I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

B&H will sell an SD-9 for $999 including two kit lenses and a bag.

Very tempting and I almost picked up the phone. It's not a 10D, by any
stretch, but a pretty darned good 3.4 Mpix camera.

Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

Why will it be obsolete in six months?

If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of anything
else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six months
as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them for
free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change make
of camera.

In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about just any
digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well find a
10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's out
there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why would
you care about what you term obsolescence?

I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing anything
Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect from
kids in a toy shop.

Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.

Dave

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:ipFDb.109598
$M95.1881041@wagner.videotron.net:

> The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.

The SD-10 has micro lenses which means higher sensitivity and less
aliasing artefacts. Sigma also claims lots of more improvements.
Where have you read that SD-10 is NO different? Any review?


Roland

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:ipFDb.109598
> $M95.1881041@wagner.videotron.net:
>
>
>>The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.
>
>
> The SD-10 has micro lenses which means higher sensitivity and less
> aliasing artefacts. Sigma also claims lots of more improvements.
> Where have you read that SD-10 is NO different? Any review?



No different in the sense that nobody will buy them and they will drop
in value.

I believe your humor module was off when you read my post...

Cheers,
Alan.

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

Dave Oddie wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
>>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
>>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.
>
>
> Why will it be obsolete in six months?

"As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort of.
In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10. They're
trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in lenses
that I wouldn't want either...

> If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of anything
> else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six months
> as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them for
> free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change make
> of camera.

Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...

$999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with low
value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.

>
> In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
>
> As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about just any
> digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well find a
> 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
> technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's out
> there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few walked
from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to the
next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of people's
photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with deep
pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.

>
> Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why would
> you care about what you term obsolescence?
>
> I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing anything
> Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect from
> kids in a toy shop.

Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass. If
Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only worthwhile
to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively digital...

Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.

IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
made in Minolta lens mounts. But...

>
> Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.

I agree. Preddy is doing them more harm with his ill-based rants than
good. Call em what they are: really high dynamic 3.4Mpix DSLR's.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:g9IDb.111383
$M95.1945240@wagner.videotron.net:

> I believe your humor module was off when you read my post...
>

I suppose so :)

Missed it.

/Roland

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

The SD9 kit with two lenses is getting a lot of bidder action on Ebay - seems
buyers are interested in the camera as most bids are in the $700-800 range - a
few higher

Rosemarie

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:VnIDb.111421$M95.1950327@wagner.videotron.net ...
>
>
> Dave Oddie wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
> >>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
> >>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.
> >
> >
> > Why will it be obsolete in six months?
>
> "As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort of.
> In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10. They're
> trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in lenses
> that I wouldn't want either...
>
> > If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of
anything
> > else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six
months
> > as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them
for
> > free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change
make
> > of camera.
>
> Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
> with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
> camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...
>
> $999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with low
> value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.
>
> >
> > In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.
>
> I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
> >
> > As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about
just any
> > digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well
find a
> > 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
> > technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's
out
> > there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.
>
> While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few walked
> from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to the
> next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of people's
> photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with deep
> pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.
>
> >
> > Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why
would
> > you care about what you term obsolescence?
> >
> > I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing
anything
> > Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect
from
> > kids in a toy shop.
>
> Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
> respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
> than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
> confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass. If
> Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only worthwhile
> to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively digital...
>
> Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
> Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
> in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.
>
> IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
> bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
> reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
> users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
> made in Minolta lens mounts. But...

but Sigma'd have to pay the camera cos royalties!

And if Ca, Ni, Min or Px didn't want another camera using their mount...
what was Sigma supposed to do?

Have fun, Dan

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

In article <VnIDb.111421$M95.1950327@wagner.videotron.net>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...


> Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
> Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
> in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.



Minolta has always had the deserved reputation of giving their SLR users
the most bang for the buck. The Minolta dSLR should prove to be very
interesting indeed. However it is priced, I am sure that we can expect it
to be a good value for price point. According to one article, Minolta is
supposed to be introducing a new 'mystery feature' to their dSLR. I
wonder what that is.

DD

Re: I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)
 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:VnIDb.111421$M95.1950327@wagner.videotron.net ...
>
>
> Dave Oddie wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid
$999 +
> >>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
> >>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.
> >
> >
> > Why will it be obsolete in six months?
>
> "As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort
of.
> In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10.
They're
> trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in
lenses
> that I wouldn't want either...
>
> > If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due
of anything
> > else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless"
in six months
> > as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively
getting them for
> > free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to
change make
> > of camera.
>
> Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
> with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
> camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...
>
> $999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with
low
> value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.
>
> >
> > In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.
>
> I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
> >
> > As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that
about just any
> > digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may
well find a
> > 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there
would be
> > technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the
10D's out
> > there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.
>
> While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few
walked
> from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to
the
> next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of
people's
> photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with
deep
> pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.
>
> >
> > Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma
combination why would
> > you care about what you term obsolescence?
> >
> > I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as
discussing anything
> > Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would
expect from
> > kids in a toy shop.
>
> Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
> respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
> than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
> confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass.
If
> Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only
worthwhile
> to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively
digital...
>
> Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA
this
> Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to
believe)
> in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.
>
> IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out
with
> bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
> reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
> users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were
they
> made in Minolta lens mounts. But...
>
> >
> > Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.
>
> I agree. Preddy is doing them more harm with his ill-based rants
than
> good. Call em what they are: really high dynamic 3.4Mpix DSLR's.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.


I'm enjoying using my new SD9 and it was a great value at $ 810.00
with two lenses. Will it last me 5-10 years? If my wife has anything
to say about it it will! Seriously, I like the output quality and
overall really like the camera. I like the Canons also, but felt the
SD9 offerred more value for me - even though I have a couple of lenses
for my Elan.

It all comes down to my preferences and my needs. The SD9 fits the
bill just fine. Whether it's 3.4 or 10+ megapixels isn't important to
me since it does put out resolutions comparable to the 6 megapixel
competitors. I do think that as the years go by there will be more
digicams using Foveon sensors.

As for Minolta not putting out a DSLR as of yet, I cannot understand
for the life of me what is taking them so long. I wonder how many
Minolta users who wanted a DSLR are now using Canon, Nikon, etc.