Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sigma SD 14

Reply
Thread Tools

Sigma SD 14

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
> All the anti-Sigma bias can make you think twice, can't it?


Bias? The camera doesn't even have anti-alias filtering. Avoid.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
In article <HqQfj.73044$(E-Mail Removed)> , David J
Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

> Bias? The camera doesn't even have anti-alias filtering. Avoid.


I guess some people like Homer Simpson skin tones.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
In article <477fc460$0$13901$(E-Mail Removed)>, Peter Stavrakoglou
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> All the anti-Sigma bias can make you think twice, can't it? Try some of the
> people who use one and ask their opinion. I just bought one a few weeks
> ago. I've owned an SD9 for years. Is the SD14 the best camera? Depends on
> what you want to do with it. I have two other DSLRs, a Nikon and an Olympus
> and they are nice cameras but cannot equal the sharpness of the Sigma. The
> SD14 is not the best low-light camera but it is a far cry better than its
> predecessors.


that's like saying iso 64 film is better than iso 25 film. both would
be considered very slow these days. also keep in mind that the sigma
camera lacks an anti-alias filter giving the illusion of additional
detail and the sigma software adds a hefty dose of sharpening even when
set to 0, whereas nikon/canon generally leave it for the user to decide
(and unlike with sigma, 0 sharpening really means 0 sharpening). it
should be no surprise that if the sigma image has the sharpening
cranked, it will appear to be sharper than other images, and that's
certainly not due to the sensor. when comparing objective resolution
measurements, such as lph, mtf, delta-e, etc., the sigma always comes
up short.

the sd14 also has a huge noise handicap, about 2-3 stops compared with
other cameras, based on estimated well capacities of the sensor itself
(the top layer is ~8-10k photons, versus 80k per pixel on the canon 5d)
and corroborated by several reviews that found it noisy past iso 400
and even noticable at iso 200, along with numerous sample images on
pbase and elsewhere. although it may be better than the sd9/10, it's
still very poor.

other problems include the camera locking up, corrupted images (which
is unacceptable on any camera), slow write times (~6-7 seconds per
image!), small image buffer (6 shots, raw or jpg), low frame rate
(about 2.3 fps at full resolution), clumsy user interface (namely, the
multiple presses of the func button for commonly used settings), slow
and unpredictable autofocus, poor battery life (about 200-250 images
per charge, which is a huge drawback with the new airline restrictions
on extra batteries) and a limited selection of lenses and accessories.
although lens adapters can be used (as they can with other cameras),
autofocus, automatic diaphragm and full aperture metering do not work.


at photo plus expo in new york last october, sigma had several images
on display from the sd14 alongside images from 'other cameras.' the
sigma images were not particularly good, riddled with noise, blotches,
aliasing and other anomalies. sigma is going to do that comparison
again at pma later this month.

and then there's the dp-1, announced september, 2006 for release in
january/february, 2007. it was delayed and delayed, and ultimately
never appeared. about a month ago, sigma announced that they are
redesigning the entire image pipeline due to poor quality images and
changing the camera's feature set "to return to the simple and original
product concept." in other words, they completely scrapped the
original version, presumably due to the pitiful sales of the sd14.

> Visit the Sigma forum on dpreview.com for some opinions or actual users
> rather than opinions of those who've never held the camera, let alone used
> it.


yet the numerous reviewers who held and used the camera found that it
wasn't all that great and it could not compete with the offerings from
nikon/canon/sony/pentax, especially with the latter cameras being half
the price of the sigma. in fact, there were even quite a few posters
in the sigma forum who bought the sd14 and promptly returned it. one
would assume they also held and used the camera before deciding it was
not all that good.

if the camera really was so fantastic, why isn't it selling and why are
stores dumping inventory at a huge loss?
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
S wrote:
> I have the chance of this package below and quite interested, this will be
> my first SLR. It seems a good deal at 499.
> Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.


Avoid it at _all_ costs.

Very poor camera. They again forgot to put in anti-alias filtering, in
order to trick naive buyers into thinking that it produces
extraordinarily sharp images. It doesn't.

While you shouldn't get too carried away with megapixels, the SD14, at
4.7 megapixels, is just not high enough resolution. You want at least 8
megapixels resolution if you ever want to make even 8x10 prints, let
alone larger.

Whatever extra a Nikon D40x or Canon 400D costs it's worth it. You'd
even be better off with a Pentax or Sony (Konica-Minolta).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
In article <477ff37a$0$84192$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Avoid it at _all_ costs.


Agreed.

> Very poor camera. They again forgot to put in anti-alias filtering, in
> order to trick naive buyers into thinking that it produces
> extraordinarily sharp images. It doesn't.


"Very poor" is being polite when describing Sigma products.

> While you shouldn't get too carried away with megapixels, the SD14, at
> 4.7 megapixels, is just not high enough resolution. You want at least 8
> megapixels resolution if you ever want to make even 8x10 prints, let
> alone larger.


Hmmm...I have 16x20s on my wall made from a 6.3mp camera, and you'd be
hard pressed to tell they're not from film.

> Whatever extra a Nikon D40x or Canon 400D costs it's worth it. You'd
> even be better off with a Pentax or Sony (Konica-Minolta).


I'd avoid all Sony products, but as bad as they are, they're still
better than any Sigma camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
"SMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:477ff37a$0$84192$(E-Mail Removed)...
>S wrote:
>> I have the chance of this package below and quite interested, this will
>> be my first SLR. It seems a good deal at 499.
>> Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.

>
> Avoid it at _all_ costs.
>
> Very poor camera. They again forgot to put in anti-alias filtering, in
> order to trick naive buyers into thinking that it produces extraordinarily
> sharp images. It doesn't.
>
> While you shouldn't get too carried away with megapixels, the SD14, at 4.7
> megapixels, is just not high enough resolution. You want at least 8
> megapixels resolution if you ever want to make even 8x10 prints, let alone
> larger.
>
> Whatever extra a Nikon D40x or Canon 400D costs it's worth it. You'd even
> be better off with a Pentax or Sony (Konica-Minolta).


The opinions I've seen in various magazines here in the UK are that 3MP -
4MP are fine for A4 size prints.
Anyone have opinions?

As far as the Sigma body is concerned, I've personally found the lenses to
vary in quality and I've had two faulty ones.
I think that the magazine reviews of the body were of the "some good points
and some bad points" type. The body did some things very well and other
things badly. Is the outfit that good a price compared to Nikon and Canon?

Regards, Ian.



 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2008
On Jan 5, 9:57 pm, "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
> > All the anti-Sigma bias can make you think twice, can't it?

>
> Bias? The camera doesn't even have anti-alias filtering. Avoid.
>
> David


I don't think that this is the major drawback of the sigmas; aliasing
is a lot less ugly than on a bayer camera (although I still hate it).
But look at this, for example:
http://www.pbase.com/rfl/image/76937712
(look at the full size, in the shadows). I imagine it was lightened,
but this is too much (and that pbase gallery is by dick lyon).

And I've very briefly used an sd9. Now I am used to a d200 which
reacts instantaneously to everything, but even so, the difference was
extremely noticeable.

And "sharpness" comparisons done with downsized 10mp bayer camera
images (for example) tell a very different story than comparing 100%
crops of the images at their native size... It's not that hard to
download a few images from sigma cameras and try this.

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2008
In article <flp34u$2qj$1$(E-Mail Removed)>, Fred Anonymous
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The opinions I've seen in various magazines here in the UK are that 3MP -
> 4MP are fine for A4 size prints.
> Anyone have opinions?


just about any camera can produce decent a4 prints these days, even
compact p&s digicams.

the general rule is 300 pixels per inch is needed for the best quality
(and some claim even higher but the difference is very small) and 200
pixels per inch for acceptible quality. thus for an 8x10" image, one
would need between 3 and 7 megapixels, depending on what level of
quality is desired (and that assumes no cropping).

> As far as the Sigma body is concerned, I've personally found the lenses to
> vary in quality and I've had two faulty ones.
> I think that the magazine reviews of the body were of the "some good points
> and some bad points" type. The body did some things very well and other
> things badly. Is the outfit that good a price compared to Nikon and Canon?


nikon and canon offer many more cameras that are faster and more
capable and at multiple price points along with a substantially more
complete lens lineup (not to mention lenses from tokina, tamron and
sigma) than sigma does with its lone slr and single source of lenses.
furthermore, given the very low sales of the sd14 and the vaporware
dp1, it is very unlikely sigma will be in the camera business for much
longer. there's just no way they're making a profit with it, and they
can't pour money into a sinking ship forever...
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2008
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>, acl
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I don't think that this is the major drawback of the sigmas; aliasing
> is a lot less ugly than on a bayer camera (although I still hate it).
> But look at this, for example:
> http://www.pbase.com/rfl/image/76937712
> (look at the full size, in the shadows). I imagine it was lightened,
> but this is too much (and that pbase gallery is by dick lyon).


love that purple/green blotching!

> And I've very briefly used an sd9. Now I am used to a d200 which
> reacts instantaneously to everything, but even so, the difference was
> extremely noticeable.


no doubt. a nikon d50 is even a step up in responsiveness.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2008
I have a Nikon D200 and a Sigma SD14. Both have their strengths and
weaknesses. You can see shots I've taken with both at:

http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

I'm not a particularly good photographer so you may also want to browse
the camera database at pbase to see samples of any camera/lens you're
interested in.

On 2008-01-05 02:23:51 -0700, "S" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> I have the chance of this package below and quite interested, this will be
> my first SLR. It seems a good deal at 499.
> Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
>
> thanks
>
> 5114578
> Sigma SD-14 Digital SLR body
> In Stock for Home Delivery 1 499.99 499.99
>
> 5000106
> Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC (Sigma AF)
> In Stock for Home Delivery 1 79.99 FREE
>
> 1040183
> Sigma UV 58mm EX Filter
> Home Delivery Usually within 10 Days 1 19.99 FREE
>
> 5120472
> Sigma Lens Cleaning Cloth
> Home Delivery Usually within 10 Days 1 5.99 FREE



 
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
Digital Delta-Sigma DAC Davy VHDL 10 04-14-2007 09:16 PM
Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray Mikevt1 Digital Photography 4 10-17-2006 10:04 AM
Sigma 18-125/3,5-5,6 and Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro IIusers friglob Digital Photography 3 02-06-2006 08:12 PM
Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG rolento Digital Photography 1 11-13-2004 02:40 AM
6th sigma? glunk Java 0 07-14-2004 03:32 PM



Advertisments