I'm buying an SD-9!!!!! (not)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    B&H will sell an SD-9 for $999 including two kit lenses and a bag.

    Very tempting and I almost picked up the phone. It's not a 10D, by any
    stretch, but a pretty darned good 3.4 Mpix camera.

    Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
    shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

    The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
    --
    e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Browne

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
    >shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    >obsolete camera and worthless lenses.


    Why will it be obsolete in six months?

    If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of anything
    else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six months
    as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them for
    free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change make
    of camera.

    In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

    As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about just any
    digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well find a
    10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
    technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's out
    there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

    Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why would
    you care about what you term obsolescence?

    I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing anything
    Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect from
    kids in a toy shop.

    Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.

    Dave
     
    Dave Oddie, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Browne <> wrote in news:ipFDb.109598
    $:

    > The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.


    The SD-10 has micro lenses which means higher sensitivity and less
    aliasing artefacts. Sigma also claims lots of more improvements.
    Where have you read that SD-10 is NO different? Any review?


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Dec 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Roland Karlsson wrote:

    > Alan Browne <> wrote in news:ipFDb.109598
    > $:
    >
    >
    >>The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.

    >
    >
    > The SD-10 has micro lenses which means higher sensitivity and less
    > aliasing artefacts. Sigma also claims lots of more improvements.
    > Where have you read that SD-10 is NO different? Any review?




    No different in the sense that nobody will buy them and they will drop
    in value.

    I believe your humor module was off when you read my post...

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 16, 2003
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Dave Oddie wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
    >>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    >>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

    >
    >
    > Why will it be obsolete in six months?


    "As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort of.
    In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10. They're
    trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in lenses
    that I wouldn't want either...

    > If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of anything
    > else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six months
    > as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them for
    > free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change make
    > of camera.


    Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
    with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
    camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...

    $999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with low
    value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.

    >
    > In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.


    I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
    >
    > As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about just any
    > digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well find a
    > 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
    > technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's out
    > there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.


    While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few walked
    from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to the
    next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of people's
    photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with deep
    pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.

    >
    > Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why would
    > you care about what you term obsolescence?
    >
    > I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing anything
    > Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect from
    > kids in a toy shop.


    Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
    confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass. If
    Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only worthwhile
    to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively digital...

    Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
    Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
    in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.

    IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
    bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
    reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
    users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
    made in Minolta lens mounts. But...

    >
    > Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.


    I agree. Preddy is doing them more harm with his ill-based rants than
    good. Call em what they are: really high dynamic 3.4Mpix DSLR's.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Alan Browne <> wrote in news:g9IDb.111383
    $:

    > I believe your humor module was off when you read my post...
    >


    I suppose so :)

    Missed it.

    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Dec 16, 2003
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Rosedco Guest

    The SD9 kit with two lenses is getting a lot of bidder action on Ebay - seems
    buyers are interested in the camera as most bids are in the $700-800 range - a
    few higher

    Rosemarie
     
    Rosedco, Dec 16, 2003
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:VnIDb.111421$...
    >
    >
    > Dave Oddie wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
    > >>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    > >>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

    > >
    > >
    > > Why will it be obsolete in six months?

    >
    > "As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort of.
    > In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10. They're
    > trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in lenses
    > that I wouldn't want either...
    >
    > > If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of

    anything
    > > else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six

    months
    > > as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them

    for
    > > free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change

    make
    > > of camera.

    >
    > Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
    > with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
    > camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...
    >
    > $999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with low
    > value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.
    >
    > >
    > > In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

    >
    > I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
    > >
    > > As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about

    just any
    > > digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well

    find a
    > > 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
    > > technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's

    out
    > > there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

    >
    > While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few walked
    > from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to the
    > next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of people's
    > photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with deep
    > pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.
    >
    > >
    > > Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why

    would
    > > you care about what you term obsolescence?
    > >
    > > I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing

    anything
    > > Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect

    from
    > > kids in a toy shop.

    >
    > Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    > respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    > than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
    > confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass. If
    > Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only worthwhile
    > to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively digital...
    >
    > Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
    > Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
    > in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.
    >
    > IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
    > bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
    > reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
    > users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
    > made in Minolta lens mounts. But...


    but Sigma'd have to pay the camera cos royalties!

    And if Ca, Ni, Min or Px didn't want another camera using their mount...
    what was Sigma supposed to do?

    Have fun, Dan
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 16, 2003
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Double D Guest

    In article <VnIDb.111421$>,
    says...


    > Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
    > Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
    > in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.




    Minolta has always had the deserved reputation of giving their SLR users
    the most bang for the buck. The Minolta dSLR should prove to be very
    interesting indeed. However it is priced, I am sure that we can expect it
    to be a good value for price point. According to one article, Minolta is
    supposed to be introducing a new 'mystery feature' to their dSLR. I
    wonder what that is.

    DD
     
    Double D, Dec 17, 2003
    #9
  10. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:VnIDb.111421$...
    >
    >
    > Dave Oddie wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:20:47 -0500, Alan Browne
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid

    $999 +
    > >>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    > >>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

    > >
    > >
    > > Why will it be obsolete in six months?

    >
    > "As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort

    of.
    > In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10.

    They're
    > trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in

    lenses
    > that I wouldn't want either...
    >
    > > If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due

    of anything
    > > else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless"

    in six months
    > > as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively

    getting them for
    > > free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to

    change make
    > > of camera.

    >
    > Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
    > with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
    > camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...
    >
    > $999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with

    low
    > value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.
    >
    > >
    > > In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

    >
    > I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.
    > >
    > > As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that

    about just any
    > > digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may

    well find a
    > > 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there

    would be
    > > technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the

    10D's out
    > > there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

    >
    > While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few

    walked
    > from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to

    the
    > next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of

    people's
    > photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with

    deep
    > pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.
    >
    > >
    > > Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma

    combination why would
    > > you care about what you term obsolescence?
    > >
    > > I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as

    discussing anything
    > > Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would

    expect from
    > > kids in a toy shop.

    >
    > Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    > respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    > than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
    > confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass.

    If
    > Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only

    worthwhile
    > to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively

    digital...
    >
    > Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA

    this
    > Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to

    believe)
    > in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.
    >
    > IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out

    with
    > bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
    > reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
    > users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were

    they
    > made in Minolta lens mounts. But...
    >
    > >
    > > Pity really as I think the Sigma's are interesting cameras.

    >
    > I agree. Preddy is doing them more harm with his ill-based rants

    than
    > good. Call em what they are: really high dynamic 3.4Mpix DSLR's.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alan.



    I'm enjoying using my new SD9 and it was a great value at $ 810.00
    with two lenses. Will it last me 5-10 years? If my wife has anything
    to say about it it will! Seriously, I like the output quality and
    overall really like the camera. I like the Canons also, but felt the
    SD9 offerred more value for me - even though I have a couple of lenses
    for my Elan.

    It all comes down to my preferences and my needs. The SD9 fits the
    bill just fine. Whether it's 3.4 or 10+ megapixels isn't important to
    me since it does put out resolutions comparable to the 6 megapixel
    competitors. I do think that as the years go by there will be more
    digicams using Foveon sensors.

    As for Minolta not putting out a DSLR as of yet, I cannot understand
    for the life of me what is taking them so long. I wonder how many
    Minolta users who wanted a DSLR are now using Canon, Nikon, etc.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Dec 17, 2003
    #10
  11. >
    > Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    > respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    > than it is. It IS a good camera.


    I don't get this at all. It has no AA filter and it has crap colour. It
    won't get more respect from me just becuase there isn't some looney toon on
    a mission. The manufacturers are still the ones pushing it as 10Mp, and
    talking about blur filters and claiming superior colour rendition to Bayers.
    They are every bit as bad as George.

    It is NOT a good camera, for teh reason outlined above.
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Dec 17, 2003
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:07 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >>>Then I realized that in 6 months or so I'd be stuck having paid $999 +
    >>>shipping and taxes (Canadian Customs WILL get their due) with an
    >>>obsolete camera and worthless lenses.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why will it be obsolete in six months?

    >
    >"As long as it takes phots, it's not obsolete" right? Right. Sort of.
    > In fact the SD-9 is already obsolete and replaced by the -10. They're
    >trying to give -9's away at that price and they're throwing in lenses
    >that I wouldn't want either...


    That does not answer your own question because as you say it takes photos and I
    thought the new software that comes with the SD10 is where most of the imaging
    improvements had been made anyway and this software is a free download for SD9
    owners.

    What is more ant SD9 images saved in RAW cab be fed through the new software
    and be improved so that is good for existing owners of the SD9 and a reason NOT
    to get rid of the camera for an SD10 despite being "obsolete".

    I didn't realise you actually didn't want the lenses as such but since the
    camera was selling (I think) for $999 without them not long ago it seems a bit
    if a bargain for someone interesting in obtaining a useful dSLR outfit in one
    go for the least price.

    >
    >> If you only pay $999 (I assume Canadian Customs will get their due of anything
    >> else you buy as well) then the fact the lenses become "worthless" in six months
    >> as you put it should not be an issue as you are effectively getting them for
    >> free anyway! You can write them off at that price if you want to change make
    >> of camera.

    >
    >Since I can't write them off, they would just be an expensive gadget
    >with no residual value in a year. I would not be able to sell the
    >camera and lenses used for a third of what I paid...


    Why would you want to sell it? I have an OM4 that is years old, probably worth
    next to nothing on the second hand market but I have written off its cost a
    long time ago. It still works fine.

    >$999 is not "free". It is a high price to pay for something with low
    >value, however. A Minolta A1 for $800 delivers much more value.


    Why it is of low value? All dSLR's are expensive. You could say the plastic
    bodied canon 300D is of low value because it is plastic but it still takes good
    photos. Despite the Preddy v the rest battle I think the SD9 does as well
    especially when you see the images converted using the new software.

    >
    >>
    >> In the meantime you have a d-slr outfit to play with.

    >
    >I want a DSLR that I'll have for 5 - 10 years, for more than play.


    Why could you not keep an SD9 for 5-10 years?

    >>
    >> As to the camera being obsolete in six months you can say that about just any
    >> digital camera. The photo shows (PMA etc) are coming and you may well find a
    >> 10D replacement. If one is announced while the 10D's out there would be
    >> technically obsolete it would not make the pictures taken by the 10D's out
    >> there any less good or be reason to consider this a problem.

    >
    >While people may have jumped from the 30D to the 10D, and a few walked
    >from the 60D to the 10D; not many 10D owners are going to leap to the
    >next Canon as the improvement will be unnoticeable in 99% of people's
    >photography. It won't be worth it, except for the "prosumers" with deep
    >pockets or unsaturated CC/LOC's.


    Does the same not apply to the SD9 to SD10 move for Sigma owners (or people
    considering the "bargain" price of the SD9 and lens combo you mentioned)? The
    software is a free download and that is where most of the improvements lie so
    there is no compelling reason to upgrade from a 9 to a 10 in just the same way
    as there probably won't be a compelling reason to go from a 10D to its
    successor.

    >>
    >> Likewise if you were happy at the output from the Sigma combination why would
    >> you care about what you term obsolescence?
    >>
    >> I must admit hesitating before replying to this message as discussing anything
    >> Sigma related gets about as much objective reaction as you would expect from
    >> kids in a toy shop.

    >
    >Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    >respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    >than it is. It IS a good camera. But I won't buy it. Here's the
    >confession: I have a pile of Minolta glass. Big expensive glass. If
    >Minolta don't come out with a D-SLR, then that glass is only worthwhile
    >to film shooters in a world that is becoming progressively digital...
    >
    >Now, Minolta *will*, it appears, show a development model at PMA this
    >Feb., and will release the camera (1.3x, 7 mpix, we are led to believe)
    >in the fall of 2004. So my glass seems to be safe.
    >
    >IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
    >bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
    >reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
    >users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
    >made in Minolta lens mounts. But...


    Interesting idea but I think the choice ought to have been the Pentax K bayonet
    as there are or have been several manufacturers who got to use that mount
    without being sued by Pentax.

    When Sigma launched their own 35mm film SLR's some years back I wondered then
    at why they chose to go with their own mount and not the K bayonet. Pentax
    users would have been be happy.

    I assume they want to sell their lenses to users of their SLR's and there is
    less likely hood of a third party supporting the Sigma mount than just about
    any other camera maker IMO. I have not looked but I would be surprised if
    Tamron launched any SD mount lenses.

    Dave
     
    Dave Oddie, Dec 17, 2003
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Guest

    In message <VnIDb.111421$>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    >Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    >respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    >than it is. It IS a good camera.


    The SD9 is a bad camera. It pretends to be sharp by sampling only a
    fraction of the focal plane. A camera with a proper AA filter samples
    the *entire* focal plane covered by the sensor. The SD9 samples only a
    tiny area inside the quad grid suggested by the pixel array. Only 30%
    of the area is sampled.

    Then, there's the color ...

    The SD10 might be better, but I still see aliasing artifacts in the
    resolution charts; just not quite as pronounced as the SD9.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    Mark M Guest


    > Yes, we kids are having a blast. Actually the Sigma would get the
    > respect it deserves if Preddy weren't trying to tell us it is better
    > than it is. It IS a good camera.


    Alan.
    A serious question:
    Are you, by chance, color blind?
    Many people are--even if slightly.
    I have seriously never seen the strange, displeasing color rendition
    produced by the Sigma in any other camera (cheap or pricey). It is VERY
    goofed up--which is unfortunate.

    I'm just having a hard time believing someone with full color vision could
    miss the severe color problems exhibited in the Sigma.
     
    Mark M, Dec 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Mark M Guest


    >
    > I'm enjoying using my new SD9 and it was a great value at $ 810.00
    > with two lenses. Will it last me 5-10 years? If my wife has anything
    > to say about it it will! Seriously, I like the output quality and
    > overall really like the camera. I like the Canons also, but felt the
    > SD9 offerred more value for me - even though I have a couple of lenses
    > for my Elan.


    Amazing.

    I guess there's at least a dozen of ANYTHING produced...that gets sold to
    somebody.
     
    Mark M, Dec 18, 2003
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Mark M Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:g9IDb.111383$...
    >
    >
    > Roland Karlsson wrote:
    >
    > > Alan Browne <> wrote in

    news:ipFDb.109598
    > > $:
    > >
    > >
    > >>The SD-10 is NO different, just more expensive.

    > >
    > >
    > > The SD-10 has micro lenses which means higher sensitivity and less
    > > aliasing artefacts. Sigma also claims lots of more improvements.
    > > Where have you read that SD-10 is NO different? Any review?

    >
    >
    >
    > No different in the sense that nobody will buy them and they will drop
    > in value.
    >
    > I believe your humor module was off when you read my post...


    Whew! I thought you were joking at first...but then you started to sound
    serious again.
    Please tell me you recognise that the Sigma is a joke at this point, and
    that my respect for your color vision can be restored!
     
    Mark M, Dec 18, 2003
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <YN9Eb.13723$J77.7640@fed1read07>, Mark M <> wrote:
    >
    >Alan.
    >A serious question:
    >Are you, by chance, color blind?
    >Many people are--even if slightly.


    When I took an aviation medical, I was found to have "perfect" colour
    vision, but it was also explained to me that 10% of the males in my ethnic
    group (Anglo Saxon/northern European) are clinically red-green colour blind,
    with a substantially higher proportion having some difficulty when tested
    for colour vision.

    This could well explain the different responses to the SD9 images,
    especially portraits, we've seen posted. Setting aside the strange "coloured
    dot" artifacts which seem to appear in many SD9 images, the rendition of
    skintones in particular has struck some (myself included) as less than
    ideal, often exhibiting a nasty yellowish cast which doesn't seem to be
    simply a white balance issue.

    I'm speculating that this cast would be less obvious, and therefore less
    displeasing, to someone with "below-par" ability to discriminate colours in
    the red-green range. This does include a surprisingly high proportion of the
    male population of Northern Europe and the US & Canada.

    However, this doesn't explain why some people aren't turned off by the
    orphaned colour dots, and the nasty banding/posterisation which tends to
    happen around saturated highlights.

    >I'm just having a hard time believing someone with full color vision could
    >miss the severe color problems exhibited in the Sigma.


    Some people are less sensitive to certain things. Take sound - I have a
    friend who simply can't listen to music through a hifi if it has significant
    clipping of the output - he finds it really unpleasant. It hardly bothers me
    at all.

    In photography, the nicest colour rendition I've seen recently would have to
    be from Fujichrome slide films, specifically Provia and Velvia. From what
    I've seen of the Fuji DSLRs, they have really nice colour too. I'm basically
    happy with my 10D, and in particular it does a good job of maintaining
    colour fidelity in shadow and highlight areas even as the individual
    channels blow-out. This seems to be an area where the Foveon based cameras
    are particularly weak.

    I'd say the SD9 and SD10 are, certainly compared to the "big 3" mid-range
    DSLRs, the 10D, D100 and S2, somewhat "fair weather" cameras. They produce
    good output in well-lit situations, where the exposure doesn't include too
    much shadow detail or many saturated highlights, and where you chose the
    subject carefully (everything I've seen suggests you *wouldn't* want to base
    a portrait business around one). In trickier lighting situations, and for
    portraits, they're perhaps not the best tools to use. YMMV.
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 18, 2003
    #17
  18. "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:cQ9Eb.13732$J77.5932@fed1read07...
    >
    > >
    > > I'm enjoying using my new SD9 and it was a great value at $ 810.00
    > > with two lenses. Will it last me 5-10 years? If my wife has

    anything
    > > to say about it it will! Seriously, I like the output quality and
    > > overall really like the camera. I like the Canons also, but felt

    the
    > > SD9 offerred more value for me - even though I have a couple of

    lenses
    > > for my Elan.

    >
    > Amazing.
    >
    > I guess there's at least a dozen of ANYTHING produced...that gets

    sold to
    > somebody.
    >


    What's so amazing? Are you that close-minded that you can't see past
    your own preferences and accept the fact that not everyone shares
    them? Every review I have read of the SD9 praised it's color
    reproduction and sharpness. I guess the reviewers and users are just
    too blind to see it your way.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Dec 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Alan Browne

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <>
    stated that:

    >IMO: Sigma made a HUGE Strategic mistake which was not coming out with
    >bodies to match all the major lens vendors out there. Funny, for
    >reverse engineering specialists like Sigma. It's a shame. Minolta
    >users in particular would have bought SD-9's by the armload were they
    >made in Minolta lens mounts. But...


    You know, that's a really good point, & I'm kicking myself that I think
    of it too. Why on earth /don't/ Sigma do that? About the only logical
    reason I can think of is that it might violate patents, but I would've
    thought that they'd be pretty experienced at dealing with that
    particular issue.

    >I agree. Preddy is doing them more harm with his ill-based rants than
    >good.


    Perhaps Canon & Nikon are paying him to reverse-astroturf the Sigmas? ;)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Dec 18, 2003
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <>
    stated that:

    >As for Minolta not putting out a DSLR as of yet, I cannot understand
    >for the life of me what is taking them so long.


    I expect that it would be because they don't have the colossal
    electronics engineering resources that Canon have. The current DSLRs are
    cutting edge masterpieces of electronics design, & Canon have the
    advantage being able to draw on the pool of talent that they use for all
    their other products. I'm actually pretty impressed that Canon's
    competitors are actually managing to stay in the race at all, much less
    keep up with them.

    That said, I imagine that Nikon, etc, shouldn't take more than a year or
    two accumulate enough talent & "cookbook"[0] designs to be able to
    compete head to head, but it'll be rough ride for them until then.

    [0] With these kinds of extremely complex products, it's much quicker to
    update an old design than to create a new one from scratch, so you build
    up a collection of building blocks that you can draw on for new designs.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Dec 18, 2003
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2U=?=

    Buying and setting up a simple wireless network

    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2U=?=, Nov 13, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    472
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmFkQW5nbGVy?=

    Worth buying modem router?

    =?Utf-8?B?QmFkQW5nbGVy?=, Jul 3, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    525
    =?Utf-8?B?QmFkQW5nbGVy?=
    Jul 5, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?UkE=?=

    Buying OEM software - Windows XP Home Edition

    =?Utf-8?B?UkE=?=, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,147
    Michael Patten
    Jan 11, 2005
  4. Taki Soho
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,015
    Taki Soho
    Sep 22, 2004
  5. Network/Software Buyer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    708
    Network/Software Buyer
    Dec 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page