SD10 sample file No 2 (dull but detailed)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004.

  1. Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
    c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
    aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
    un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
    idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
    to handle.

    http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/peacock1512x2268SD10.jpg

    This is taken in dull lighting, of a subject on well-worn wildlife park
    grass in April - even the subject is a bit tatty too; it's a moving
    target, and the lens is the $99 (? 99 pounds here) Sigma digital cheapie
    55-200mm used at approx 87mm focal length, at f7.1 aperture, 1/200th.

    The jpeg is about 2.8mb, sorry, but its the straight 1512x2268 full size
    (3.4 megapixel) SD10 file, saved in AdobeRGB profiled space, at
    Photoshop Level 12 - maximum. The import was via Photoshop CS Raw
    plugin, and the parameters were:

    White balance - 'Daylight'
    No adjustment to exposure, black, white or contrast at all
    Detail sharpness, luminance smoothing and colour smoothing all set to zero
    No correction for lens colour aberrations at all

    In other words, about as straight and unmodified an import as the plug
    in allows. The picture can be ajusted, sharpened etc to make a radical
    difference but of course it's still a boring shot of a peacock just like
    dozens I get sent every year for magazine competitions. Ten a penny and
    I have no idea why I am just the same as every other photographer and
    can't resist shooting the tatty-looking park bird!

    If you check the CAMERA EXIF information, you'll find everything confirmed.

    Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at
    every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
    areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
    overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
    sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
    whole plane of sharp focus.

    The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
    levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
    granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
    in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. #1: Not very sharp. The peacock's head should be in focus. Not really
    a camera issue.

    #2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.

    #3: Not really any sharper than a Digital Rebel, D70 or any other 6 MP
    Bayer sensor camera.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Kilpatrick

    Alan D-W Guest

    "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:cbjs8c$mg$...
    > Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
    > c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
    > aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
    > un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
    > idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
    > to handle.
    >
    > http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/peacock1512x2268SD10.jpg
    >

    But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!

    >
    > Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at


    I detect little or no useful detail in the feathers, and his "headgear",
    whatever it's called, is just a black blur.


    > every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
    > areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
    > overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
    > sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
    > whole plane of sharp focus.


    I detect no plane of sharp focus. Indeed, looking at the grass, the focus
    trend is towards us, implying that the plane of focus is closer than any
    part of the picture, and is thus out of shot.

    >
    > The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
    > levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
    > granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
    > in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.


    And there's some sort of halo around every detail, particularly noticeable
    around its white face patches, but also noticeable around many of the blue
    "eyes" in his tail. The lower part of his tail, immediately above his body,
    appears flat and 2-D, almost as though it itself was a picture. It has no
    snap.

    You are doing nothing for the Sigma cause by showing these pictures. Any one
    of any of the Bayer cameras I've ever owned would have done a better job of
    this creature, and I include the old 2MP Kodak DC280. I AM trying to be
    objective here but if this is an example of "what the SD10 does which Bayer
    filtered sensor cameras find hard to handle" then I regret that you have
    chosen an extremely bad example.

    >
    > David
    >
     
    Alan D-W, Jun 26, 2004
    #3
  4. David Kilpatrick

    Guest

    In message <cbjs8c$mg$>,
    David Kilpatrick <> wrote:

    >The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
    >levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
    >granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
    >in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.


    I can see green and magenta patches in the neck, too.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 26, 2004
    #4
  5. David Kilpatrick

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Brian C. Baird <> wrote:

    >#2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.


    After seeing many Sigma SD images, I am thoroughly convinced that either
    in the camera's RAW save, or in the SPP conversion, low-contrast details
    are suppressed. That would explain the low level of luminance noise and
    low-contrast detail.

    Something like this, where the input and output are the luminance
    contrast between any given pixel, and the average of its neighbors:

    o ****
    *
    u *
    *
    t *
    *
    p *
    *
    u *
    **
    t ***
    *****

    i n p u t


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Brian C. Baird wrote:

    > #1: Not very sharp. The peacock's head should be in focus. Not really
    > a camera issue.
    >
    > #2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.
    >
    > #3: Not really any sharper than a Digital Rebel, D70 or any other 6 MP
    > Bayer sensor camera.


    The exact point of focus is behind the peacock's head and in front of
    the tail but depth of field is adequate, and 'not very sharp' doesn't
    really mean much in a totally unsharpened digital file. The rim round
    the eye, the nostril edge on the beak etc, are all as well-defined as
    could be expected. One a couple of other shots the focus is dead on the
    head of the bird but this just loses some edge from the tail, and I've
    also got one focusing precisely on the tail but that is even worse -
    having a genuinely out of focus head in front of a sharp tail looks
    quite wrong. The bird was trotting quite rapidly at 1/200th was
    absolutely necessary to catch a shot, as was a focus-lock-hold shooting
    technique.

    Not sure what you mean by loss of detail in the blue areas. There is
    feather detail visible at single pixel level in the file; maybe this is
    a colour management issue at your end. I would not expect to see any
    detail in the turquoise eyes on the tail, as this would be well below
    single pixel level for the fine overlapping feather blades.

    I would love to see any Bayer sensor camera producing the same
    consistent fine detail image structure (forget 'sharpness' - that is
    easily acheived by USM on any file).

    Have a look at this:

    http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/1DII-SD10.jpg

    this is a pixel-level section of Canon EOS 1D-II image on 70-200mm f2.8,
    setting ISO 200 - for some reason the EXIF data is not present in the
    original, which comes from one of our magazine test photographers

    compared to a pixel level-clip of the SD10 file at ISO 400.

    The 1DII image is of course 8 megapixels compared to the SD10 3.43
    megapixels, and size for size, would require scaling down to 65 per cent
    size to be the same repro size on the printed page - or the SD10 image
    would need enlarging 1.52 X.

    I find it hard to distinguish real detail in the 1D MkII image, but it's
    from a top quality camera JPEG and not a raw file, so sharpening has
    been applied along with processing; the SD10 file is a top quality JPEG,
    but from raw file processing. There's no doubt that at pixel level the
    ISO 200 from 1D MkII is considerably more noisy than the SD10 at 400,
    but it's doubtful whether this would show up in a print.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004
    #6
  7. David Kilpatrick

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Alan D-W wrote:

    > "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:cbjs8c$mg$...
    >
    >>Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
    >>c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
    >>aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
    >>un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
    >>idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
    >>to handle.
    >>
    >>http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/peacock1512x2268SD10.jpg
    >>

    >
    > But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
    >


    Also dull. The peacocks where I live have vibrant colors. But perhaps
    this is just an inferior (dull and lacking in detail) bird.

    I agree. Such shots, added to the incessant technically inaccurate
    posts, are not doing Sigma any favors.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 26, 2004
    #7
  8. Alan D-W wrote:

    > "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:cbjs8c$mg$...
    >
    >>Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
    >>c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
    >>aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
    >>un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
    >>idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
    >>to handle.
    >>
    >>http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/peacock1512x2268SD10.jpg
    >>

    >
    > But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
    >
    >


    This is silly. What do you do - shoot JPEGs on Normal sharpness or
    something?

    Photoshop CS:

    Saturation + 20%
    (S-curve - I would apply a slight one but I can't define it for you)
    apply - Unsharp Mask 400 per cent
    Radius 0.4 pixels
    Levels - 4

    Then study the picture.

    I purposely put up an unprocessed image, because I assumed that folk
    here were familiar with the concept. I also put up an unexceptional one
    in terms of lighting and dimensional lift - things which give false
    impressions of 'snap' and sharpness - but which had an excess of fine
    detail of low contrast.

    I was not setting out to do a Preddy and flag up some grossly
    oversharpened, saturated image. I put up a subject where most digital
    cameras - and your Kodak DC280 among them - produce a mess.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004
    #8
  9. David Kilpatrick

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    David Kilpatrick wrote:
    >
    > I was not setting out to do a Preddy


    "Do a Preddy": A new dictionary entry! :)
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 26, 2004
    #9
  10. David Kilpatrick

    bagal Guest

    Fantastic image David!

    I suppose any1 may press a button on a camera - but capturing the essence of
    a moment is an aesthetic very fes (IMHO) have

    One thing I would like to ask if I may - can I possibly download the iamhe
    to hard drive?

    I would like to scrutinise the image and prefer obtaining your permission
    first.

    If you say the no-word may I reassure you I will respect, observe and uphold
    your decision.

    Mind you, part of me extends sympathy to you. I feel you may be a bit like
    meat going to the slaughter once the Canon-Posse get their heads out of
    their arts :) Maybe not - time will tell.

    Kind regards as always

    das B

    ps - know what you mean about the D07 - every time I see an image choose
    however hard I try the first thing that shouts out is sensor burn out

    d b
    "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:cbjs8c$mg$...
    > Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
    > c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
    > aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
    > un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
    > idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
    > to handle.
    >
    > http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/peacock1512x2268SD10.jpg
    >
    > This is taken in dull lighting, of a subject on well-worn wildlife park
    > grass in April - even the subject is a bit tatty too; it's a moving
    > target, and the lens is the $99 (? 99 pounds here) Sigma digital cheapie
    > 55-200mm used at approx 87mm focal length, at f7.1 aperture, 1/200th.
    >
    > The jpeg is about 2.8mb, sorry, but its the straight 1512x2268 full size
    > (3.4 megapixel) SD10 file, saved in AdobeRGB profiled space, at
    > Photoshop Level 12 - maximum. The import was via Photoshop CS Raw
    > plugin, and the parameters were:
    >
    > White balance - 'Daylight'
    > No adjustment to exposure, black, white or contrast at all
    > Detail sharpness, luminance smoothing and colour smoothing all set to zero
    > No correction for lens colour aberrations at all
    >
    > In other words, about as straight and unmodified an import as the plug
    > in allows. The picture can be ajusted, sharpened etc to make a radical
    > difference but of course it's still a boring shot of a peacock just like
    > dozens I get sent every year for magazine competitions. Ten a penny and
    > I have no idea why I am just the same as every other photographer and
    > can't resist shooting the tatty-looking park bird!
    >
    > If you check the CAMERA EXIF information, you'll find everything

    confirmed.
    >
    > Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at
    > every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
    > areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
    > overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
    > sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
    > whole plane of sharp focus.
    >
    > The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
    > levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
    > granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
    > in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.
    >
    > David
    >
     
    bagal, Jun 26, 2004
    #10
  11. bagal wrote:

    > One thing I would like to ask if I may - can I possibly download the iamhe
    > to hard drive?
    >
    > I would like to scrutinise the image and prefer obtaining your permission
    > first.
    >


    That's the only way to view it - I suspect that some web browsers
    opening it may resample it down to window width. It's best looked at in
    Photoshop or another AdobeRGB aware program.

    No worries on this, it has no commercial value and no importance. A
    peacock in sunshine looks utterly different and peacocks on dull rainy
    days in Cambridgeshire are unimpressive!

    There are two beautiful white peacocks on the road between Moffat and
    Selkirk and sometimes they are in the woods below dark pine trees, like
    ghost peacocks. Never yet managed a shot which catches the feeling of
    glimpsing these birds when driving past.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004
    #11
  12. David Kilpatrick <> writes:

    > I purposely put up an unprocessed image, because I assumed that folk
    > here were familiar with the concept. I also put up an unexceptional
    > one in terms of lighting and dimensional lift - things which give
    > false impressions of 'snap' and sharpness - but which had an excess of
    > fine detail of low contrast.


    I can't *really* tell much without a directly comparable picture, but
    I do think the people piling on this one are either ignoring the above
    choices you made (and which you mentioned in the initial posting, or
    don't understand what they mean (and why they're the right choice for
    a post intended to support a discussion about what the camera hardware
    can actually do).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 26, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <cbk9e6$qsb$>,
    says...

    > Not sure what you mean by loss of detail in the blue areas. There is
    > feather detail visible at single pixel level in the file; maybe this is
    > a colour management issue at your end. I would not expect to see any
    > detail in the turquoise eyes on the tail, as this would be well below
    > single pixel level for the fine overlapping feather blades.


    It's not a matter of my monitor, it's a matter of loss of detail due to
    the blues being too saturated. It borders on posterization.

    > I would love to see any Bayer sensor camera producing the same
    > consistent fine detail image structure (forget 'sharpness' - that is
    > easily acheived by USM on any file).


    You can look at just about any picture taken from a Bayer sensor camera
    and get better than what you've just showed us.

    > Have a look at this:
    >
    > http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/1DII-SD10.jpg
    >
    > this is a pixel-level section of Canon EOS 1D-II image on 70-200mm f2.8,
    > setting ISO 200 - for some reason the EXIF data is not present in the
    > original, which comes from one of our magazine test photographers
    >
    > compared to a pixel level-clip of the SD10 file at ISO 400.
    >
    > The 1DII image is of course 8 megapixels compared to the SD10 3.43
    > megapixels, and size for size, would require scaling down to 65 per cent
    > size to be the same repro size on the printed page - or the SD10 image
    > would need enlarging 1.52 X.


    > I find it hard to distinguish real detail in the 1D MkII image, but it's
    > from a top quality camera JPEG and not a raw file, so sharpening has
    > been applied along with processing; the SD10 file is a top quality JPEG,
    > but from raw file processing. There's no doubt that at pixel level the
    > ISO 200 from 1D MkII is considerably more noisy than the SD10 at 400,
    > but it's doubtful whether this would show up in a print.


    That comparison is useless. Not only are you comparing two completely
    different pictures, without the overall picture present it is impossible
    to tell if the 1D Mk II image was focused properly, what lens was used,
    etc. etc. Without EXIF info, we can't confirm the ISO or sharpening
    settings.

    That said, the Sigma picture is still crap!

    No offense David, but you're turning Preddy on us. Sure, the Sigma
    looks pretty sharp for a 3.43 megapixel camera. I'll cede that point to
    anyone. However, a 6 megapixel Bayer sensor delivers better color
    accuracy and more detail, albeit with a larger file. For the price, the
    quality and the flexibility of the mount, Sigma just loses all around.
    Not to say (others) can't get decent photos from the Sigma SD10, just
    that they could get better photos out of 6 megapixel Bayer sensors if
    they just learned to get over their anti-aliasing hang-ups.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Brian C. Baird wrote:

    > In article <cbk9e6$qsb$>,
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>Not sure what you mean by loss of detail in the blue areas. There is
    >>feather detail visible at single pixel level in the file; maybe this is
    >>a colour management issue at your end. I would not expect to see any
    >>detail in the turquoise eyes on the tail, as this would be well below
    >>single pixel level for the fine overlapping feather blades.

    >
    >
    > It's not a matter of my monitor, it's a matter of loss of detail due to
    > the blues being too saturated. It borders on posterization.
    >

    As I said, a colour management issue (your monitor is probably no
    different from mine). I don't have any analysis tools but a quick trawl
    over the most saturated blues in the AdobeRGB image yields a maximum
    level of 237 in the blue channel of RGB. The largest blue are generally
    has values between 150 and 210 in the blue channel. It's a slightly flat
    and desaturated image.
    >


    > That comparison is useless. Not only are you comparing two completely
    > different pictures, without the overall picture present it is impossible
    > to tell if the 1D Mk II image was focused properly, what lens was used,
    > etc. etc. Without EXIF info, we can't confirm the ISO or sharpening
    > settings.


    I do have pictures from the same author with EXIF info and I don't
    understand why his first set of shots lacks this. Unfortunately all the
    later shots are at 400 to 3200 ISO and of completely non-comparable
    subjects (portraits and rock concerts and sports), so I selected one
    which showed feathers. Obviously it was never intended to be compared
    with anything else, but the comparison is *not* useless.
    >
    > That said, the Sigma picture is still crap!
    >
    > No offense David, but you're turning Preddy on us. Sure, the Sigma
    > looks pretty sharp for a 3.43 megapixel camera. I'll cede that point to
    > anyone. However, a 6 megapixel Bayer sensor delivers better color
    > accuracy and more detail, albeit with a larger file. For the price, the
    > quality and the flexibility of the mount, Sigma just loses all around.
    > Not to say (others) can't get decent photos from the Sigma SD10, just
    > that they could get better photos out of 6 megapixel Bayer sensors if
    > they just learned to get over their anti-aliasing hang-ups.


    It's in your last sentence that you reveal the problem in this NG
    (disregarding Preddy). No owner of any camera system needs to 'learn to
    get over... hang-ups' or be taught by anyone else that they made the
    wrong choice, or that some other system is superior. I'm not saying, and
    never have said, that the SD10/Foveon is better, or that it represents
    the best value - actually, I have said that the EOS 300D (Rebel)
    represents the best value, and has an outstandingly good image quality
    especially at high ISO settings - and that is the camera I normally
    recommend to anyone just entering the DsLR field with no legacy equipment.

    My purpose is simply to point out that the Sigma/Foveon image has
    certain qualities which are not identical to mainstream DSLR
    development, strengths as well as weaknesses, and is a potential choice
    for anyone able to understand how to use it.

    If I didn't waste my time on this, all that would be here would be an
    endless stream of GP spam about Sigma any time some innocent passer-by
    asks about camera choice or dares to mention Canon; followed by equally
    extreme and occasionally scatological or downright childish responses,
    which normally trash Sigma as much as GP. Anyone would think there was a
    war on. There isn't, it's one troll and half a dozen victims.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 26, 2004
    #14
  15. <snip>

    >
    > David
    >


    Nice to see some nice real world sigma shots from somebody actually using the
    camera, certanly praising it because he's using it and liking it and not like
    somebody else we all too well know, just deluding away through some pseudo-math
    techno-garbage mirror-climbing explanations aimed solely to defend a technical
    implementation that his twisted mind sees only second in importance to the
    discovery of fire.

    Sigma has flaws (who doesn't?) and sharpness is not one of them: you can decide
    to steer clear of it, or use it and like it. If I needed sharpness the most in
    my pictures and I could use only a 3MP camera, then it would probably be an
    SD10. I'd let my software take care of the eventual color casts, noise
    (acceptable levels of it anyway) and aliasing artifacts. One thing I cant speak
    of is the camera's ergonomics and ease of use, which I haven't been able to test
    in person.

    Nice picture anyway. I'd like to see what you'd be able to shoot in "better"
    conditions: I'm pretty sure the results would be quite remarkable.

    Keep up the good Honest work.

    FDKS
     
    Fedman Kassad, Jun 26, 2004
    #15
  16. David Kilpatrick

    Alan D-W Guest

    "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:cbkafp$kt6$...
    >
    >
    > >>

    > >
    > > But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
    > >
    > >

    >
    > This is silly. What do you do - shoot JPEGs on Normal sharpness or
    > something?
    >


    What the hell has whatever *I* do got to do with anything? And even if I
    shoot on 110 cartridge film with a pinhole camera made from a cornflake box,
    it doesn't alter the plain facts above: your Sigma sample is fuzzy, lacking
    in detail, and out of focus, and only further serves to demonstrate the
    inadequacies of Sigma/Foveon, a cause which, frankly, you are doing nothing
    for.
     
    Alan D-W, Jun 26, 2004
    #16
  17. Alan D-W wrote:

    > "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:cbkafp$kt6$...
    >
    >>
    >>>But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>This is silly. What do you do - shoot JPEGs on Normal sharpness or
    >>something?
    >>

    >
    >
    > What the hell has whatever *I* do got to do with anything? And even if I
    > shoot on 110 cartridge film with a pinhole camera made from a cornflake box,
    > it doesn't alter the plain facts above: your Sigma sample is fuzzy, lacking
    > in detail, and out of focus, and only further serves to demonstrate the
    > inadequacies of Sigma/Foveon, a cause which, frankly, you are doing nothing
    > for.
    >


    OK, you are not working or viewing with the same set of parameters. My
    principal outlet for work demands zero sharpening be set. The example I
    posted is not fuzzy, and if you think it is, you have simply never seen
    an image from (for example) an EOS 10D, Nikon D100 or comparable 6
    megapixel camera processed from raw without sharpening.

    There are people here who understand exactly what's it's all about, and
    know how to interpret a digital image on screen. If you have problems,
    they are yours and not mine, however hard you try to MAKE them mine.
    Ignorance is bliss!

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 27, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <cbkm3i$a9$>,
    says...
    > My purpose is simply to point out that the Sigma/Foveon image has
    > certain qualities which are not identical to mainstream DSLR
    > development, strengths as well as weaknesses, and is a potential choice
    > for anyone able to understand how to use it.


    Which you seem to be defending a little too rabidly. But I understand
    where you are coming from, so please disregard any "nasty" tone that may
    have been inferred from earlier posts.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 27, 2004
    #18
  19. Brian C. Baird wrote:

    > In article <cbkm3i$a9$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>My purpose is simply to point out that the Sigma/Foveon image has
    >>certain qualities which are not identical to mainstream DSLR
    >>development, strengths as well as weaknesses, and is a potential choice
    >>for anyone able to understand how to use it.

    >
    >
    > Which you seem to be defending a little too rabidly. But I understand
    > where you are coming from, so please disregard any "nasty" tone that may
    > have been inferred from earlier posts.


    If you look back at the history of this, there's one (multiple
    personality) moron out there making ludicrous claims about Sigma
    combined with a genocidal hate campaign towards Canon. This has produced
    a predictable knee-jerk reaction from 80 per cent of the active NG
    participants who have not killfiled the entire thing.

    I'm just sitting here trying to inject reason and balance. I doubt I
    will still be using the Sigma kit by the end of the year, and actually
    I'm waiting for Minolta's DSLR to appear. In the meantime if I get a
    chance to buy a Nikon-mount Kodak 14 megapixel SLR/n, I might well go
    for it. Or perhaps the Fuji S3 when it arrives as that looks almost up
    to the mark I'm aiming at.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 27, 2004
    #19
  20. "Fedman Kassad" <> wrote in message news:<oZlDc.57012$G%>...

    > Sigma has flaws (who doesn't?) and sharpness is not one of them


    It is in that sample, though. Likely a kit lens. That is one of the
    least-sharp images I've seen from an SDX, but the sensor only records
    what it sees and in the case the lens isn't even close to up tp the
    camera's raw capability.

    > : you can decide
    > to steer clear of it, or use it and like it. If I needed sharpness the most in
    > my pictures and I could use only a 3MP camera, then it would probably be an
    > SD10.


    If I could only use a 3MP camera, I'd use this great Sony...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/30338213/original

    Bayer at 3MP (Sigma calls that 0.7MP) is obviously not in the same
    ballpark, your comment is absurd.

    > I'd let my software take care of the eventual color casts, noise
    > (acceptable levels of it anyway) and aliasing artifacts.


    Good like making that looks like David's $100-lens peacock.

    > One thing I cant speak
    > of is the camera's ergonomics and ease of use, which I haven't been able to > test
    > in person.


    Sigma DSLR ergonomics are vastly better than anything else out there.
    Nikon bodies are a very, very distant second, and Canon bodies aren't
    even serious attempts, rather, brazen ripoffs from an arrogant
    company.

    Canon's "custom functions" are nothing more than digitally-hacked
    after-thoughts with no provided body implementation, you have to dig
    through who knows how many levels of unlabeled cryptic digital menus
    just to find basic features like MLU and bracketing interval. They
    don't even have a pan and zoom rocker! If you can even believe that
    in this days and age! You have to pan and zoom with a dial and a and
    qualifier switch to make it swap back and forth between the 2 knobs on
    an etchasketch. And what's with no infrared? The 10D family has by
    far the worst D/SLR ergonomics of any cameras I've used
    exhaustively--insultingly bad, the worst, the pits, laughable,
    terrible, you name it, you can't find worse in a D/SLR body (except a
    few Canons).

    Kodak recently contracted with Sigma to use a Sigma SD10 body on their
    new, highest end DSLR, citing superior ergonomics and build quality
    over all other camera makers. Here is what it looks like...

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/Kodak/proslrc08.jpg

    They had to cover the "SD10" logo with thier own, since Sigma
    incorporates it into the body panel itself during the fabrication
    process, unlike Canon's painted on lettering that wipes off after a
    few months hard use.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 27, 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. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    699
  2. John Houghton

    Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else!

    John Houghton, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    750
    John Houghton
    Jul 10, 2003
  3. David Kilpatrick

    Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE

    David Kilpatrick, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    995
    David J Taylor
    Jun 26, 2004
  4. Leslie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    Brian A
    Jul 25, 2007
  5. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    567
    Peter
    Aug 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page