Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)

Reply
Thread Tools

I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)

 
 
PlaneGuy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003
You start talking about colour fidelity, and then bring Velvia into the
equation. Velvia is one of the least "realistic" colour films out there,
aiming for the supersaturated look.

Now, as to using the SD9/10 for portraits, this is perhaps the leastt likely
area where the (real or supposed) increase in resolution is important. You
are right to say that colour is important in this environment, and that is
probably the reason you don't see too many photogs using Velvia for a
portrait film.
..


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
PlaneGuy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>You start talking about colour fidelity, and then bring Velvia into the
>equation. Velvia is one of the least "realistic" colour films out there,
>aiming for the supersaturated look.


I said it had some of the nicest colour I've seen. Didn't use the word
"fidelity" at all. HTH.

There's a difference between colour that may not be completely accurate, but
looks good, and colour that may not be completely accurate and looks
unpleasant. To my eyes, a lot of SD9/10 shots fall into the second category,
the yellow skin thing being the most obvious example.

>Now, as to using the SD9/10 for portraits, this is perhaps the leastt likely
>area where the (real or supposed) increase in resolution is important. You
>are right to say that colour is important in this environment, and that is
>probably the reason you don't see too many photogs using Velvia for a
>portrait film.


AIUI, amongst DSLR portrait photographers, the Fuji DSLRs are the cameras of
choice, due to their rendition of skintones. Canon and Nikon DSLRs turn in a
perfectly respectable performance, but the Sigma stuff seems to be somewhat
lacking, to my eyes.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003

"Chris Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> PlaneGuy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >You start talking about colour fidelity, and then bring Velvia into the
> >equation. Velvia is one of the least "realistic" colour films out there,
> >aiming for the supersaturated look.

>
> I said it had some of the nicest colour I've seen. Didn't use the word
> "fidelity" at all. HTH.
>
> There's a difference between colour that may not be completely accurate,

but
> looks good, and colour that may not be completely accurate and looks
> unpleasant. To my eyes, a lot of SD9/10 shots fall into the second

category,
> the yellow skin thing being the most obvious example.


The SD10 changed the default WB to less warm, you are behind the times.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003
In article <brv9l2$6l2$(E-Mail Removed)>, George Preddy
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The SD10 changed the default WB to less warm, you are behind the times.


but you've repeatedly said the camera doesn't set white balance - the
user does.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003


Mark M wrote:

>>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...

>
>
> Whew! I thought you were joking at first...but then you started to sound
> serious again.
> Please tell me you recognise that the Sigma is a joke at this point, and
> that my respect for your color vision can be restored!



(whisper: Hi Mark. The SD-9 is not that bad. Just not anywhere as good
as mighty George P. would like us to think. Quiet! He might hear us!.)

Cheers,
Alan.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003


George Preddy wrote:

>
> That's higher than retail these days. Cameta will sell you a US warranty
> SD9 in the high $600s if you are willing to bundle a lens or two.




The tragedy is that you think this is good.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003


Mighty George Preddy wrote:

>
>
> Without the SA mount, the 10.3MP SD9 would retail upwards of $4500.



....could be. But since it has 3.4 MPixels (not 10.3), it is selling
below the market price that Sigma thought they could get.

It does have 10.3 Mega ____sensors____ but that ain't pixels.

Cheers,
Alan.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003


Lionel wrote:

>
> That loud 'whooshing' noise you just heard was the sound of my sarcasm
> flying thousands of feet above your head.



Sarcasm detection requires intelligence;

Sorta like like resolution requires pixels.

And that is why Mighty George P. can't detect sarcasm.

Cheers,
Alan.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2003


Nils Rostedt wrote:

> As it turned out, the market did not yet embrace the X3 chip, and Sigma
> probably has recently sold few KAF mount lenses compared to their sales of
> Canon EF-mount lenses. Now that the Pentax *ist D is out, Sigma's KAF-mount
> lens sales probably are picking up. For prestige reasons, none of the big
> league manufacturers are now likely to changeover to the X3 unless it
> improves significantly (Minolta still being a wild card). Therefore, expect
> Foveon's next step to be a camera for the P&S market.
> Just my $0.02


Good post Nils.

Per my "Stupid Sigma" posting: if Sigma had done SD-9 bodies for Nikon,
Canon, Minolta and Pentax lens mounts they would be doing a pretty bit
of business... even with their own lenses for those various manufs.
bodies already in the field. But they blew it.

The Minolta wildcard remains to be seen. The "leak" indicates a 7 Mpix
sensor (may be wrong), which puts the Sony sensor (Nikon 100D) out
(unless there is another Sony sensor). Could it be ("Gasp!!!") that
Minolta will have a Foveon .... will I be in league with Preddy!!!!!
Funnier (and more ironic) things can happen.

Cheers,
Alan.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2003

"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:N9LEb.881$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> Mark M wrote:
>
> >>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...

> >
> >
> > Whew! I thought you were joking at first...but then you started to

sound
> > serious again.
> > Please tell me you recognise that the Sigma is a joke at this point, and
> > that my respect for your color vision can be restored!

>
>
> (whisper: Hi Mark. The SD-9 is not that bad. Just not anywhere as good
> as mighty George P. would like us to think. Quiet! He might hear us!.)


You are too kind. I claim that it's not only bad, but literally destructive
to many coloration renditions to the point of being beyond correction
(except for the tecture and original color artist!).
It seems to mix it's poor color interpretations (especially under
certain--but common--circumstances) with a strange tendency to change the
textures of the natural...into something entirely different--usually with a
synthetic look that I've never seen produced by any camera.

These things (in my view) render the camera unsuitable for any varied,
serious work where color accuracy matters, or where naturally-textured items
(bark, leaves, skin) is essential. Sharpness that is INTRODUCED (rather
than CAPTURED) is NOT a good thing. This sharpness George raves about is a
hugea negative--second only to the color problems. The Sigma is clearly
out of contention in it's present state.

I hope they do figure it out, and make it wildly successful--because this
can only be a GOOD thing for all we consumers/users. -But until they do,
they are just an embarrassing exercise for George.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Worth buying modem router? =?Utf-8?B?QmFkQW5nbGVy?= Wireless Networking 2 07-05-2005 02:33 PM
Buying OEM software - Windows XP Home Edition =?Utf-8?B?UkE=?= Microsoft Certification 3 01-11-2005 05:39 AM
Buying and setting up a simple wireless network =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2U=?= Wireless Networking 3 11-14-2004 04:06 PM
I'm considering buying a new motherboard/processor combo for faster synthesis Randy Thelen VHDL 9 04-17-2004 05:01 PM
buying cisco 4500 ATM module Nacho Martinez Cisco 0 04-07-2004 11:08 AM



Advertisments