DSLR rundown.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Apr 11, 2004.

  1. Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    with their 13.72MP SD twins. From top to bottom...

    Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    =======================================
    Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)

    **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling

    Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...

    Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)

    Camera body - Street Price
    ==========================
    SD9 - $630
    SD10 - $1200
    Kodak 14n - $4500
    Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    George Preddy, Apr 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    George Preddy wrote:
    >
    > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > with their 13.72MP SD twins.


    but the sigma is the instamatic of the digital world.
    right. the pro instamatic.



    > From top to bottom...
    >
    > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > =======================================
    > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    >
    > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    >
    > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    >
    > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    >
    > Camera body - Street Price
    > ==========================
    > SD9 - $630
    > SD10 - $1200
    > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    Crownfield, Apr 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    You sure haven't gotten any smrter have you George? For those who might
    wonder what his post was about, George Preddy had been dead since 1945 - the
    usenet troll who uses his name claims to be him, and claims to own a
    camera - these are apparently fantasies. It is well known that the Sigma
    SLRs (digital or otherwize) are pathetic junk that will not last long and
    will only take Sigma's own cheap shoddy lenses.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > with their 13.72MP SD twins. From top to bottom...
    >
    > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > =======================================
    > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    >
    > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    >
    > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    >
    > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    >
    > Camera body - Street Price
    > ==========================
    > SD9 - $630
    > SD10 - $1200
    > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    Tony Spadaro, Apr 11, 2004
    #3
  4. George Preddy

    jean Guest

    Now please explain why Canon 1Ds outsell the SD10. There must be a reason
    why people are so stupid as to pay 6 times the price of a Sigma SD10 or
    almost 12 times the price of a Sigma SD9!

    Waiting for a logical explanation.

    Jean

    "George Preddy" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > with their 13.72MP SD twins. From top to bottom...
    >
    > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > =======================================
    > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    >
    > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    >
    > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    >
    > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    >
    > Camera body - Street Price
    > ==========================
    > SD9 - $630
    > SD10 - $1200
    > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    jean, Apr 11, 2004
    #4
  5. More bovine excrement from the lips of George (or whatever his real
    name is). Where does this guy come up with this nonsense?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 11, 2004
    #5
  6. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    Availability may be one reason. There are no retailers in the San Diego
    area selling Sigma cameras, at least that I could find. If anyone knows of
    one in the area, let me know, I would like to actually check out this
    paragon of photographic rectitude. I was told that Samy's in LA has them,
    but I'm not going up to LA for about a month or so...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message
    news:8%2ec.359$...
    > Now please explain why Canon 1Ds outsell the SD10. There must be a reason
    > why people are so stupid as to pay 6 times the price of a Sigma SD10 or
    > almost 12 times the price of a Sigma SD9!
    >
    > Waiting for a logical explanation.
    >
    > Jean
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:...
    > > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > > with their 13.72MP SD twins. From top to bottom...
    > >
    > > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > > =======================================
    > > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > >
    > > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    > >
    > > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    > >
    > > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > >
    > > Camera body - Street Price
    > > ==========================
    > > SD9 - $630
    > > SD10 - $1200
    > > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > > Canon 1Ds - $7200

    >
    >
     
    Skip M, Apr 11, 2004
    #6
  7. George Preddy

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Preddy <> wrote:
    >Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    >with their 13.72MP SD twins.


    I agree the SD9 is a 3.43MP camera
    "George Preddy" in <bq6bp8$rep$>

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 11, 2004
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    dslr Guest

    jean wrote:
    >
    > Now please explain why Canon 1Ds outsell the SD10. There must be a reason
    > why people are so stupid as to pay 6 times the price of a Sigma SD10 or
    > almost 12 times the price of a Sigma SD9!
    >
    > Waiting for a logical explanation.
    >


    Hehe, you'll be waiting a long time, probably the length of time it
    takes for the addition of compound interest to increase the money needed
    to buy an SD9 enough to buy a 1DS. Either that or the length of time
    that depreciation takes to reduce the value of a 1DS to that of an SD9
    ;-)

    --
    regards,
    dslr
     
    dslr, Apr 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > >
    > > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > > with their 13.72MP SD twins.

    >
    > but the sigma is the instamatic of the digital world.
    > right. the pro instamatic.


    And what an instamatic it is, at a DSLR-leading 13.72MP interpolated,
    3.43MP non-interpolated...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/23871447

    > > From top to bottom...
    > >
    > > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > > =======================================
    > > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > >
    > > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    > >
    > > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    > >
    > > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > >
    > > Camera body - Street Price
    > > ==========================
    > > SD9 - $630
    > > SD10 - $1200
    > > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > > Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    George Preddy, Apr 11, 2004
    #9
  10. George Preddy

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 10 Apr 2004 19:52:23
    -0700, (George Preddy) wrote:

    >Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    >with their 13.72MP SD twins.


    George Preddy in
    <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=>:

    Here are the actual, full color MP ratings of the main DSLRs...

    Sigma SD9/SD10 - 3.43MP

    Oops!

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
     
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    George Preddy wrote:
    >
    > Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > George Preddy wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs.

    > >
    > > but the sigma is the instamatic of the digital world.
    > > right. the pro instamatic.

    >
    > And what an instamatic it is, at a DSLR-leading 13.72MP interpolated,
    > 3.43MP non-interpolated...


    do you drink it, inject it, or smoke it,
    and what is it that you use?


    > > >
    > > > Camera body - Street Price
    > > > ==========================
    > > > SD9 - $630
    > > > SD10 - $1200
    > > > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > > > Canon 1Ds - $7200
     
    Crownfield, Apr 11, 2004
    #11
  12. "Crownfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > do you drink it, inject it, or smoke it,
    > and what is it that you use?


    It's starting to sound more and more like he's sniffing glue.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 11, 2004
    #12
  13. George Preddy

    Steve m... Guest

    And George Peddy is aftraid to use his real name so that's why he troll's
    this group (and others). It isn't very convincing George to real world
    people when you do this type of thing. Especially when you are trying to
    claim the Sigmas have a place amoungst them.

    Steve m... (Canon 300d user who likes his Pro camera)

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:qY2ec.17131$...
    > You sure haven't gotten any smrter have you George? For those who might
    > wonder what his post was about, George Preddy had been dead since 1945 -

    the
    > usenet troll who uses his name claims to be him, and claims to own a
    > camera - these are apparently fantasies. It is well known that the Sigma
    > SLRs (digital or otherwize) are pathetic junk that will not last long and
    > will only take Sigma's own cheap shoddy lenses.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Time to rundown the 4 pro DSLRs. Sigma still leads the DSLR MP race,
    > > with their 13.72MP SD twins. From top to bottom...
    > >
    > > Camera body - MP (interpolation degree)
    > > =======================================
    > > Sigma SD9 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 3.43MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Kodak 14n - 3.38MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 2.76MP (1 sensed full color per 1 output pixel**)
    > >
    > > **These cameras requires interpolative downsampling
    > >
    > > Or if one prefers ouputing interpolated resolutions...
    > >
    > > Sigma SD9 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Sigma SD10 - 13.72MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Kodak 14n - 13.5MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > > Canon 1Ds - 11.1MP (1 sensed full color per 4 output pixels)
    > >
    > > Camera body - Street Price
    > > ==========================
    > > SD9 - $630
    > > SD10 - $1200
    > > Kodak 14n - $4500
    > > Canon 1Ds - $7200

    >
    >
     
    Steve m..., Apr 11, 2004
    #13
  14. George Preddy

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Preddy, was Re: DSLR rundown.

    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >More bovine excrement from the lips of George (or whatever his real
    >name is). Where does this guy come up with this nonsense?


    Would it be out of order to ask why folks keep responding
    to him?

    This problem occurs on many newsgroups. Often simply ignoring
    the person works.

    But even if it does not, new folks quickly get the message
    when they see that there are no responses to argumentative
    postings.

    As it is, George's messages get at least doubled by the
    responses, crowding the newsgroup.

    No, I'm not picking on you. I'm speaking to the entire
    group of Preddy-antagonists.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Apr 12, 2004
    #14
  15. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    Re: Preddy, was Re: DSLR rundown.

    I know, but it's so much fun to see what silliness "George Preddy" can come
    up with to defend an untenable position.
    Actually, the theory behind the Foveon is good, and one that I think bears
    pursuing, but "George's" insistence on it's superiority, and the supposed
    poor results from the Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Kodak competitors is obviously over
    the top. I just enjoy baiting him, as, apparently does John Navas and a few
    others...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
    news:c5ctas$g0q$...
    > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    > >More bovine excrement from the lips of George (or whatever his real
    > >name is). Where does this guy come up with this nonsense?

    >
    > Would it be out of order to ask why folks keep responding
    > to him?
    >
    > This problem occurs on many newsgroups. Often simply ignoring
    > the person works.
    >
    > But even if it does not, new folks quickly get the message
    > when they see that there are no responses to argumentative
    > postings.
    >
    > As it is, George's messages get at least doubled by the
    > responses, crowding the newsgroup.
    >
    > No, I'm not picking on you. I'm speaking to the entire
    > group of Preddy-antagonists.
    >
    > ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Skip M, Apr 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: Preddy, was Re: DSLR rundown.

    "Skip M" <> wrote:

    > Actually, the theory behind the Foveon is good, and one that I think bears
    > pursuing,


    Since an AA filter is required for correct alias-free imaging, there isn't
    any significant advantage to be had from sampling all three colors
    everywhere. And since there have to be costs (e.g. lower dynamic range due
    to the lower maximum charge stored per pixel (since you have to store three
    indipendent changes in the same area)) with sampling all three colors
    everywhere, you'd be better off investing those in a Bayer camera with a few
    more pixels.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 12, 2004
    #16
  17. "Skip M" <> wrote in message
    news:cz3ec.5782$HN3.2175@fed1read07...
    > Availability may be one reason. There are no retailers in the San Diego
    > area selling Sigma cameras, at least that I could find. If anyone knows

    of
    > one in the area, let me know, I would like to actually check out this
    > paragon of photographic rectitude. I was told that Samy's in LA has them,
    > but I'm not going up to LA for about a month or so...


    If there were any demand, then retailers would carry them.

    As stated on the Nordic Group web site:

    "Sigma, famous for making low-end to mid-range lenses for other camera
    maker's SLRs, now makes their own digital SLRs using sensors from Foveon.

    The first Sigma D-SLR was the 3.4 Mpixel, $650 (close-out price), SD-9. It
    did not do well. The SD-9 has serious image quality problems. It has been
    discontinued, but is still available from some web retailers. Don't be
    enticed by the seemingly unbelievably low price of the Sigma SD-9; it
    dropped from an announced price of $3000 down to a release price of $1800,
    down to a close-out price of $650, for a very good reason!

    The $1350 SD-10 is essentially the same camera as the SD-9, but with an
    improved version of the sensor (but still only 3.4Mp).

    Both cameras suffer from the lack of high quality lenses. Photos taken with
    the Sigma SD cameras typically exhibit a high level of chromatic aberration.
    With Sigma, you must choose from a limited selection of lower quality, Sigma
    SA mount lenses (or pay a lot more for the premium line of Sigma lenses
    which are still lower in quality than the amateur lenses sold by Canon and
    Nikon).

    Don't be misled by the claims that the 3.4Mpixel SD-9 and SD-10 are really
    10.2 Mpixel cameras (or even 13.7Mp!). The type of sensor they use, the
    Foveon sensor, layers three sensors at each pixel location, so it is a 10.2
    Msensor camera. But a sensor is not the same thing as a pixel! If all things
    were equal, the Foveon sensor would provide about a 2x advantage in
    resolution over a Bayer sensor (the type of sensor used in all other digital
    cameras), but all things are not equal. Foveon has potential for lower end
    cameras, but at this juncture the Foveon based Sigma D-SLRs are best
    avoided; Canon is the best value.

    The SD-10 is worth considering only if you already own a collection of the
    premium line of Sigma SA mount lenses (for the Sigma film SLRs). Even so,
    you're looking at a camera body that's not nearly as good as a comparably
    priced Canon 10D, and not even as good as a $900 Canon EOS 300D Digital
    Rebel. Plus the premium line of Sigma lenses (EX line) still isn't as good
    as the low end lenses from Canon or Nikon.

    Ironically, when Foveon based cameras were first introduced, they were
    considered state of the art. They used a Canon lens mount. Many professional
    studios used Foveon's rather cumbersome studio cameras. I have a photograph
    of me taken with a Foveon studio camera at the 1999 Comdex show, next to a
    lovely National Semiconductor "Device Girl," (see
    http://bermangraphics.com/events/comdex1999.htm, this isn't me!). But while
    Bayer sensor resolution quality increased rapidly, Foveon stalled. Hopefully
    they will turn things around; they have very bright people working there."
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Steven M. Scharf wrote:


    > As stated on the Nordic Group web site:
    >


    the best value.
    >
    > The SD-10 is worth considering only if you already own a collection of the
    > premium line of Sigma SA mount lenses (for the Sigma film SLRs). Even so,
    > you're looking at a camera body that's not nearly as good as a comparably
    > priced Canon 10D, and not even as good as a $900 Canon EOS 300D Digital
    > Rebel. Plus the premium line of Sigma lenses (EX line) still isn't as good
    > as the low end lenses from Canon or Nikon.
    >


    Actually, this isn't in the slightest bit true, unless the USA receives
    some special line of crappy Sigmas in return for past sins, and Europe
    gets all the good ones. The EX and DG lines (DG being special digital
    lenses, based on the earlier EX range) are a match for the higher spec
    Canon and Nikon optics and generally only fall short in terms of
    smoothness of AF operation, speed of focus, and handling. Optically they
    are often superior. Some cheap Sigma lenses can beat some cheap maker
    lenses, and my Canon EOS now has a 24-70mm Sigma UC fitted in place of
    the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II Canon EF which came with it, because the Sigma
    is quite simply a much better bit of glass, less bendy, less vignetted,
    and sharper.

    The report quoted is not an objective one, it's an example of extreme
    and prejudicial bias with no apparent motive except, perhaps, a main
    Canon dealership.

    Parts of it make sense, including the fact that while you can be sure of
    future Nikon or Canon mount DSLRs which make lens investments worthwhile
    (from Kodak and maybe from others) there's no guarantee Sigma will ever
    go beyond the SD10 and it's a big investment to commit to a system which
    has only a couple of amateur level SLR bodies for film on offer - and
    lenses which fit no other make.

    The SD10 as a kit, offered cheaply complete with 18-50 and 55-200mm
    lenses, is perfectly good sense if seen as a single purchase which might
    be sold on as the same. That's how I view it - as an alternative to a
    consumer digicam until exactly the right DSLR comes along (full frame,
    no problems, low price!). It is a lot better than a 300D for a variety
    of reasons and for me, at least, the very fast FireWire connection to my
    iBook is a major one.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 14, 2004
    #18
  19. George Preddy

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <c5ke9u$3ct$> on Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:34:40
    +0000 (UTC), David Kilpatrick <> wrote:

    >Steven M. Scharf wrote:


    >> ... Plus the premium line of Sigma lenses (EX line) still isn't as good
    >> as the low end lenses from Canon or Nikon.

    >
    >Actually, this isn't in the slightest bit true, unless the USA receives
    >some special line of crappy Sigmas in return for past sins, and Europe
    >gets all the good ones. The EX and DG lines (DG being special digital
    >lenses, based on the earlier EX range) are a match for the higher spec
    >Canon and Nikon optics


    Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy. [sigh]
    Some Sigmas do measure up, but others don't.
    Photozone:

    Canon EF 2.8 16-35mm USM L 3.97 (3) = very-good
    Canon EF 4.0 17-40mm USM L 3.78 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 2.8 20-40mm EX DG 3.56 (3) = good

    Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L 4.16 (3) = very-good
    Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L 4.15 (5) = very-good
    Nikkor AF 2.8 35-70mm D 4.11 (5) = very-good
    Nikkor AF-S 2.8 28-70mm IF ED D 4.05 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 2.8-4.0 28-80mm USM L 3.56 (4) = good
    Sigma AF 2.8 28-70mm EX DF 3.50 (2) = good

    Canon EF 2.8 14mm USM L 3.44 (3) = good
    Nikkor AF 2.8 14mm ED D 3.22 (3) = average
    Sigma AF 2.8 14mm EX 2.67 (4) = sub-average

    Nikkor AF 2.8 18mm D 3.57 (2) = good
    Canon EF 2.8 20mm 3.36 (4) = good
    Nikkor AF 2.8 20mm 3.14 (4) = average
    Sigma AF 1.8 20mm EX 1.91 (2) = poor

    Nikkor AF 2.0 35mm 4.07 (4) = very good
    Canon EF 2.8 28mm 3.86 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 2.8 24mm 3.70 (3) = good
    Canon EF 1.4 35mm USM L 3.61 (4) = good
    Canon EF 2.0 35mm 3.50 (4) = good
    Nikkor AF 2.8 24mm 3.46 (3) = good
    Nikkor AF 1.4 28mm D 3.45 (3) = good
    Sigma AF 2.8 24mm 3.30 (4) = good
    Nikkor AF 2.8 28mm 3.28 (4) = good
    Canon EF 1.8 28mm USM 3.22 (4) = average
    Sigma AF 1.8 28mm EX 3.10 (2) = average
    Canon EF 1.4 24mm USM L 2.88 (3) = average
    Sigma AF 1.8 24mm EX 2.78 (2) = average

    Canon EF 2.8 300mm USM L IS 4.82 (2) = outstanding!
    Canon EF 2.8 300mm USM L 4.50 (3) = outstanding!
    Nikkor AF-S 2.8 300mm ED D 4.50 (2) = outstanding!
    Canon EF 4.0 300mm USM L 4.34 (3) = excellent
    Nikkor AF-S 4.0 300mm ED 4.12 (2) = very-good
    Canon EF 4.0 300mm USM L IS 4.04 (5) = very-good
    Nikkor AF 4.0 300mm ED 3.99 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 4.0 300mm APO Macro 3.74 (5) = good
    Sigma AF 2.8 300mm APO EX 3.68 (2) = good

    >and generally only fall short in terms of
    >smoothness of AF operation, speed of focus, and handling.


    All very important issues.

    >Optically they
    >are often superior.


    Not often, but a few:

    Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (HSM) 4.18 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 2.8 120-300mm EX (HSM) 4.05 (3) = very-good
    Sigma AF 4.0-5.6 70-300mm APO Macro Super 3.21 (2) = average
    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!

    >Some cheap Sigma lenses can beat some cheap maker
    >lenses,


    And those would be? Certainly not:

    Sigma AF 3.8-5.6 28-135mm IF Aspherical macro 2.72 (3) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm Macro Aspherical 2.71 (4) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 3.5-5.6 24-70mm Aspherical 2.66 (5) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 3.8-5.6 28-200mm DL macro IF Aspherical 2.38 (2) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 3.5-6.3 28-300mm DL IF Asph. 2.30 (3) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 4.5-6.7 100-300mm UC DL 2.55 (3) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 4.0-5.6 70-300mm DL Macro Super 2.17 (2) = poor
    Sigma AF 2.8 14mm EX 2.67 (4) = sub-average
    Sigma AF 1.8 20mm EX 1.91 (2) = poor
    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average

    >and my Canon EOS now has a 24-70mm Sigma UC fitted in place of
    >the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II Canon EF which came with it, because the Sigma
    >is quite simply a much better bit of glass, less bendy, less vignetted,
    >and sharper.


    Why are you using cheap consumer lenses?

    >The report quoted is not an objective one, it's an example of extreme
    >and prejudicial bias with no apparent motive except, perhaps, a main
    >Canon dealership.


    You don't agree, so you attack it. [sigh]

    >Parts of it make sense, ...


    The parts you agree with..

    >The SD10 as a kit, offered cheaply complete with 18-50 and 55-200mm
    >lenses, is perfectly good sense if seen as a single purchase which might
    >be sold on as the same. That's how I view it - as an alternative to a
    >consumer digicam until exactly the right DSLR comes along (full frame,
    >no problems, low price!). It is a lot better than a 300D for a variety
    >of reasons ...


    I disagree.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    #19
  20. George Preddy

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <c5ke9u$3ct$>,
    David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >
    >Actually, this isn't in the slightest bit true, unless the USA receives
    >some special line of crappy Sigmas in return for past sins, and Europe
    >gets all the good ones. The EX and DG lines (DG being special digital
    >lenses, based on the earlier EX range) are a match for the higher spec
    >Canon and Nikon optics and generally only fall short in terms of
    >smoothness of AF operation, speed of focus, and handling.


    The only EX lens I owned, a 14mm f/2.8 EX, was probably best described as
    "disappointing" optically. It produced terrible results with strongly
    backlit subjects. I sold it and bought a Canon 15mm f/2.8 fisheye for about
    half the price. It may not be fair to compare rectilinear and fisheye lenses
    in this way, but the Canon (non-L) lens was so much better than the Sigma
    optically that it wasn't funny.

    YMMV.
     
    Chris Brown, Apr 16, 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. Josh Parsons
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    563
    Vlvetmorning98
    Sep 16, 2003
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    814
    Doug MacLean
    Dec 18, 2003
  3. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
    Writer R5
    Apr 9, 2004
  4. RussS
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    RussS
    Aug 28, 2003
  5. Ghost
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    529
    techshare
    Sep 12, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page