Fair and Balanced View of the Sigma SD-10 Digital SLR Camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven M. Scharf, May 10, 2004.

  1. I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    http://nordicgroup.us/sigma

    Thanks for all the suggestions.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, May 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    >


    I still wouldn't take one if you gave it to me.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, May 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steven M. Scharf

    adm Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:100520040857376019%...
    > > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    > >

    >
    > I still wouldn't take one if you gave it to me.


    I would. Preddy might buy it from me for $100 or so.
     
    adm, May 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Steven M. Scharf

    Mikey S. Guest

    Now that's crazy, I have no intention of trading in my Canon gear but if
    someone was to GIVE me a Sigma setup, I'd be more than glad to take it and
    try it out to see for myself. Any rational person would take something for
    nothing, why not?

    Think about it.

    --

    Mikey S.
    http://www.mike721.com


    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:100520040857376019%...
    > > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    > >

    >
    > I still wouldn't take one if you gave it to me.
     
    Mikey S., May 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Steven M. Scharf

    BillyBob Guest

    Steven,

    Nice to see some substance instead of the illogical rantings and drivel of
    GP - If I was Sigma I would consider legal action against the guy - he has
    damaged them terribly!

    BillyB


    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:YYMnc.15170$...
    > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    >
    > Thanks for all the suggestions.
    >
    >
     
    BillyBob, May 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Steven M. Scharf

    ~ Darrell ~ Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:YYMnc.15170$...
    > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    >
    > Thanks for all the suggestions.
    >

    I would also add Pentax *istD to the list, now that Pentax has cut the
    price.
     
    ~ Darrell ~, May 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Steven M. Scharf

    Don Guest

    An improvement, but I'll bet GP still won't approve :)

    I think you need some help with the story on leakage, however. What you say
    is sort of true, but the leakage goes down, not up as size decreases. It
    just doesn't go down as fast as the "good" energy. When I reread what you
    wrote, I realized that's really what you probably said, but it wasn't
    obvious the first time. Also, it really doesn't change exponentially but
    more or less linearly. The leakage current will go down linearly with the
    detector area, as will the photoelectric current (for a given f:No lens).
    However, the parasitic leakage from the peripheral circuitry will not go
    down unless the area of those element is also reduced, leading to the effect
    you described.

    There are also other noise sources, of course, and the modelling of all of
    this is not real simple. In particular, since the photoelectric current
    goes down with decreasing size, and the shot noise only goes down with the
    square root of that current, shot noise, not leakage, is the ultimate enemy.
    For example if the photoelectric current is reduced by a factor of 4, the
    noise component of it only goes down by a factor of 2.

    FWIW, I've seen B&W CCDs in this size range where the photon shot noise,
    even in somewhat shadowed areas, was larger than the noise from the leakage
    current, even at f:16 1/1000 second, full daylight, and was the dominant
    noise source. The focal plane was slightly cooled in that application.

    Don


    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:YYMnc.15170$...
    > I've updated the site, renamed it, and added the positive aspects of the
    > Sigma SD-10 as well. See:
    > http://nordicgroup.us/sigma
    >
    > Thanks for all the suggestions.
    >
    >
     
    Don, May 10, 2004
    #7
  8. George Preddy, May 11, 2004
    #8
  9. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mikey S." <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > Now that's crazy, I have no intention of trading in my Canon gear but if
    > > someone was to GIVE me a Sigma setup, I'd be more than glad to take it

    and
    > > try it out to see for myself. Any rational person would take something

    for
    > > nothing, why not?

    >
    > Here is why...
    >

    You mean this 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,
    resulting in horrible aliasing artifacts, especially noticable when output
    is 5x7in or larger.

    And for a more meaningful resolution comparison, compare:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/orig.asp?/reviews/samples/rescharts/sigma_sd9.jpg
    which starts to misrepresent the finer lines above the 12 marker (even
    counts only 4 or 5 black lines at the 20 marker instead of 9), with:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samples/rescharts/canon_eos1ds.jpg which has
    little trouble resolving the finest detail at the 20 marker (we need more
    detailed test cards for this camera), and the Fuji S2 at 12MP output setting
    on the same page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page21.asp also
    reaches a reasonable 18+ mark.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 11, 2004
    #9
  10. "BillyBob" <> wrote in message
    news:_rPnc.57590$...
    > Steven,
    >
    > Nice to see some substance instead of the illogical rantings and drivel of

    GP.

    Thanks. I thought that it would be a good idea to take all the pros and cons
    and consolidate them in one place.

    - If I was Sigma I would consider legal action against the guy - he has
    damaged them terribly!

    No he hasn't.

    No one believes that he speaks for Sigma. I'll bet you can count the number
    of lost sales that he's caused on one hand.

    The problems with the Sigma D-SLRs would have been aired whether or not this
    individual had initiated his disinformation campaign. The whole fiasco
    hasn't really cost Sigma much anyway, since I suspect that the development
    costs for the SD-9 and SD-10 were paid for by Foveon, and the SD-9 and SD-10
    are really just the SA-9 with a digital back added.

    I don't know why everyone just doesn't kill-file him, like I have. I still
    see all the follow-ups to his posts, and I don't understand why it's so hard
    to just ignore his rantings. Though I have to admit that I got a kick out of
    the "88,000 e-mails." His explanation for the Canon white lenses was also
    rather amusing. Actually part of the reason that they made them white WAS
    because they are normally used outdoors and white lenses get less hot. But
    it had nothing to do with making the glass brittle.

    My other favorite mis-information are his rants about 486 versus Pentium IV
    technology. He has so many errors in his logic that it's dizzying. I added
    an explanation of sensor size and fabrication technology to my web site,
    since I think that there may be people that don't understand the trade-offs,
    and are perplexed as to just why the Foveon X3 sensor is so noisy.

    The one area where he may have hurt them is in lens sales. I never saw such
    in depth discussion of the problems with Sigma lenses in
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I think that a lot of people with Nikon or Canon
    D-SLRs are now going to be very wary of trying to save money by buying
    non-OEM lenses.

    Steve
    A Fair and Balanced View of the Sigma SD-10 Digital SLR Camera
    http://nordicgroup.us/sigma/
     
    Steven M. Scharf, May 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Steven M. Scharf

    BillyBob Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:pC4oc.16024$...

    > - If I was Sigma I would consider legal action against the guy - he has
    > damaged them terribly!
    >
    > No he hasn't.
    >
    > No one believes that he speaks for Sigma. I'll bet you can count the

    number
    > of lost sales that he's caused on one hand.
    >
    > The problems with the Sigma D-SLRs would have been aired whether or not

    this
    > individual had initiated his disinformation campaign. The whole fiasco
    > hasn't really cost Sigma much anyway, since I suspect that the development
    > costs for the SD-9 and SD-10 were paid for by Foveon, and the SD-9 and

    SD-10
    > are really just the SA-9 with a digital back added.


    Actually he may have - there are a lot of lurkers on the forums here some of
    them "newbies" they would be afraid of trying anything that has generated
    such backlash . . .

    I think GP must have worked for the propaganda service of the old USSR in
    his younger days - if you say it long enough and fervently enough it will
    become true . . . It may be that his real talent is in politics . . . or as
    a lawyer?

    The Foveon is interesting technology and "may" hold promise but if they
    start lying about what it does it will kill them.

    BillyBob
     
    BillyBob, May 11, 2004
    #11
  12. "BillyBob" <> wrote:
    >
    > The Foveon is interesting technology


    Quite the contrary: Foveon is brute force and crude. It's Bayer that's
    interesting. Producing as much color resolution as the eye needs while
    losing no luminance resolution is a seriously neat trick.

    > and "may" hold promise but if they
    > start lying about what it does it will kill them.


    Start lying? They've been lying from the beginning. (1) It doesn't measure
    RGB, (2) it doesn't obviate the need for antialiasing, (3) it's nowhere
    close to 35mm, let alone medium format.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 12, 2004
    #12
  13. > I think GP must have worked for the propaganda service of the old USSR in
    > his younger days - if you say it long enough and fervently enough it will
    > become true . . . It may be that his real talent is in politics . . . or as
    > a lawyer?


    Maybe he's really Baghdad Bob - the Iraq government official that was
    making ridiculous pronouncements before the war started.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, May 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Steven M. Scharf

    Thad Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:

    > > I think GP must have worked for the propaganda service of the old USSR in
    > > his younger days - if you say it long enough and fervently enough it will
    > > become true . . . It may be that his real talent is in politics . . . or as
    > > a lawyer?

    >
    > Maybe he's really Baghdad Bob - the Iraq government official that was
    > making ridiculous pronouncements before the war started.



    ROTFLMAO!

    --

    -Thad L.
     
    Thad, May 12, 2004
    #14
  15. "BillyBob" <> wrote in message
    news:SD7oc.62670$...

    > Actually he may have - there are a lot of lurkers on the forums here some

    of
    > them "newbies" they would be afraid of trying anything that has generated
    > such backlash . . .


    He may have hurt them in the area of lens sales. I don't think very many
    people are going to buy an Sigma SD-10 when the Canon 10D and Nikon D70 are
    so clearly superior. But in terms of Sigma lenses for Canon and Nikon
    mounts, many of the discussions have mentioned the poor build quality of the
    Sigma lenses, and the optical issues with their non-EX lenses. Sigma is very
    sensitive to this criticism because lens sales to Nikon and Canon owners are
    the mainstay of their business. See: http://tinylink.com/?LbT2se0FzF. So you
    probably are correct.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, May 12, 2004
    #15
    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. Nikolai Schupbach
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,162
    Nikolai Schupbach
    Feb 23, 2004
  2. Steven M. Scharf

    15 Reasons to Avoid the Sigma SD-10 Digital SLR Camera

    Steven M. Scharf, May 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    185
    Views:
    2,947
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    May 15, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    789
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    449
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  5. Phar Phoo

    Nikon - D70 Digital SLR Camera w/Sigma Two-Lens Kit

    Phar Phoo, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    563
    Bernard Rother
    Jun 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page