minolta dslr or sigma sd 10?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ShantiOm, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. ShantiOm

    ShantiOm Guest

    hello,

    I am a professional photographer, and I use Minolta slr cameras and
    the a1.
    I wish to buy dslr camera, I am thinking of the two options: either
    the sigma sd10, or the unknown minolta dslr. I am swinging between
    either buying the sigma or waiting for the Minolta dslr.

    I have few questions about the sigma camera:

    How good is it's AF ?
    How long does the battery last?
    How good is the image quality after multiplying the sensor size
    through the software?
    How obvious is the CA with the kit lenses 18-50 and the 50-200?
    How good is its wireless flash (with Minolta you need only one flash?
    is it a minimum of two flashes for the sigma?)

    I'll also be happy to hear some views about staying or abandoning
    Minolta cameras, vs. the sigma system.


    Thank you all
    Dina Koren
     
    ShantiOm, Feb 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ShantiOm

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on 29 Feb 2004 15:24:02
    -0800, (ShantiOm) wrote:

    >I am a professional photographer, and I use Minolta slr cameras and
    >the a1.
    >I wish to buy dslr camera, I am thinking of the two options: either
    >the sigma sd10, or the unknown minolta dslr. I am swinging between
    >either buying the sigma or waiting for the Minolta dslr.
    >[SNIP]


    Given that you're a professional, I advise you to either wait for the Minolta
    DSLR, or give serious thought to Canon or Nikon, or even the new Olympus E-1.
    Sigma isn't in the same league.

    --
    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, Feb 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ShantiOm

    Sloopy Guest

    In article <>,
    (ShantiOm) wrote:

    > I am a professional photographer, and I use Minolta slr cameras and
    > the a1.
    > I wish to buy dslr camera, I am thinking of the two options: either
    > the sigma sd10, or the unknown minolta dslr. I am swinging between
    > either buying the sigma or waiting for the Minolta dslr.


    You're a professional photographer and you're considering a Sigma SD10.

    Sure.
    Yeah.
    Right.

    Not a bad troll, I suppose.

    -Sloopy
     
    Sloopy, Mar 1, 2004
    #3
  4. ShantiOm

    DM Guest

    If you're currently using Minolta SLR's then your entire lens collection,
    flash and other accessories will be useless on the sigma. Also, given the
    poor sales of Sigma DSLR's (my local dealers have discontinued Sigma SLR's
    altogether) and the fact that they only work with Sigma SA mount lenses
    is not a good sign that they'll continue making or supporting Sigma
    mount SLR/DSLR's. As far as lens quality (optics) is concerned, Minolta
    is in a different league. The Sigma's can't touch the quality of good
    Minolta lenses like the G series or even some of the good consumer
    lenses like the superb 100/2.8 macro.

    Of course, if you're really going into hard core pro photography then
    you should probably consider Canon or Nikon since they are already very
    well established in the DSLR market and are already in their 3-4th
    generation DSLR.

    (ShantiOm) wrote in message news:<>...
    > hello,
    >
    > I am a professional photographer, and I use Minolta slr cameras and
    > the a1.
    > I wish to buy dslr camera, I am thinking of the two options: either
    > the sigma sd10, or the unknown minolta dslr. I am swinging between
    > either buying the sigma or waiting for the Minolta dslr.
     
    DM, Mar 1, 2004
    #4
  5. ShantiOm

    Prognathous Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in message news:<TCu0c.4659$>...
    > Given that you're a professional, I advise you to either wait for the Minolta
    > DSLR, or give serious thought to Canon or Nikon, or even the new Olympus E-1.
    > Sigma isn't in the same league.


    Can you provide some more details about SD-10's main drawbacks
    compared to current DSLRs with similar cost? what makes the Sigma
    inappropriate for professional use?

    Prog.
     
    Prognathous, Mar 2, 2004
    #5
  6. ShantiOm

    Prognathous Guest

    (DM) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Also, given the poor sales of Sigma DSLR's (my local dealers have
    > discontinued Sigma SLR's altogether) and the fact that they only work
    > with Sigma SA mount lenses is not a good sign that they'll continue
    > making or supporting Sigma mount SLR/DSLR's.


    I'm not sure that your local dealers are enough to reach that
    conclusion. After all, Sigma has has been producing SA-mount SLRs for
    the last 11 years and their last SLR was just introduced several
    months ago. Do you see any *global* new trend that might change that?

    > As far as lens quality (optics) is concerned, Minolta
    > is in a different league. The Sigma's can't touch the quality of good
    > Minolta lenses like the G series or even some of the good consumer
    > lenses like the superb 100/2.8 macro.


    Have you seen any tests that compare Sigma's EX series with Minolta
    lenses? can you provide links? I'd be very interested in such tests.

    BTW, I recall quite a few tests by the German Foto Magazine, where
    Sigma lenses outperformed Minolta lenses - and by a large margin. My
    own experience with Minolta and Sigma (as well as with Tokina lenses)
    somewhat reaffirms this. Granted, non of my Minolta lenses is a
    G-series...

    Prog.
     
    Prognathous, Mar 2, 2004
    #6
  7. > Can you provide some more details about SD-10's main drawbacks
    > compared to current DSLRs with similar cost? what makes the Sigma
    > inappropriate for professional use?


    Like everything with the Smega name on it, it's a piece of shit?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Mar 2, 2004
    #7
  8. ShantiOm

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on 1 Mar 2004 23:50:22
    -0800, (Prognathous) wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote in message news:<TCu0c.4659$>...


    >> Given that you're a professional, I advise you to either wait for the Minolta
    >> DSLR, or give serious thought to Canon or Nikon, or even the new Olympus E-1.
    >> Sigma isn't in the same league.

    >
    >Can you provide some more details about SD-10's main drawbacks
    >compared to current DSLRs with similar cost? what makes the Sigma
    >inappropriate for professional use?


    Among other reasons, it's a proprietary system of a company that's 2nd-tier in
    lenses and 3rd-tier in cameras.

    --
    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, Mar 2, 2004
    #8
  9. ShantiOm

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on 2 Mar 2004 00:22:16
    -0800, (Prognathous) wrote:

    > (DM) wrote in message news:<>...


    >> As far as lens quality (optics) is concerned, Minolta
    >> is in a different league. The Sigma's can't touch the quality of good
    >> Minolta lenses like the G series or even some of the good consumer
    >> lenses like the superb 100/2.8 macro.

    >
    >Have you seen any tests that compare Sigma's EX series with Minolta
    >lenses? can you provide links? I'd be very interested in such tests.



    <http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm>

    There's more to a lens than image quality, of course -- for a pro, quality of
    construction, overall quality control, and durability are also important.
    These are areas where Sigma doesn't measure up to 1st-tier lenses (in my
    experience), even when it has good image quality.

    --
    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, Mar 2, 2004
    #9
  10. ShantiOm

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Can you provide some more details about SD-10's main drawbacks
    > compared to current DSLRs with similar cost? what makes the Sigma
    > inappropriate for professional use?
    >
    > Prog.
    >
    >


    The biggest reason for avoiding the Sigma:

    VERY BAD COLOR IN MOST PICTURES TAKEN!

    The "layering" technique used in the Foveon chip is STILL in the
    Beta-test phase as far as most discerning photographers are
    concerned.

    The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.
     
    Larry, Mar 2, 2004
    #10
  11. "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...


    > The biggest reason for avoiding the Sigma:
    >
    > VERY BAD COLOR IN MOST PICTURES TAKEN!
    >
    > The "layering" technique used in the Foveon chip is STILL in the
    > Beta-test phase as far as most discerning photographers are
    > concerned.
    >
    > The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.



    You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still think
    the skintones are bad?
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Mar 2, 2004
    #11
  12. ShantiOm

    Prognathous Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in message news:<rX11c.5151$>...
    > Among other reasons, it's a proprietary system of a company that's 2nd-tier in
    > lenses and 3rd-tier in cameras.


    As far as I know only the Four Thirds is not a proprietary system (as
    in with publicly available specifications). Do you consider a system
    that no-one bothered to reverse engineer to be proprietary? if so,
    than I see your point (but disagree on the terminology).

    As for your tier-rating, what is it based on? objective quality tests?
    market share? sales/revenues? either way, do you have any links to
    reputable sources that can back up this rating?

    Prog.
     
    Prognathous, Mar 2, 2004
    #12
  13. ShantiOm

    Prognathous Guest

    Larry <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.


    I managed to find some comments about over-saturated sky pictures ("on
    occasions" to quote dpreview.com's Phil Askey), but where did you see
    reviews/tests that discussed problems with the camera's rendering of
    skin tones?

    Prog.
     
    Prognathous, Mar 2, 2004
    #13
  14. ShantiOm

    Prognathous Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in message news:<b%11c.5152$>...
    > There's more to a lens than image quality, of course -- for a pro, quality of
    > construction, overall quality control, and durability are also important.
    > These are areas where Sigma doesn't measure up to 1st-tier lenses (in my
    > experience), even when it has good image quality.


    I fully agree, at least when dealing with Sigma's non-pro lenses
    (which are the ones I have experience with). Overall, I am very
    satisfied with the quality of my Sigma lenses, but in terms of
    mechanical quality and "feel", they are not on par with Minolta's.

    Prog.
     
    Prognathous, Mar 2, 2004
    #14
  15. "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "Larry" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > > order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.

    >
    > You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still think
    > the skintones are bad?


    Looks rather sickly to me. But even worse than the skin tones are the
    aliasing artifacts. That camera's a joke.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 3, 2004
    #15
  16. ShantiOm

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on 2 Mar 2004 15:22:14
    -0800, (Prognathous) wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote in message news:<rX11c.5151$>...


    >> Among other reasons, it's a proprietary system of a company that's 2nd-tier in
    >> lenses and 3rd-tier in cameras.

    >
    >As far as I know only the Four Thirds is not a proprietary system (as
    >in with publicly available specifications).


    I'd say that's an open question at the moment -- while it's an "open"
    standard, it appears to be pretty much controlled by Olympus.

    >Do you consider a system
    >that no-one bothered to reverse engineer to be proprietary?


    I consider any system to be proprietary if it's not open to other
    participants.

    >if so,
    >than I see your point (but disagree on the terminology).


    Fair enough.

    >As for your tier-rating, what is it based on? objective quality tests?
    >market share? sales/revenues?


    I'd call it industry consensus, based in part on quality tests, and in part on
    market share.

    >either way, do you have any links to
    >reputable sources that can back up this rating?


    That Sigma is a primarily 2nd-tier lens company is essentially by definition,
    since it's principal business is to make lenses compatible with 1st-tier
    cameras. That Sigma is a 3rd-tier camera company is a simple matter of market
    position.

    --
    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, Mar 3, 2004
    #16
  17. ShantiOm

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <MF81c.34263$> on Tue, 02 Mar 2004
    23:21:16 GMT, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:

    >"Larry" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...

    >
    >> The biggest reason for avoiding the Sigma:
    >>
    >> VERY BAD COLOR IN MOST PICTURES TAKEN!
    >>
    >> The "layering" technique used in the Foveon chip is STILL in the
    >> Beta-test phase as far as most discerning photographers are
    >> concerned.
    >>
    >> The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    >> order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.

    >
    >You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still think
    >the skintones are bad?


    Do you REALLY think that's good? (I don't, particularly as compared to images
    from Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) If you do, then the Sigma is probably a good fit
    for you. (Nothing wrong with that -- different strokes and all that sort of
    thing.)

    --
    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, Mar 3, 2004
    #17
  18. ShantiOm

    Wayne J Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:c238q0$kak$...
    >
    > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > > "Larry" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > > > order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.

    > >
    > > You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still think
    > > the skintones are bad?

    >
    > Looks rather sickly to me. But even worse than the skin tones are the
    > aliasing artifacts. That camera's a joke.


    This is just hilarious. Two people can look at the same picture and one
    thinks it's proof that the camera is good and another thinks it's proof that
    the camera is bad. It appears that prejudice usually has more influence on
    peoples opinions than evidence.

    BTW I think that O.J. was guilty and the SD9 is a bad camera.

    Wayne
     
    Wayne J, Mar 3, 2004
    #18
  19. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:3va1c.5322$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <MF81c.34263$> on Tue, 02 Mar

    2004
    > 23:21:16 GMT, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Larry" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> In article <>,
    > >> says...

    > >
    > >> The biggest reason for avoiding the Sigma:
    > >>
    > >> VERY BAD COLOR IN MOST PICTURES TAKEN!
    > >>
    > >> The "layering" technique used in the Foveon chip is STILL in the
    > >> Beta-test phase as far as most discerning photographers are
    > >> concerned.
    > >>
    > >> The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > >> order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and

    SKY.
    > >
    > >You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still

    think
    > >the skintones are bad?

    >
    > Do you REALLY think that's good? (I don't, particularly as compared

    to images
    > from Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) If you do, then the Sigma is probably

    a good fit
    > for you. (Nothing wrong with that -- different strokes and all that

    sort of
    > thing.)
    >


    I do think the skintones in that photo are good. And the SD9 is a
    good fit for me, that's why I bought it. I have seen some skintone
    problems in some of my photos that are easily correctable. How much
    of that is due to my skills is certainly debatable. I've also had
    some very good results. Different strokes it is.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Mar 3, 2004
    #19
  20. ShantiOm

    Flycaster Guest

    "Wayne J" <> wrote in message
    news:2Qa1c.6114$...
    >
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:c238q0$kak$...
    > >
    > > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > > > "Larry" <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > The chip just doesnt have the response curve it needs to have in
    > > > > order to RELIABLY render important things like FLESH TONES and SKY.
    > > >
    > > > You mean like this? http://www.pbase.com/image/25418733. Still think
    > > > the skintones are bad?

    > >
    > > Looks rather sickly to me. But even worse than the skin tones are the
    > > aliasing artifacts. That camera's a joke.

    >
    > This is just hilarious. Two people can look at the same picture and one
    > thinks it's proof that the camera is good and another thinks it's proof

    that
    > the camera is bad. It appears that prejudice usually has more influence on
    > peoples opinions than evidence.


    I hear you. How in the hell are we supposed to know what the girl's skin
    actually looks like, what the lighting was, which of 3 billion adjustments
    in PS might have been done post-exposure, or what the JPG artifacting has
    done? And those are just some of the bigger variables. This whole train of
    "expert thought" just cracks me up. Nonetheless, this thread isn't even in
    the same league as the Digital vs. film - that's just Looney Tunes. There
    are some real egos at work there....

    >
    > BTW I think that O.J. was guilty and the SD9 is a bad camera.


    FWIW, I think he was guilty too, and so is Martha, but she'll skate just
    like he did...and I own a D60.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Mar 3, 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. Patco

    Minolta DiMAGE A1 and Sigma EF 500 DG ST

    Patco, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    454
    Patco
    Feb 17, 2004
  2. David Kilpatrick

    Sigma and Minolta A2 (comments)

    David Kilpatrick, May 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,294
    Ray Fischer
    May 22, 2004
  3. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    504
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    540
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,473
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page