Sigma execs contract advance Mad Cow disease

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 20, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete Stavrakoglou, May 20, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 20, 4:03 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > It's the only answer.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052010sigmasd1.asp

    >
    > Or maybe the radiation has reached the headquarters.


    Or maybe concerning the renegade designer can be described by a line
    from "Apocalypse Now:"
    "He had no official clearance, he just thought it up and did it. What
    balls..."
     
    RichA, May 20, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Mike Guest

    Mike, May 21, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    On 22/05/2011 1:08 AM, Mike wrote:
    > On 20/05/2011 3:42 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> It's the only answer.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052010sigmasd1.asp
    >>

    > Typo, They meant to say ¥9,700.
    >
    >


    I think even the most hardened Sigma critic might be tempted at US $120.
    That would be a very hard loss-leader to bring in new Sigma SA lens
    customers.
     
    dj_nme, May 22, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Mr. Strat, May 23, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <220520111711545578%>, Mr. Strat
    <> wrote:

    > > It's the only answer.
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052010sigmasd1.asp

    >
    > Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?


    not anymore they don't. even the sigma fanbois have given up and are
    calling for a boycott.
     
    nospam, May 23, 2011
    #7
  8. Mr. Strat <> wrote:

    [Sigma]
    > Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?


    When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
    seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 23, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    >
    > [Sigma]
    > > Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

    >
    > When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
    > seriously. (Mine doesn't.)


    I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
    dime on Sigma's crappy products.
     
    Mr. Strat, May 24, 2011
    #9
  10. In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    >>
    >> [Sigma]
    >>> Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

    >>
    >> When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
    >> seriously. (Mine doesn't.)


    > They make some good lenses. The 70/2.8 macro is great and the 12-24 zoom is
    > a blast (there's a new version coming out; the old version is _very_ good
    > for tight interiors, but IQ at the corners outdoors (in my copy at all but
    > 14 mm) is problematic, so I'll grab the new version the instant it's
    > released).


    Their recent 8-16mm wide angle for crop sensor cameras is newer
    technology than the old 12-24mm, and is very good indeed. At the
    moment it's hard to compare it with the competition, because there
    isn't any :)

    > Many of their lenses are _for the price_ products, and as such are very
    > good, useful tools for a lot of people.


    > Grumble. I'm off to an exotic foreign city* half way around the world
    > Friday, and I'd love to take the new 12-24 with my, but it's not out yet. So
    > I thought I'd blow some serious money and get the Canon 8-15mm fisheye
    > instead. One of the reasons I've passed on fisheyes so far is that I can't
    > decide FF or circular. I like both effects, but they are both below my
    > threshold for getting used enough to be worth lugging. So despite the insane
    > price, the 8-15 isn't completely unreasonable. But it isn't out yet either.
    > Sheesh.


    If you can put up with a totally fully manual lens, the (nominally)
    8mm Samyang fisheye is FF on crop sensors (the 180 degree circle is
    exscribed on the sensor rectangle) and circular on FF. It also has a
    new projection which compresses the edges less which IIRC some call
    "stereographic". Makes more of the image useful for such things as
    group portraits in confined spaces, and allows it to be "unfished"
    with less loss of resolution.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 24, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/24/2011 4:19 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy<> wrote:
    >
    >> "Wolfgang Weisselberg"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Mr. Strat<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [Sigma]
    >>>> Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?
    >>>
    >>> When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
    >>> seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

    >
    >> They make some good lenses. The 70/2.8 macro is great and the 12-24 zoom is
    >> a blast (there's a new version coming out; the old version is _very_ good
    >> for tight interiors, but IQ at the corners outdoors (in my copy at all but
    >> 14 mm) is problematic, so I'll grab the new version the instant it's
    >> released).

    >
    > Their recent 8-16mm wide angle for crop sensor cameras is newer
    > technology than the old 12-24mm, and is very good indeed. At the
    > moment it's hard to compare it with the competition, because there
    > isn't any :)
    >


    I tested one when it first came out, at Sigma HQ, where I expected they
    would give me a decent one.
    For reasons previously stated, I decided it was a POC.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2011
    #11
  12. Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> Mr. Strat <> wrote:


    >> [Sigma]
    >> > Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?


    >> When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
    >> seriously. (Mine doesn't.)


    > I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
    > dime on Sigma's crappy products.


    And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
    do professional photography.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 25, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > > I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
    > > dime on Sigma's crappy products.

    >
    > And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
    > do professional photography.


    Having done photography in many contexts for 45 years, it's pretty easy
    to distinguish between Sigma and quality equipment.
     
    Mr. Strat, May 25, 2011
    #13
  14. Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> > I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
    >> > dime on Sigma's crappy products.


    >> And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
    >> do professional photography.


    > Having done photography in many contexts for 45 years, it's pretty easy
    > to distinguish between Sigma and quality equipment.


    Good to know you have indeed tested all of Sigma's offerings and
    aren't prejudiced. And that you completely understood that not
    wasting a dime on something doesn't prove anything but that one
    usually has no real experience with that something.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    > > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > > Weisselberg <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
    > >> > dime on Sigma's crappy products.

    >
    > >> And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
    > >> do professional photography.

    >
    > > Having done photography in many contexts for 45 years, it's pretty easy
    > > to distinguish between Sigma and quality equipment.

    >
    > Good to know you have indeed tested all of Sigma's offerings and
    > aren't prejudiced. And that you completely understood that not
    > wasting a dime on something doesn't prove anything but that one
    > usually has no real experience with that something.


    Feel free to spend your money on whatever brands you wish. I just don't
    want to listen to your bitching when you finally figure out that Sigma
    products are crap...and that your money was wasted.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 12, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Mason

    NEW It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World DVD!

    Peter Mason, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,012
    DarkMatter
    Oct 31, 2003
  2. Michael Rogers

    I's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World new DVD?

    Michael Rogers, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    564
    Hitman of Las Vegas
    Jan 11, 2004
  3. Mutlley

    Telecom NZ execs visit BT

    Mutlley, Jun 14, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    284
    Vista
    Jun 15, 2006
  4. richard

    two movie scenes from "it's a mad mad world"

    richard, Nov 20, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    887
    Evan Platt
    Nov 21, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    277
    John Turco
    Nov 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page