DSLR rundown.

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

  1. John Navas <> wrote in message news:<qjMfc.6133$>...
    > [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.


    No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.

    Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,
    where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 16, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. George Preddy

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on 16 Apr 2004
    06:15:41 -0700, (George Preddy) wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote in message news:<qjMfc.6133$>...


    >> Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.

    >
    >No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    >Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    >lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.


    False, as the facts in my post make clear.

    >Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,


    False, just listed in a different section.

    >where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.


    Nope. The facts speak for themselves.

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

    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
     
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy

    jean Guest

    > > Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.
    >
    > No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    > Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    > lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.
    >
    > Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,
    > where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.


    I bought a Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro for my Canon 300D.
    From new it would not expose correctly. The diaphragm unit was replaced
    after which the focus was off. Now I am waiting for a replacement from
    Japan. I used the lens a few days when I got it, now after two months
    without it do you think I would have been worse off getting a Canon lens
    instead?

    As always, YMMV but for me it is piss poor at the moment!

    Jean
     
    jean, Apr 16, 2004
    #23
  4. John Navas wrote:

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


    Neatly omitting the Sigma lenses which are considered to be the best -
    the 15-30mm and the new 12-24mm; rather neatly comparing DG lenses,
    which are optimised for coverage of 1.5X (APS) form factor sensors, and
    in some cases entirely omitting the DG label (i.e. 20mm f1.8)
    >
    > 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
    >


    (etc snipped)

    What on earth is wrong with Sigma advocacy? And why on earth compare
    Sigma only with Nikon, Canon? Are Tokina, Tamron, Pentax, Minolta all
    not worth bringing into discussion?

    From where I see it, Sigma has contributed to photography and not
    exploited photographers. As a company, they have progressed lens design
    and pushed the majors into perhaps more interesting designs than would
    otherwise have existed. They have a track record for acceptable QC on
    higher end newer lenses, abominable QC during the first ten years or so,
    and a habit of going beyond the limits of accept quality/design/price
    constraint.

    Like Praktica, whose UK distributor used to handle Sigma alongside the
    East German make, Sigma has done a great of good for ordinary
    photographers and got little recognition from a certain type of camera
    owner. It used to be a big problem in camera clubs, and now it seems to
    be a problem on usenet.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 16, 2004
    #24
  5. jean wrote:
    >>>Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.

    >>
    >>No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    >>Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    >>lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.
    >>
    >>Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,
    >>where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.

    >
    >
    > I bought a Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro for my Canon 300D.
    > From new it would not expose correctly. The diaphragm unit was replaced
    > after which the focus was off. Now I am waiting for a replacement from
    > Japan. I used the lens a few days when I got it, now after two months
    > without it do you think I would have been worse off getting a Canon lens
    > instead?
    >
    > As always, YMMV but for me it is piss poor at the moment!
    >


    In the last few years I've tested most of Sigma's new lenses, sent by
    post or carrier, unopened warehouse samples, and all so far have been
    OK. However, I generally ask for Minolta or Nikon mount (Minolta are
    RARE but that's my regular system) and for various reasons, the only
    faulty Sigmas I have had have all been Canon mount lenses.

    John Navas wondered why I would use low-end Canon glass. Easy - all I
    want is a Canon body, along with my other various bodies, for testing
    lenses. They come with low-end glass. Same goes for my Nikon testing
    body which came with a 28-80mm. No point in spending a lot on a lens
    when the idea is just to have the body around to be able to test new
    lenses, mainly from independents.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 16, 2004
    #25
  6. George Preddy

    jean Guest

    "David Kilpatrick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:c5p7d0$j69$...
    >
    >
    > jean wrote:
    > >>>Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.
    > >>
    > >>No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    > >>Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    > >>lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.
    > >>
    > >>Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,
    > >>where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.

    > >
    > >
    > > I bought a Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro for my Canon 300D.
    > > From new it would not expose correctly. The diaphragm unit was replaced
    > > after which the focus was off. Now I am waiting for a replacement from
    > > Japan. I used the lens a few days when I got it, now after two months
    > > without it do you think I would have been worse off getting a Canon lens
    > > instead?
    > >
    > > As always, YMMV but for me it is piss poor at the moment!
    > >

    >
    > In the last few years I've tested most of Sigma's new lenses, sent by
    > post or carrier, unopened warehouse samples, and all so far have been
    > OK. However, I generally ask for Minolta or Nikon mount (Minolta are
    > RARE but that's my regular system) and for various reasons, the only
    > faulty Sigmas I have had have all been Canon mount lenses.
    >
    > John Navas wondered why I would use low-end Canon glass. Easy - all I
    > want is a Canon body, along with my other various bodies, for testing
    > lenses. They come with low-end glass. Same goes for my Nikon testing
    > body which came with a 28-80mm. No point in spending a lot on a lens
    > when the idea is just to have the body around to be able to test new
    > lenses, mainly from independents.
    >
    > David


    The Sigma lens looked mighty impressive when I first got it, big and heavy.
    It was rated about the same as the Canon equivalent lens for half the price
    with macro capability added. I'm not a snob, I just wanted something that
    worked. When I was younger and had less money, I bought Vivitar and Soligor
    lenses instead of the (then) very expensive Canon lenses, I still have them
    and can still use them on my 300D.

    I hope the story unfolds correctly soon.

    Jean
     
    jean, Apr 16, 2004
    #26
  7. "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message news:<%LWfc.221$>...
    > "David Kilpatrick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:c5p7d0$j69$...
    > >
    > >
    > > jean wrote:
    > > >>>Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.
    > > >>
    > > >>No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    > > >>Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    > > >>lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.
    > > >>
    > > >>Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone, btw,
    > > >>where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > I bought a Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro for my Canon 300D.
    > > > From new it would not expose correctly. The diaphragm unit was replaced
    > > > after which the focus was off. Now I am waiting for a replacement from
    > > > Japan. I used the lens a few days when I got it, now after two months
    > > > without it do you think I would have been worse off getting a Canon lens
    > > > instead?
    > > >
    > > > As always, YMMV but for me it is piss poor at the moment!
    > > >

    > >
    > > In the last few years I've tested most of Sigma's new lenses, sent by
    > > post or carrier, unopened warehouse samples, and all so far have been
    > > OK. However, I generally ask for Minolta or Nikon mount (Minolta are
    > > RARE but that's my regular system) and for various reasons, the only
    > > faulty Sigmas I have had have all been Canon mount lenses.
    > >
    > > John Navas wondered why I would use low-end Canon glass. Easy - all I
    > > want is a Canon body, along with my other various bodies, for testing
    > > lenses. They come with low-end glass. Same goes for my Nikon testing
    > > body which came with a 28-80mm. No point in spending a lot on a lens
    > > when the idea is just to have the body around to be able to test new
    > > lenses, mainly from independents.
    > >
    > > David

    >
    > The Sigma lens looked mighty impressive when I first got it, big and heavy.
    > It was rated about the same as the Canon equivalent lens for half the price
    > with macro capability added. I'm not a snob, I just wanted something that
    > worked. When I was younger and had less money, I bought Vivitar and Soligor
    > lenses instead of the (then) very expensive Canon lenses, I still have them
    > and can still use them on my 300D.
    >
    > I hope the story unfolds correctly soon.


    The only reason Canon sells any lenses at all is because most people
    are misinformed, including so-called pros. L glass performs ok for
    the most part, but it is way to fragile and absurdly priced. Any lens
    that has to be painted white to prevent thermal distortion and
    cracking isn't suitable for professional type wear and tear. Canon
    build quality is low across the board, with the 300D+lens being a
    brazen slap in the face to consumers--a total ripoff.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 17, 2004
    #27
  8. (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ajlo$4j7$>...
    > 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


    The Sigma SDs (read: the only pro quality digital SLRs available) are
    obviously the only 3.43 non-interpolated machines.

    Second place, the Kodak 14n, isn't even as good as 35mm film, while
    the SD9 and SD10 exceed medium format film by a wide margin.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 17, 2004
    #28
  9. "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message news:<8%2ec.359$>...
    > Now please explain why Canon 1Ds outsell the SD10.


    It doesn't even come close.

    But obviously there are plenty of people who are misinformed enough to
    buy into Canon's pathetic optical resolution. The 1DS is a resolution
    joke, here is a stock 13.72MP Sigma SD9 image vs the lowly 11MP Canon
    1Ds...

    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg
     
    George Preddy, Apr 17, 2004
    #29
  10. "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message news:<qY2ec.17131$>...
    > You sure haven't gotten any smrter have you George?


    How "smrt" do I need to be to see how poorly the 1Ds performas
    relative to the fabulous Sigmas? Here is everything one needs to
    know...

    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg

    The 2.76MP Canon 1Ds's optical resolution truly stinks. The 1.5MP
    Canon 10D is a joke, it's everybit as bad as the 1Ds, but not full
    frame as a sort of very low lens quality consolation prize.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 17, 2004
    #30
  11. George Preddy

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Preddy <> wrote:
    > here is a stock 13.72MP Sigma SD9 image vs the lowly 11MP Canon


    You've stated that the SD9 is a 3.4 MP camera

    Are you capable of telling the truth?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 17, 2004
    #31
  12. George Preddy

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Preddy <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ajlo$4j7$>...
    >> 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

    >
    >The Sigma SDs (read: the only pro quality digital SLRs available) are
    >obviously the only 3.43 non-interpolated machines.


    So when you claim that it's a 13.72MP camera you're lying.

    Noted.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 17, 2004
    #32
  13. George Preddy

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    But George
    You are lying.
    You don't have a camera.
    You are not a dead air corps ace.
    You are a blow it out yerass troll with no facts and no
    experience.
    You are only out to get people to waste money, be it
    on Sigma's lousy cameras or dead computer operating systems etc. You have
    about the same credibility as those people from Nigeria who need to move
    money out of their accounts or the guys who turn six dollars into a
    thousand. Since you are amazingly stupid I'll make that clear -- YOU DON'T
    HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY. You are a known fraud.

    --
    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:...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message

    news:<qY2ec.17131$>...
    > > You sure haven't gotten any smrter have you George?

    >
    > How "smrt" do I need to be to see how poorly the 1Ds performas
    > relative to the fabulous Sigmas? Here is everything one needs to
    > know...
    >
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg
    >
    > The 2.76MP Canon 1Ds's optical resolution truly stinks. The 1.5MP
    > Canon 10D is a joke, it's everybit as bad as the 1Ds, but not full
    > frame as a sort of very low lens quality consolation prize.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Apr 17, 2004
    #33
  14. "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message news:<n_ggc.26987$>...
    > But George
    > You are lying.
    > You don't have a camera.
    >
    > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg


    Why does anyone need a camera to see how badly the old 90's technology
    CMOS(sub '486 level fabrication) in the $8000 Canon gets flogged by
    the high tech CMOS (much more powerful than a Pentium 4) in the
    Sigmas?

    Just look at those links above. Wow!!! Foveon is truly dominant.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 18, 2004
    #34
  15. George Preddy

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Preddy <> wrote:
    >"Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message news:<n_ggc.26987$>...
    >> But George
    >> You are lying.
    >> You don't have a camera.
    >>
    >> > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    >> > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg

    >
    >Why does anyone need a camera to see how badly the old 90's technology
    >CMOS(sub '486 level fabrication)


    Do you even know what "CMOS" stands for?

    > in the $8000 Canon gets flogged by
    >the high tech CMOS (much more powerful than a Pentium 4)


    That doesn't even make sense.

    > in the
    >Sigmas?
    >
    >Just look at those links above.


    Oooo! Test patterns!

    > Wow!!! Foveon is truly dominant.


    That's why so many people aren't buying Sigman cameras.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 18, 2004
    #35
  16. George Preddy

    jean Guest

    "George Preddy" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message

    news:<%LWfc.221$>...
    > > "David Kilpatrick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > > news:c5p7d0$j69$...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > jean wrote:
    > > > >>>Here we go again with the Sigma advocacy.
    > > > >>
    > > > >>No kidding, they make much better lenses than fragile, shatter prone
    > > > >>Canon L selling for 3 to 10 times the price (and some with plastic
    > > > >>lens mounts!) for pretty darn low optical performance.
    > > > >>
    > > > >>Nice snipping of all the Sigma first place winners on photozone,

    btw,
    > > > >>where every important category is dominated by Sigma EX glass.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > I bought a Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro for my Canon

    300D.
    > > > > From new it would not expose correctly. The diaphragm unit was

    replaced
    > > > > after which the focus was off. Now I am waiting for a replacement

    from
    > > > > Japan. I used the lens a few days when I got it, now after two

    months
    > > > > without it do you think I would have been worse off getting a Canon

    lens
    > > > > instead?
    > > > >
    > > > > As always, YMMV but for me it is piss poor at the moment!
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > In the last few years I've tested most of Sigma's new lenses, sent by
    > > > post or carrier, unopened warehouse samples, and all so far have been
    > > > OK. However, I generally ask for Minolta or Nikon mount (Minolta are
    > > > RARE but that's my regular system) and for various reasons, the only
    > > > faulty Sigmas I have had have all been Canon mount lenses.
    > > >
    > > > John Navas wondered why I would use low-end Canon glass. Easy - all I
    > > > want is a Canon body, along with my other various bodies, for testing
    > > > lenses. They come with low-end glass. Same goes for my Nikon testing
    > > > body which came with a 28-80mm. No point in spending a lot on a lens
    > > > when the idea is just to have the body around to be able to test new
    > > > lenses, mainly from independents.
    > > >
    > > > David

    > >
    > > The Sigma lens looked mighty impressive when I first got it, big and

    heavy.
    > > It was rated about the same as the Canon equivalent lens for half the

    price
    > > with macro capability added. I'm not a snob, I just wanted something

    that
    > > worked. When I was younger and had less money, I bought Vivitar and

    Soligor
    > > lenses instead of the (then) very expensive Canon lenses, I still have

    them
    > > and can still use them on my 300D.
    > >
    > > I hope the story unfolds correctly soon.

    >
    > The only reason Canon sells any lenses at all is because most people
    > are misinformed, including so-called pros. L glass performs ok for
    > the most part, but it is way to fragile and absurdly priced. Any lens
    > that has to be painted white to prevent thermal distortion and
    > cracking isn't suitable for professional type wear and tear. Canon
    > build quality is low across the board, with the 300D+lens being a
    > brazen slap in the face to consumers--a total ripoff.


    ARE YOU DENSE???? I bought 3 Canon lenses along with the "kit" lens, I had
    ZERO problems with them, black OR white!!! I buy ONE Sigma lens and it
    does NOT work. With that kind of record, I would not buy another Sigma
    lens but I would not hesitate to buy a Canon lens.

    Then you ramble about my camera. WAKE UP, and learn to read.

    What an idiot
     
    jean, Apr 18, 2004
    #36
  17. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    So, now, you finally admit you don't have a camera! Just as most of us
    suspected. You merely hijack other people's images, claim some of them as
    your own, and misquote (at best) articles, and claim to be a pro
    photographer. Get a life!

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message

    news:<n_ggc.26987$>...
    > > But George
    > > You are lying.
    > > You don't have a camera.
    > >
    > > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    > > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg

    >
    > Why does anyone need a camera to see how badly the old 90's technology
    > CMOS(sub '486 level fabrication) in the $8000 Canon gets flogged by
    > the high tech CMOS (much more powerful than a Pentium 4) in the
    > Sigmas?
    >
    > Just look at those links above. Wow!!! Foveon is truly dominant.
     
    Skip M, Apr 18, 2004
    #37
  18. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > How "smrt" do I need to be to see how poorly the 1Ds performas
    > relative to the fabulous Sigmas? Here is everything one needs to
    > know...
    >
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop_1ds_0000_1328_C1.jpg
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/crop2_sd9_0000_00200.jpg


    And here for a same Field-of-View comparison:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/SD-9_identical_FoV_to_1Ds.jpg
    Also consider that the original comparison was designed to "fool" the 1Ds
    with an unlikely color combination, and that the 1Ds image was low-pass
    filtered to almost half the sampling resolution, whereas the Sigma wasn't.
    Downsizing also reduced the aliasing tendency of the SD-9, thereby improving
    the image quality.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 18, 2004
    #38
  19. (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


    http://www.pbase.com/image/23420444
     
    George Preddy, Apr 19, 2004
    #39
  20. (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5rqnv$qnq$>...
    > George Preddy <> wrote:
    > > (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ajlo$4j7$>...
    > >> 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

    > >
    > >The Sigma SDs (read: the only pro quality digital SLRs available) are
    > >obviously the only 3.43 non-interpolated machines.

    >
    > So when you claim that it's a 13.72MP camera you're lying.
    >
    > Noted.


    13.72MP is the only interpolated resolution choice Foveon supports.
    The Sigmas are the highest MP cameras of all the DSLRs.

    The 14n is reasonably close to the Simga's MP count, in theory, but it
    sufferes from severe color artifacting due to the ommision of a blur
    filter along with using a mosiac sensor--big mistake. This lowers the
    usable effective resolution of the 14n to less than half of the Foveon
    sensor according to discover Magazine's exhaustive tests.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 19, 2004
    #40
    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:
    583
    Vlvetmorning98
    Sep 16, 2003
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    841
    Doug MacLean
    Dec 18, 2003
  3. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    Writer R5
    Apr 9, 2004
  4. RussS
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    RussS
    Aug 28, 2003
  5. Ghost
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    557
    techshare
    Sep 12, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page