shooting and a bit of post processing adjustment as need/your tastes require, I'm in the camp of either it's not an issue for me (e.g., Gary) or a manageable one as Sandy and others have suggested.

I'm kind of in Alf's mindset. Although I have a couple of zooms, I really enjoy most the photos with the 50mm f2.8 or 28mm f1.4 macros. Both are relatively affordable (maybe about $260 or so US). I try to manually focus when conditions permit and I'm after the sharpest result.

Kind regards,

--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

 

[GregGory]

Be sure to see this thread about "green cast"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=29958213
I wrote extensively on it about white balance, so I won't say more
there.
The SD14 in my opinion is VERY sensitive to light conditions (that's
actually good). Light conditions vary a lot in color, when you really
begin observing light closely.

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. So there's no easy answer, since it all depends...

There are several versions of 18-50mm lenses... be sure to get the
model you actually desire. There is a 18-50 DC "kit" lens, which is
okay, but nothing exceptional. I'd judge it a starter lens; I have
two and don't use them frankly. The 'best' current 18-50mm is a
18-50mm EX Macro.. the newest. There are older EX version(s) too. The
Sigma lens catalog is an excellent reference not only about current
lenses, but it explains a lot about lenses and their build.

Hmmm, somewhere I read the Sigma kit is one of the worst ones out there. I'm primarily asking cuz I cannot figure out what the requirements of the Foveon sensor are. On one hand, the pixels are large (which normally relaxes the lens performance requirements) OTOH the Foveon sensor layout shows less 'mercy' since there's no bayer layout.

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

I have the 55-200mm DC... it's a basic lens, considered a "kit" lens
but not bad. I don't use it too often... My main problem with it is
it needs lots of light; it's not a 'fast' lens. I'd think for someone
starting out the 18-200 OS might be a better option or a 17-70mm.

The 17-70 is quite pricey compared to the 18-200 , but I know it's an excellent lens used with great satisfaction in other mounts too.

The SD9 and SD10 have a different appearance in the viewfinder, you
see a grey area around your actual photo frame. Frankly to me the
viewfinder on all three, SD9, SD10, SD14, are fine, I have no
problems with one or the other. I don't think it makes much
difference. I DO like the lines on the SD9/10 viewfinder though which
help me keep my horizons straight(er).

I'm a bit iffy with OVFs, I quite dislike my Drebels (300d & 350d) because of their OVFs, but since I won't buy a Sigma for action and portraits I can relax my expectations in this regard.

There are a lot more significant differences between the SD9/10 and
SD14... again, my recommendation would be to read the top couple
pages of threads for anything relevant. I have all three cameras; all
are actually rather different. Related: siblings, definitely. But
each with own characteristics. When I reach for a camera though, I
generally select the SD14 for all-around versatility.

Informative reading, thanks again.

 

[GregGory]

http://www.sigmauser.eu/content/view/143/47/

Checkout the above link for fair and comprehensive review

Thanks I'll read it as soon as I get the time!

 

[GregGory]

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

I think Mike Chaney's comparison of his SD-14 and 5D at
http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ is interesting, and probably
worth reading.

I'll read it as soon as I get the chance, thanks!

 

[GregGory]

A decent lens for the SD14 need only cost a few Euros...There are
plently used M42 mount lenses on ebay that cost peanuts and can be
used via an M42-SA adapter...So I would forget about a kit bundle and
concentrate on finding the cheapest SD14 body you can.

I do have a bunch of m42 lenses I'm fund of... But the funny part is the cheapest Body I've found is 364 Euro, so non-OS 18-200 only costs 35 Euro!!! The OS version 135 Euro.

I'm not sure why you are only considering zooms?...Zooms are always a
compromise. Primes are the way to go if you want to maximise the
quality of your images. They are often lighter than zooms, nearly
always faster than zooms (sometimes by at least 2-3 stops) and they
suffer from far less CA too. As primes are usually much brighter,
they are much easier to manually focus too, irrespective of the
camera they are used on or the size of their VF's and you can take
advantage of their shallower DOF when used at wide apertures than its
possible to obtain using a zoom.
I only use primes on my SD14 and my collection currently ranges from
14mm to 1100mm focal length...All of them manual focus and only one
of them is a Sigma (the 14mm).

I do use primes, but sometimes I really need the versatility of a zoom lens, and I really hate camera bags.

A review is only as fair as the reviewer, and some reviewers show
really obvious bias, either for or against the product they are
reviewing depending on what side of the bed they got out of in the
morning...I would'nt trust any SD14 reviews to give you the whole
picture so the best way to guage if the SD14 really is for you is to
look at lots of samples images taken with it and compare them at 100%
to similar sample images from other cameras that you may be
considering too.

The Sigmas are oddballs, and frankly that's why I'm interested in them. Sigma somehow resembles the insanity of the French automakers of the 70ies and the 80ies. Lovely, but mad... You either hate it or love it, no middle ground. The reviews cannot handle this aspect objectively, I suppose that's the reason for the negative press.

The most important consideration to look at on that list is
viewfinder coverage...The SD14's 99% actually puts it near the top of
that list.

I humbly disagree, exact framing was indeed the alpha and omega in the film days, but with digital exact cropping can be done easily in PP, and because of the crop factors MF has become much more difficult. IOW I would put magnification on top of coverage, but 99% is impressive, no doubt about that.

The size of the SD14's VF is a bit larger than VF of the SD9 and SD10
and its more than adequate size to allow easy focussing of manul
focus lenses...I use nothing else...Whereas you continually hear of
problems focussing manual focus lenses on many of the cameras that
according to that list have larger VF's...Many Canon EF users for
instance complain they simply cant manage it unless they get a focus
confirmation bleep...

Hehe, I actually have a EF=> m42 adapter chipped to do the AF confirmation... I found focusing with the stock Drebel focusing screen to be next to impossible. I have a split screen now, that's much better, but took some time to get it right.

I dont need a focus confirmation beep to tell me

when a manual focus lens is in focus with the SD14, so that should
tell you something.

Sounds promising, I suppose a split screen could do the trick for me.

Thank you for your input!

 

[GregGory]

The only green problem I've ever seen with mine is a slight cyan cast
to the sky that wasn't there in the SD10. But this is easily
corrected in PS by clicking the magic wand on the sky and adjusting
accordingly. The viewfinder is bigger on the SD14 than on the 9/10
and the shutter is the quietist of any camera on the market. The
resolution is equivalent to the Nikon D300 and can produce finer
grain because of it's iso 50 setting, but it does have a lot of noise
compared to Bayer sensors at higher speeds of 400 and up, though I
find that degraining programs can eliminate a lot of that. The
battery life can vary a lot between camera bodies--mine gets about
150 shots. The autofocus works better on the 14 than the 9/10 but is
still not as good as any of the other DSLRs on the market. It is
very sensitive to color temp and hates tungsten light unless it's
color balanced with a blue filter first. Conversaly it loves sunlight
and under ideal conditions will produce the best IQ of any DSLR
camera. 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.

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

I'll keep my Drebel for high iso stuff, so no concerns about the high iso stuff, IOW the Sigma will primarily be a sunlight camera for me. Burst isn't important to me either.

Thanks

 

[Adam-T]

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..

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

 

[GregGory]

I accept at face value the experience of those who have issues with
the green cast - I started a thread on it a while back and there were
those who did and many of us who didn't experience it. If it's there
and if you're ok with various light balance strategies when shooting
and a bit of post processing adjustment as need/your tastes require,
I'm in the camp of either it's not an issue for me (e.g., Gary) or a
manageable one as Sandy and others have suggested.

Good point, suppose I can only tell for sure when I have actually used it for some time. But since the entry cost of this system is so low, I can live with the 'risk'. Not to mention, I'm not into portraits with sensitive colours.

I'm kind of in Alf's mindset. Although I have a couple of zooms, I
really enjoy most the photos with the 50mm f2.8 or 28mm f1.4 macros.
Both are relatively affordable (maybe about $260 or so US). I try to
manually focus when conditions permit and I'm after the sharpest
result.

I'll get the m42 adapter as soon as possible, I have a few CZJ primes in this mount...

 

[RKGoth]

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.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/
Sigma SD9/10/14/DP-1, Nikon D3
Music, cars, computing, media

 

[RKGoth]

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

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/
Sigma SD9/10/14/DP-1, Nikon D3
Music, cars, computing, media

 

[carlos roncatti]

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...







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....
--
self portrait:



Carlos Roncatti Bomfim

 

[carlos roncatti]

I do have a 24-60mm 2.8 EX lens that has no use for me anymore. If you are interested contact me via email.Its a fine lens and cheap. YOu can see its review at Popphoto...

--
self portrait:



Carlos Roncatti Bomfim

 

[mike earussi]

"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

 

[Martin Digital]

Carlos
Please check yor e-mail, I am interested in your 24-60 F2.8 lens.
Martin
--
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/binarymartin/popular-interesting/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/binarymartin/