«

Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

Don Gentile wrote:

> Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
> definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
> but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

Sigma is a HUGE manufacturer of lenses. As long as they continue making
cameras, the lenses will most likely be there.
Bob Williams

On 2004-02-22, Don Gentile <> wrote:
> Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
> definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
> but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

Sigma is rated 2nd grade when it comes to lenses on Canon.
And only Sigma makes Sigma lenses.

Also, within short time, the camera body will be a small part
of your total investment, and the lenses will take up most
of your invested money. So decide which system you want to
"get locked into" today.

On 22 Feb 2004 01:23:59 -0800, (Don Gentile)
wrote:

>Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
>definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
>but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

No personal experience, but---like many here--I do not like the look
of SD9 images which have been posted. go to Google groups and search
on "Sigma" and "Foveon". You'll get an earful.

Many report the Sigma as having inaccurate colors. I claim that that
is the uncurable result of the unique Foveon architecture.

IMHO, Canon is now making the best digicams

More likely Sigma will stop making cameras but keep making lenses.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

"Don Gentile" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
> definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
> but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

Why? They were making lenses long before they started making cameras. If
anything, they'll stop making cameras due to poor sales.

Mark

I have been a Nikon 35mm and Pentax 6x7 user for many years in the film
world. My Nikon lenses are about 35 years old and would not work with a new
digital SLR, so I wasn't "stuck" with a legacy of lenses although I am
partial to Nikon equipment. I realized that I wanted a digital SLR to use
for at least the next few years. After reading the review in dpreview I
decided on the SD9, with two prime lenses, the 20mm and 50mm macro. I
haven't been sorry. You should understand some limitations and
characteristics of the camera, however. For example:

1. No pop up flash for flash fill or emergency flash use.
2. No in-camera jpegs.
3. Computer post processing of images required (excellent software, though).
4. Some color issues, easily corrected in my opinion.
5. A skin tone Photoshop plug in available (I think) from www.hkdcug.com is
a great help.
6. Greater resolution (in my opinion) at a lower cost then the competition.

I recommend the SD9 for users capable of dealing with the above.

"Don Gentile" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
> definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
> but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

If you can wait: try the D70 <g>

-Michael

"Don Gentile" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> Any advice? I've handled both in camera stores and the Sigma is
> definitely a nicer product. I also like the Sigma's images better,
> but I'm afraid they'll stop making lenses.

I've owned an SD9 for almost three months and I'm happy with my
decision to get it over a Canon 10D - not that I would mind having a
10D. The Sigma offered a better value ($ 810.00 with the two lens kit
for the SD9 vs. $ 1,500.00 for the 10D body) for me even though I
already had two Canon lenses to use from my Elan. Those two lenses
aren't top-shelf so it was not a difficult decision to go with the
Sigma. I too like the image quality of the Sigma which has it's
advantages over Bayer sensor cameras. It also has some disadvantages
as another post mentioned which are easily overcome.

Much of what you read in newsgroups like this about Sigma lenses and digital
cameras are not rational. The real limits of the camera are described by
Dick Frederick. In every day use these come down to lack of on-camera flash
and the method of incamera processing and storage.

"bmoag" <> wrote in
news:F96_b.1262$ :

> Much of what you read in newsgroups like this about Sigma lenses and
> digital cameras are not rational. The real limits of the camera are
> described by Dick Frederick. In every day use these come down to lack
> of on-camera flash and the method of incamera processing and storage.
>

You can make good pictures with almost any camera
in the class of 300D or SD9 - it is more the
photographer than the camera that set the limits.

But, there are technical issues with the SD9.

* Only Sigma lenses. OK - there are lots of good Sigma
lenses, so for most this is a non issue. But ... if you
want some fast and ultra sharp prime lenses - then Sigma
is the wrong choice.

* No anti alias filer. This has been discussed here in lengths.
What this means is that sharp correctly focussed lenses give
you strange looking artefacts that cannot be removed in post
processing. This problem is much less severe in SD10 than
in SD9, but it is still there. It is mainly this fact that
make Sigma pictures look sharper. But it is false sharpness that
in some cases may ruin a picture. Personally I think it
looks worst in foliage. Your milage may vary though and you
might like the artificial sharpness.

* Technical problems with color. It is claimed that Foveon is
better than Bayer regardig colors. Maybe - but only very
locally. On a global scale over the picture, then the more
accurate RGB filters on the Bayer sensor is an advantage over
Foveon's more diffuse color filtering. There are also some
questions regarding the evenness of the color over the sensor
as it is quite hard to keep consistent characteristics.

* Sensitivity. Only a small part of each sensing area is really
sensitive to light. Therefore, the sensor is less sensitive
than ordinary CMOS/CCD sensors. Moreover, the strange color
sensitivity makes it neccessary to make some strong filtering
when converting to RGB - this also adds noise.

* Number of spatial samples( = pixels). There are only 3.4 Mpixels
in the SD9/SD10, no matter how much Sigma/Foveon/George/Guido tries
to convince us that it really is 10.2. The 300D has 6 Mpixels.
This means that you get more information from 300D, so you have
more information if you want to crop or make large prints.

There are also technical advantages.

* The Bayer mosaic filtering is a bit of cheating. Most of the
values in the output are computed. That it works as well as it do
depends on chromatic information not varying fast. For pictures
with fast varying chromatic information, Bayer sensors have
problems. This is also the case for bad Bayer interpolation
algorithms. Some cameras do have bad algorithms - the Leica 1
comes to my mind.

* It would be much easier to make an anti alias filter for Foveon
sensors than for Bayer. Unfortunately, the Sigma cameras have no
such filter though.


/Roland