Sigma DP-1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roy Wang, Sep 27, 2006.

  1. Roy Wang

    Roy Wang Guest

    Who knows the price of DP-1?
     
    Roy Wang, Sep 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roy Wang

    SimonLW Guest

    "Roy Wang" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Who knows the price of DP-1?
    >


    I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of slow (and
    no zoom). If Foveon got it better this time, we might actually see some
    competition for the Bayer array. Noisy skies and poor high ISO performance
    (color accuracy problem) was the main let down of the previous Foveon
    cameras.

    Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a large
    sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but no nanna)

    -S
     
    SimonLW, Sep 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roy Wang

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:36:02 -0700, Roy Wang wrote:

    > Who knows the price of DP-1?

    Who wants to? :)
    --
    Neil
    Delete l to reply
     
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 27, 2006
    #3
  4. Roy Wang

    Ray Fischer Guest

    SimonLW <> wrote:
    >"Roy Wang" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Who knows the price of DP-1?
    >>

    >
    >I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of slow (and
    >no zoom). If Foveon got it better this time, we might actually see some
    >competition for the Bayer array. Noisy skies and poor high ISO performance
    >(color accuracy problem) was the main let down of the previous Foveon
    >cameras.
    >
    >Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a large
    >sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but no nanna)


    Not impressed. That they need to be deceptive and dishonest about
    their cameras says a lot about the supposed quality.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 29, 2006
    #4
  5. SimonLW <> wrote:
    >"Roy Wang" <> wrote in message


    >> Who knows the price of DP-1?


    > I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of
    > slow (and no zoom).


    Japanese site:
    http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/lifestyle/articles/0609/26/news095.html
    says that target release date is Jan 2007 (but no price, yet).
    Same site claims metal (aluminium body, optical stabilization
    and a fairly high res. (230 k.) LCD.

    I think it will be more than $500, in particular with OS.

    However, I would treat this information as suspect since it is not
    mentioned in any official Sigma literature.

    It looks as if has designed to compete against the Ricoh GR Digital,
    which retails for around $700 in the USA.

    > Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a
    > large sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but
    > no nanna)


    Unfortumately, but without an optical viewfinder (or an accessory shoe
    for a clip-on OVF), this one is only close too.

    The DR-1 announcement did prompt me to fantasize about my dream camera
    tho' - the DSS (Digital Streetshooter Special):
    http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/?p=68

    (And please - don't let this turn into a yet another "Sigma is lying
    about megapixels" flame war. There is already a number of threads at
    rdp dedicated to this topic, and the position of both sides are well
    known. Let us instead discuss large sensor compact cameras.)
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Roy Wang

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Paul Rubin, Sep 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Roy Wang

    mark Guest

    Ray Fischer schreef:

    > SimonLW <> wrote:
    > >"Roy Wang" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Who knows the price of DP-1?
    > >>

    > >
    > >I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of slow (and
    > >no zoom). If Foveon got it better this time, we might actually see some
    > >competition for the Bayer array. Noisy skies and poor high ISO performance
    > >(color accuracy problem) was the main let down of the previous Foveon
    > >cameras.
    > >
    > >Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a large
    > >sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but no nanna)

    >
    > Not impressed. That they need to be deceptive and dishonest about
    > their cameras says a lot about the supposed quality.
    >


    How are they being dishonest and deceptive?

    Can you tell me how you can be 'unimpressed' by something that isn't
    made yet?

    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >
     
    mark, Oct 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Roy Wang

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:

    >
    >Ray Fischer schreef:
    >
    >> SimonLW <> wrote:
    >> >"Roy Wang" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> Who knows the price of DP-1?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of slow (and
    >> >no zoom). If Foveon got it better this time, we might actually see some
    >> >competition for the Bayer array. Noisy skies and poor high ISO performance
    >> >(color accuracy problem) was the main let down of the previous Foveon
    >> >cameras.
    >> >
    >> >Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a large
    >> >sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but no nanna)

    >>
    >> Not impressed. That they need to be deceptive and dishonest about
    >> their cameras says a lot about the supposed quality.
    >>

    >
    >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?


    Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    cameras.
    >
    >Can you tell me how you can be 'unimpressed' by something that isn't
    >made yet?
    >
    >> --
    >> Ray Fischer
    >>

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Roy Wang

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Ray Fischer schreef:


    <<<snip>>>

    > >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?

    >
    > Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    > cameras.


    The proof is in the results.

    A friend of mine who's been doing custom printing for years for
    professional photographers was stunned by the image of a Sigma SD10
    compared to the Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji DSLR images he regularly
    prints... it was sharper!
     
    Dan Sullivan, Oct 10, 2006
    #9
  10. Roy Wang

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 10 Oct 2006 08:29:30 -0700, "Dan Sullivan" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Ray Fischer schreef:

    >
    ><<<snip>>>
    >
    >> >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?

    >>
    >> Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    >> cameras.

    >
    >The proof is in the results.
    >
    >A friend of mine who's been doing custom printing for years for
    >professional photographers was stunned by the image of a Sigma SD10
    >compared to the Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji DSLR images he regularly
    >prints... it was sharper!


    Another person who doesn't get the point.
    If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    misrepresent them?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2006
    #10
  11. "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 10 Oct 2006 08:29:30 -0700, "Dan Sullivan" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Bill Funk wrote:
    >>> On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >
    >>> >Ray Fischer schreef:

    >>
    >><<<snip>>>
    >>
    >>> >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?
    >>>
    >>> Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    >>> cameras.

    >>
    >>The proof is in the results.
    >>
    >>A friend of mine who's been doing custom printing for years for
    >>professional photographers was stunned by the image of a Sigma SD10
    >>compared to the Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji DSLR images he regularly
    >>prints... it was sharper!

    >
    > Another person who doesn't get the point.
    > If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    > misrepresent them?


    They're not misrepresented, they're represented just like AMD did when they
    switched to performance ratings for their chips. Intels had more megahertz
    but the AMDs performed better. A Foveon and a Bayer are two distinct
    technologies, trying to compare them by a megapixel count does not work.
    Compare them by photosite counts - the SD10 has 10.2 million.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Oct 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Roy Wang

    nospam Guest

    In article <StVWg.99$>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    <> wrote:

    > > Another person who doesn't get the point.
    > > If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    > > misrepresent them?

    >
    > They're not misrepresented, they're represented just like AMD did when they
    > switched to performance ratings for their chips. Intels had more megahertz
    > but the AMDs performed better. A Foveon and a Bayer are two distinct
    > technologies, trying to compare them by a megapixel count does not work.
    > Compare them by photosite counts - the SD10 has 10.2 million.


    although the techologies differ, a pixel is still a pixel.

    multiple layers on the sensor may theoretically make the pixels better
    than with only one layer. however, it does not increase the *number*
    of pixels, just the internal structure of them. calling the sd9/10
    anything other than 3.4 megapixels is a false statement.

    take the extreme case of a single dot with 10 million layers - is that
    a 10 megapixel sensor? do you think it will look as good as a nikon
    d200, which has a real 10 megapixel sensor?

    if we go with sigma/foveon's method of counting photosites, those two
    sensors should produce similar results. after all, they both have 10
    million photosites. obviously, something is wrong with this method.

    if sigma/foveon said (as they once did for the sd9), 3.4 million pixels
    with 3 layers, for a total of 10.2 million photo-detectors, then they
    wouldn't get criticized for inflating the pixel count.
     
    nospam, Oct 11, 2006
    #12
  13. Roy Wang

    mark Guest

    Bill Funk schreef:

    > On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Ray Fischer schreef:
    > >
    > >> SimonLW <> wrote:
    > >> >"Roy Wang" <> wrote in message
    > >> >news:...
    > >> >> Who knows the price of DP-1?
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >I'd hope it is no more than $500 considering the lens is kind of slow (and
    > >> >no zoom). If Foveon got it better this time, we might actually see some
    > >> >competition for the Bayer array. Noisy skies and poor high ISO performance
    > >> >(color accuracy problem) was the main let down of the previous Foveon
    > >> >cameras.
    > >> >
    > >> >Sigma's finally trying what I was hoping for, for quite a while - a large
    > >> >sensored compact camera! (Please no Epson reminders. Close but no nanna)
    > >>
    > >> Not impressed. That they need to be deceptive and dishonest about
    > >> their cameras says a lot about the supposed quality.
    > >>

    > >
    > >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?

    >
    > Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    > cameras.
    > >


    what would be the higher percentage: the number of sigma/foveon buyers
    that don't know about the x3, or the number of bayer buyers (hey, no
    pun intended) that don't know about the interpolation done in the bayer
    paradigm?


    > >Can you tell me how you can be 'unimpressed' by something that isn't
    > >made yet?
    > >
    > >> --
    > >> Ray Fischer
    > >>

    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"
     
    mark, Oct 11, 2006
    #13
  14. Roy Wang

    mark Guest

    nospam schreef:

    > In article <StVWg.99$>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > Another person who doesn't get the point.
    > > > If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    > > > misrepresent them?

    > >
    > > They're not misrepresented, they're represented just like AMD did when they
    > > switched to performance ratings for their chips. Intels had more megahertz
    > > but the AMDs performed better. A Foveon and a Bayer are two distinct
    > > technologies, trying to compare them by a megapixel count does not work.
    > > Compare them by photosite counts - the SD10 has 10.2 million.

    >
    > although the techologies differ, a pixel is still a pixel.
    >
    > multiple layers on the sensor may theoretically make the pixels better
    > than with only one layer. however, it does not increase the *number*
    > of pixels, just the internal structure of them. calling the sd9/10
    > anything other than 3.4 megapixels is a false statement.
    >
    > take the extreme case of a single dot with 10 million layers - is that
    > a 10 megapixel sensor? do you think it will look as good as a nikon
    > d200, which has a real 10 megapixel sensor?
    >
    > if we go with sigma/foveon's method of counting photosites, those two
    > sensors should produce similar results. after all, they both have 10
    > million photosites. obviously, something is wrong with this method.
    >


    in the bayer paradigm this would be somthing like a grod of 10 million
    fotosites all capturing about 1/100000 of a bit of information,
    interpolated to create a grid of 10 million 'pixels'all delivering the
    same information..

    Do you know anything about how a sensor works?
    > if sigma/foveon said (as they once did for the sd9), 3.4 million pixels
    > with 3 layers, for a total of 10.2 million photo-detectors, then they
    > wouldn't get criticized for inflating the pixel count.
     
    mark, Oct 11, 2006
    #14
  15. "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:StVWg.99$...
    > "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    > news:...

    SNIP
    >> If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    >> misrepresent them?

    >
    > They're not misrepresented, they're represented just like AMD did
    > when they switched to performance ratings for their chips. Intels
    > had more megahertz but the AMDs performed better. A Foveon and a
    > Bayer are two distinct technologies, trying to compare them by a
    > megapixel count does not work. Compare them by photosite counts -
    > the SD10 has 10.2 million.


    Resulting in 2268x1512 pixels, AKA 3.4 MP.
    If you feel an urge to deny that, then Photoshop (2268x1512 px),
    IrfanView (2304x1531 px), and all other Raw converters that handle
    X3Fs must be wrong ...

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 11, 2006
    #15
  16. Roy Wang

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:51:39 -0400, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On 10 Oct 2006 08:29:30 -0700, "Dan Sullivan" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Bill Funk wrote:
    >>>> On 10 Oct 2006 07:37:55 -0700, "mark" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >
    >>>> >Ray Fischer schreef:
    >>>
    >>><<<snip>>>
    >>>
    >>>> >How are they being dishonest and deceptive?
    >>>>
    >>>> Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    >>>> cameras.
    >>>
    >>>The proof is in the results.
    >>>
    >>>A friend of mine who's been doing custom printing for years for
    >>>professional photographers was stunned by the image of a Sigma SD10
    >>>compared to the Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji DSLR images he regularly
    >>>prints... it was sharper!

    >>
    >> Another person who doesn't get the point.
    >> If Sigma cameras speak for themselves, why does Sigma need to
    >> misrepresent them?

    >
    >They're not misrepresented, they're represented just like AMD did when they
    >switched to performance ratings for their chips. Intels had more megahertz
    >but the AMDs performed better. A Foveon and a Bayer are two distinct
    >technologies, trying to compare them by a megapixel count does not work.
    >Compare them by photosite counts - the SD10 has 10.2 million.
    >

    Ah, I see.
    You're saying hat since others do it, it's OK.
    A pixel is already defined.
    What Sigma is calling a pixel doesn't conform to the definition of a
    pixel.
    We've been over this before; there's a distinct difference between
    Foveon's three sensels under one spot on a sensor's surface, and four
    sensels in four distinct spots on a sensor's surface.
    The Foveon "three pixels" only sample one place on the sensor's
    surface, while a Bayer's corresponding four sensels sample four
    distinct areas on the sensor. To compare one spot to four is
    ludicrous.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 11, 2006
    #16
  17. Bill Funk <> writes:

    > Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    > cameras.


    A presume (since you insist that the Sigma SD9/10 is 3+mp camears,
    that you define a pixel as a picture element containing all the colour
    information required to reproduce that picture element in print, etc.

    Fine, I do as well. By that defintion, the SD9 and SD10 are indeed
    3.4 Mpx cameras.

    But is the RAW file from, say, Canon EOS 30D /really/ 8 Mpx as claimed
    by Canon? It certainly has 8 million photosites, but if we examine
    each photosite, we find that each photosite only captures a single
    colour. To get from 8 million photosites to 8 Megapixels in the Bayer
    paradigm, the sensor data need to be interpolated.

    I think you guys blasting Sigma marketing for being deceptive by using
    an interpolated figure when participating in the megapixels game would
    sound a bit less hypocritical if you applied the same yardstick to
    Canon, Nikon, et al.

    The core of the matter is that the Bayer and Foveon architectures are
    capturing image data in very different way. Neighter paradigm has an
    architecture where a honest person would say that a single photosite
    translates directly into a single pixel (unless you make up a
    definition of "pixel" that suits the paradigm you are shilling for).

    We can debate this endlessly, but the core of the matter is that /all/
    manufacturers misrepresent the number of pixels in the RAW files from
    their cameras.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Oct 12, 2006
    #17
  18. Roy Wang

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Gisle Hannemyr
    <> wrote:

    > Bill Funk <> writes:
    >
    > > Sigma claims their SDx cameras are 10+ mp when they are in fact 3+mp
    > > cameras.

    >
    > A presume (since you insist that the Sigma SD9/10 is 3+mp camears,
    > that you define a pixel as a picture element containing all the colour
    > information required to reproduce that picture element in print, etc.
    >
    > Fine, I do as well. By that defintion, the SD9 and SD10 are indeed
    > 3.4 Mpx cameras.


    correct.

    > But is the RAW file from, say, Canon EOS 30D /really/ 8 Mpx as claimed
    > by Canon? It certainly has 8 million photosites, but if we examine
    > each photosite, we find that each photosite only captures a single
    > colour. To get from 8 million photosites to 8 Megapixels in the Bayer
    > paradigm, the sensor data need to be interpolated.


    due to the bayer demosaic algorithm, the *accuracy* of each pixel may
    be less than perfect, but the *number* of pixels are the same. there
    is nothing about a pixel that requires it to be 100% accurate. in
    fact, the pixels could contain completely random data, and there would
    still be 8 million of them.

    > I think you guys blasting Sigma marketing for being deceptive by using
    > an interpolated figure when participating in the megapixels game would
    > sound a bit less hypocritical if you applied the same yardstick to
    > Canon, Nikon, et al.


    the same yardstick is used for everyone - the number of spatially
    distinct locations. that's what a pixel *is*.

    > The core of the matter is that the Bayer and Foveon architectures are
    > capturing image data in very different way.


    true.

    > Neighter paradigm has an
    > architecture where a honest person would say that a single photosite
    > translates directly into a single pixel (unless you make up a
    > definition of "pixel" that suits the paradigm you are shilling for).


    no need to make up a definition - the term 'pixel' has been around for
    decades, long before bayer or foveon existed.

    > We can debate this endlessly, but the core of the matter is that /all/
    > manufacturers misrepresent the number of pixels in the RAW files from
    > their cameras.


    no, not all manufacturers misrepresent pixel counts.
     
    nospam, Oct 12, 2006
    #18
  19. "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > I think you guys blasting Sigma marketing for being deceptive by
    > using
    > an interpolated figure when participating in the megapixels game
    > would
    > sound a bit less hypocritical if you applied the same yardstick to
    > Canon, Nikon, et al.


    It is not the same yardstick! Sigma needs to ENLARGE the final Raw
    processed image x2 in both dimensions, to reach the number of
    *suggested* 13.7 Mpixels. The suggestion is deliberate!

    A Bayer CFA image on the other hand, samples part of the image
    spectrum at each of the final output pixel positions. Due to the
    nature of the CFA demosaicing process it needs to reconstruct the
    missing parts of the spectrum at each pixel position, which can be
    done rather successfully because chrominance resolution is less
    important for human vision than luminance resolution.

    What's more, on average color varies at a slower rate than Luminance
    in most images (just look at the color channels in a Lab-mode image,
    or compare their Standard Deviations). Therefore undersampled Color
    reconstruction is on average much more reliable than undersampled
    Luminance+Color interpolation.

    There is a huge difference between partially sampling the spectrum at
    100% of the output pixel positions, and actually sampling 1/4th of
    them. And since you know that, I'm a bit mystified why you seem to
    support the misconception.

    Another Sigma/Foveon dishonesty is their comparison between a sensor
    without an AA-filter, and a sensor with such filter, and claiming the
    difference is only due to different sampling methods. This is often
    aggravated by using different Fields-of-View, always biased in favor
    of their sensor. That is no longer dishonest, it's intentional spin to
    put it mildly.

    Companies that feel that they have to resort to those methods, deserve
    to be corrected by revealing the truth. That is not bashing, at least
    not in my part of the world ...

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 12, 2006
    #19
  20. "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > I think you guys blasting Sigma marketing for being deceptive by
    > using an interpolated figure when participating in the megapixels
    > game would sound a bit less hypocritical if you applied the same
    > yardstick to Canon, Nikon, et al.


    It is not the same yardstick! Sigma needs to ENLARGE the final Raw
    processed image x3 (sounds familiar?), to reach the number of
    *suggested* 10.3 Mpixels. The suggestion is deliberate!

    A Bayer CFA image on the other hand, samples part of the image
    spectrum at each of the final output pixel positions. Due to the
    nature of the CFA demosaicing process it needs to reconstruct the
    missing parts of the spectrum at each pixel position, which can be
    done rather successfully because chrominance resolution is less
    important for human vision than luminance resolution.

    What's more, on average color varies at a slower rate than Luminance
    in most images (just look at the color channels in a Lab-mode image,
    or compare their Standard Deviations). Therefore undersampled Color
    reconstruction is on average much more reliable than undersampled
    Luminance+Color interpolation.

    There is a huge difference between partially sampling the spectrum at
    100% of the output pixel positions, and actually sampling 1/4th of
    them. And since you know that, I'm a bit mystified why you seem to
    support the misconception.

    Another Sigma/Foveon dishonesty is their comparison between a sensor
    without an AA-filter, and a sensor with such filter, and claiming the
    difference is only due to different sampling methods. This is often
    aggravated by using different Fields-of-View, always biased in favor
    of their sensor. That is no longer dishonest, it's intentional spin to
    put it mildly.

    Companies that feel that they have to resort to those methods, deserve
    to be corrected by revealing the truth. That is not blasting/bashing,
    at least
    not in my part of the world ...

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 12, 2006
    #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. Tom Pfeiffer

    Re: Sigma 600mm F8 Any users?

    Tom Pfeiffer, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,076
    Tom Pfeiffer
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Tom Pfeiffer

    Re: Sigma 600mm F8 Any users?

    Tom Pfeiffer, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,969
    Tom Pfeiffer
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. rolento

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

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    509
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,422
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page