25 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10 (was 15 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven M. Scharf, May 8, 2004.

  1. I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.

    Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right away,
    but keep them coming.

    One suggestion was that I drop references to the other D-SLR cameras (i.e.
    Canon 10D, Nikon D70, etc.). I considered this, but I think that this idea
    is unreasonable. If no better alternatives were available, then the SD-10
    wouldn't appear to be so bad. It's the fact that the Nikon D70, the Canon
    10D, and even the Canon EOS-300D, are so clearly superior, that it's
    impossible to not make the obvious comparisons.
    Steven M. Scharf, May 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message news:<qlbnc.12511$>...
    > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    >
    > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right away,
    > but keep them coming.


    I've recieved over 88,000 emails telling me about more advantages for
    the SD9 and SD10.
    George Preddy, May 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steven M. Scharf

    Paul Howland Guest

    Steven M. Scharf wrote:
    > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    >
    > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right away,
    > but keep them coming.
    >
    > One suggestion was that I drop references to the other D-SLR cameras (i.e.
    > Canon 10D, Nikon D70, etc.). I considered this, but I think that this idea
    > is unreasonable. If no better alternatives were available, then the SD-10
    > wouldn't appear to be so bad. It's the fact that the Nikon D70, the Canon
    > 10D, and even the Canon EOS-300D, are so clearly superior, that it's
    > impossible to not make the obvious comparisons.
    >
    >

    To be properly objective you ought to include referemnces to tests and
    examples that support your claims. For balance, you should also include
    some reasons in favour of the SD10 - it's not all bad. Without these,
    the site is *almost* as one-sided and unsubstantiated as George, and
    that's not good!

    Paul
    (D70 owner)
    Paul Howland, May 9, 2004
    #3
  4. > I've recieved over 88,000 emails telling me about more advantages for
    > the SD9 and SD10.


    Guess the spell checker is broken.
    Randall Ainsworth, May 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Steven M. Scharf

    Yvonne Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:qlbnc.12511$...
    > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    >
    > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right

    away,
    > but keep them coming.
    >
    > One suggestion was that I drop references to the other D-SLR cameras (i.e.
    > Canon 10D, Nikon D70, etc.). I considered this, but I think that this idea
    > is unreasonable. If no better alternatives were available, then the SD-10
    > wouldn't appear to be so bad. It's the fact that the Nikon D70, the Canon
    > 10D, and even the Canon EOS-300D, are so clearly superior, that it's
    > impossible to not make the obvious comparisons.


    Thank you Steven for your very informative site. I am a "newbie," currently
    using a Canon S50, and considering a digital SLR camera, either the Canon
    10D or the Nikon D70. When comparing only by specifications the Sigma SD-10
    did seem to be one other option, but now I realize that it is not suitable
    for my needs. The lower resolution was my initial concern, but the issues
    with lenses that you point out are what really convinced me not to go the
    Sigma route.
    Yvonne, May 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Steven M. Scharf

    Yvonne Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:080520042156082992%...
    > > I've recieved over 88,000 emails telling me about more advantages for
    > > the SD9 and SD10.

    >
    > Guess the spell checker is broken.


    True, but Steven spelled "Avoid" wrong. Preddy's spelling and grammar
    mistakes are amusing, but pointing out such errors is petty. It's more
    important to point out Preddy's lies than to worry about spelling errors.
    Yvonne, May 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Steven M. Scharf

    Yvonne Guest

    "Paul Howland" <> wrote in message
    news:409db9d7$0$60789$...

    > To be properly objective you ought to include referemnces to tests and
    > examples that support your claims. For balance, you should also include
    > some reasons in favour of the SD10 - it's not all bad. Without these,
    > the site is *almost* as one-sided and unsubstantiated as George, and
    > that's not good!


    I disagree. The regular camera review sites have extensive tests, and point
    out the favorable aspects of many cameras. But these sites seem reluctant to
    ever write anything negative about any camera. A site that tells it like it
    is is very useful when deciding on a purchase of this magnitude, however
    harsh the truth may be.

    Besides that, I could not locate any site, or any review, that rated the
    SD10 as highly as the 10D or the D70. The best that any site said about the
    SD10 was that it was a huge improvement over the SD9, and then they went
    into how bad the SD9 was. But when I went back and read the SD9 review on
    the same site, they again were reluctant to write anything more than mildly
    negative.
    Yvonne, May 9, 2004
    #7
  8. Steven M. Scharf

    Paul Howland Guest

    Yvonne wrote:

    > "Paul Howland" <> wrote in message
    > news:409db9d7$0$60789$...
    >
    >
    >>To be properly objective you ought to include referemnces to tests and
    >>examples that support your claims. For balance, you should also include
    >>some reasons in favour of the SD10 - it's not all bad. Without these,
    >>the site is *almost* as one-sided and unsubstantiated as George, and
    >>that's not good!

    >
    >
    > I disagree. The regular camera review sites have extensive tests, and point
    > out the favorable aspects of many cameras. But these sites seem reluctant to
    > ever write anything negative about any camera. A site that tells it like it
    > is is very useful when deciding on a purchase of this magnitude, however
    > harsh the truth may be.
    >
    > Besides that, I could not locate any site, or any review, that rated the
    > SD10 as highly as the 10D or the D70. The best that any site said about the
    > SD10 was that it was a huge improvement over the SD9, and then they went
    > into how bad the SD9 was. But when I went back and read the SD9 review on
    > the same site, they again were reluctant to write anything more than mildly
    > negative.
    >
    >
    >

    Fine - then provide the links, that's all I'm saying. I believe you - I
    chose a Nikon D70. However, as it stands the site is just one viewpoint
    versus another. And to be objective it is worth pointing out any
    stengths the camera has.
    Paul Howland, May 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Steven M. Scharf

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that (George Preddy) stated
    that:

    >"Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message news:<qlbnc.12511$>...
    >> I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    >>
    >> Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    >> things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right away,
    >> but keep them coming.

    >
    >I've recieved over 88,000 emails telling me about more advantages for
    >the SD9 and SD10.


    It amazes me that you are so mentally ill that you think anyone would
    believe you. Get help, 'George'.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, May 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Steven M. Scharf

    Alan D-W Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message

    news:<qlbnc.12511$>...
    > > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    > >
    > > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with

    other
    > > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right

    away,
    > > but keep them coming.

    >
    > I've recieved over 88,000 emails telling me about more advantages for
    > the SD9 and SD10.


    Lies, lies and more lies. Does Preddy ever speak the truth, one wonders?
    Alan D-W, May 9, 2004
    #10
  11. Steven M. Scharf

    Alan D-W Guest

    "Yvonne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >


    > Besides that, I could not locate any site, or any review, that rated the
    > SD10 as highly as the 10D or the D70. The best that any site said about

    the
    > SD10 was that it was a huge improvement over the SD9, and then they went
    > into how bad the SD9 was.


    A huge improvement on shite gets you up to bloody crap on the bad camera
    scale. When we reach the SD43 it might just about be a useable camera.
    Alan D-W, May 9, 2004
    #11
  12. Steven M. Scharf

    _ Guest

    I AGREE!!!


    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:qlbnc.12511$...
    > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    >
    > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right

    away,
    > but keep them coming.
    >
    > One suggestion was that I drop references to the other D-SLR cameras (i.e.
    > Canon 10D, Nikon D70, etc.). I considered this, but I think that this idea
    > is unreasonable. If no better alternatives were available, then the SD-10
    > wouldn't appear to be so bad. It's the fact that the Nikon D70, the Canon
    > 10D, and even the Canon EOS-300D, are so clearly superior, that it's
    > impossible to not make the obvious comparisons.
    >
    >
    _, May 9, 2004
    #12
  13. > True, but Steven spelled "Avoid" wrong. Preddy's spelling and grammar
    > mistakes are amusing, but pointing out such errors is petty. It's more
    > important to point out Preddy's lies than to worry about spelling errors.


    Oh, I've done that but like everyone else the points out he's an idiot
    and a liar...he avoids me.
    Randall Ainsworth, May 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Paul Howland <> wrote in news:409db9d7$0$60789$cd19a363
    @news.wanadoo.nl:

    > To be properly objective you ought to include referemnces to tests and
    > examples that support your claims. For balance, you should also include
    > some reasons in favour of the SD10 - it's not all bad. Without these,
    > the site is *almost* as one-sided and unsubstantiated as George, and
    > that's not good!
    >


    If you list correct negative facts it is not unsubstantial, maybe
    it can be called unbalanced. Preddy claims lots of untrue facts.

    Now - how about the positive sides of SD10/SD9?
    Anyone? (Except Preddy hat is :)


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, May 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Steven M. Scharf

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Yvonne" <> wrote:

    >True, but Steven spelled "Avoid" wrong. Preddy's spelling and grammar
    >mistakes are amusing, but pointing out such errors is petty.


    Individually, they are not significant, but they tend to come in huge
    clusters at times, suggesting some major turbulence in his
    bio-chemistry.

    >It's more
    >important to point out Preddy's lies than to worry about spelling errors.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 9, 2004
    #15
  16. Steven M. Scharf

    Yvonne Guest

    "Alan D-W" <> wrote in message
    news:409df30d$0$20514$...
    >
    > "Yvonne" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >

    >
    > > Besides that, I could not locate any site, or any review, that rated the
    > > SD10 as highly as the 10D or the D70. The best that any site said about

    > the
    > > SD10 was that it was a huge improvement over the SD9, and then they went
    > > into how bad the SD9 was.

    >
    > A huge improvement on shite gets you up to bloody crap on the bad camera
    > scale. When we reach the SD43 it might just about be a useable camera.


    I think that one other reason stated on the 25 Reasons site was very
    pertinent. If you buy an SD10 then you're stuck with an amateur camera, with
    SA mount lenses, with no higher end bodies to move up to. Even if you buy
    the Sigma EX lenses, they are inferior to the Canon L lenses and the Nikon
    professional lenses, but you still don't have a prosumer or professional
    body from Sigma to use them on. With Canon and Nikon, you can move up from
    their prosumer models to their professional models, if you happen to win the
    lottery or something. Also, the SD10 is selling for a prosumer price, I
    think Sigma is scared to lower the price to a more reasonable level.

    I did see some muted praise of Sigma cameras in some reviews, but there were
    always caveats about weird color problems, warnings to not go to too high an
    ISO setting, and complaints about Sigma lenses.
    Yvonne, May 9, 2004
    #16
  17. "Yvonne" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:qlbnc.12511$...
    > > I've updated the site http://nordicgroup.us/sigma.
    > >
    > > Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me suggestions. I will be busy with other
    > > things for the next two days, so any more items won't get added right

    > away,
    > > but keep them coming.
    > >
    > > One suggestion was that I drop references to the other D-SLR cameras (i.e.
    > > Canon 10D, Nikon D70, etc.). I considered this, but I think that this idea
    > > is unreasonable. If no better alternatives were available, then the SD-10
    > > wouldn't appear to be so bad. It's the fact that the Nikon D70, the Canon
    > > 10D, and even the Canon EOS-300D, are so clearly superior, that it's
    > > impossible to not make the obvious comparisons.

    >
    > Thank you Steven for your very informative site. I am a "newbie," currently
    > using a Canon S50, and considering a digital SLR camera, either the Canon
    > 10D or the Nikon D70. When comparing only by specifications the Sigma SD-10
    > did seem to be one other option, but now I realize that it is not suitable
    > for my needs. The lower resolution was my initial concern, but the issues
    > with lenses that you point out are what really convinced me not to go the
    > Sigma route.


    Read Betty Swallocks, a former Canon 1Ds user's comments here...
    http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/sd9
    George Preddy, May 9, 2004
    #17
  18. "Alan D-W" <> wrote in message news:<409df30d$0$20514$>...
    > "Yvonne" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >

    >
    > > Besides that, I could not locate any site, or any review, that rated the
    > > SD10 as highly as the 10D or the D70. The best that any site said about

    > the
    > > SD10 was that it was a huge improvement over the SD9, and then they went
    > > into how bad the SD9 was.

    >
    > A huge improvement on shite gets you up to bloody crap on the bad camera
    > scale. When we reach the SD43 it might just about be a useable camera.


    Every review I've read places the SD9/10's image quality as much
    better than anything else available, the complaints are usually about
    the SA only mount. This is understandable if you have to pull from a
    lens pool, but for individuals it is well worth it since Sigam lenses
    are the best in both absolute terms and on value, and it lowers the
    price of the camera bodies from about $4500/$5500 down without the SA
    mount to about $650/$1200 with the SA mount for the SD9/SD10.
    George Preddy, May 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Steven M. Scharf

    Yvonne Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Every review I've read places the SD9/10's image quality as much
    > better than anything else available, the complaints are usually about
    > the SA only mount. This is understandable if you have to pull from a
    > lens pool, but for individuals it is well worth it since Sigma lenses
    > are the best in both absolute terms and on value, and it lowers the
    > price of the camera bodies from about $4500/$5500 down without the SA
    > mount to about $650/$1200 with the SA mount for the SD9/SD10.


    Can you provide URLs to those reviews?

    I've read five reviews. Every one commented that the SD-10 was an
    improvement over the SD-9, but that it still lagged the Canon 10D in image
    quality (these reviews were prior to the Nikon D70 release).

    Invariably, the review complained about the poor quality digital camera
    specific Sigma lenses (non-EX lenses). I talked to a professional
    photographer at a co-worker's Bar-Mitzvah that I attended recently, and he
    just laughed when I asked about Sigma cameras. He actually did have one
    Sigma lens, but he admitted that this was because the Nikon lens with the
    same zoom range was too expensive, though of better optical quality.

    Anyway, the 10D is on order. $1200 + tax. It was a close choice between the
    D70 and the 10D, but my relative has some Canon EF lenses I can use.
    Yvonne, May 9, 2004
    #19
  20. George Preddy wrote:

    > Read Betty Swallocks, a former Canon 1Ds user's comments here...
    > http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/sd9


    That has about as much credibility as you do... Incidentally, my first
    thought was "Damn, Preddy-boy is spamming pbase as well!".

    -JP
    Jukka-Pekka Suominen, May 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RObErT_RaTh

    I haven't been on much for good reasons

    RObErT_RaTh, Sep 23, 2005, in forum: The Lounge
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    3,967
    unholy
    Sep 26, 2005
  2. Tom Betz
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    737
    Tom Betz
    Jan 12, 2005
  3. amos
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
  4. Zach Malmgren

    MTU sizes and reasons

    Zach Malmgren, Jan 6, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    48,556
    virtualj
    Nov 14, 2012
  5. Jtyc
    Replies:
    114
    Views:
    2,357
    Kendal Emery
    Aug 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page