sigma SD 14 reviews?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, May 6, 2007.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    surprisingly few reviews on it.
    There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    find.
    Does anyone know why?
    peter, May 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01>, peter <>
    wrote:

    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?


    Because like the Sigma cameras that came before it, it sucks.
    Randall Ainsworth, May 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    nsag Guest

    It is a capable machine but has different characteristics because of its
    sensor.
    As with all cameras of reasonable capabilities it is the person using the
    camera that determines the quality of the final product more than the camera
    or lens.
    nsag, May 6, 2007
    #3
  4. peter

    Pete D Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01...
    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?
    >


    Usually to get reviews at the larger review sites the manufacturer will loan
    them a camera, if this is not done then there will be something of a delay,
    the other way would be for someone to buy one and then lend it to a review
    site, I suspect they have not sold one yet!! This camera belongs in a very
    small niche market and they will not sell many examples anyway I would
    expect.
    Pete D, May 6, 2007
    #4
  5. peter

    nospam Guest

    In article <Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01>, peter <>
    wrote:

    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?


    the phrase, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything
    at all" comes to mind.

    nevertheless, there are a handful of reviews so far, and none paint the
    camera to be particularly compelling, especially at its high price.
    nospam, May 6, 2007
    #5
  6. In article <Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01>, "peter" <>
    wrote:

    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?


    Maybe the first sentence of the press release fails to portray this as a
    serious camera.

    "The new SD14, powered by the 14 megapixel Foveon X3®
    direct-image-sensor, can reproduce high definition images rich in
    gradation and impressive three-dimensional detail."


    The few reviews that I could find don't have the same level of
    hyperbole. The SD14 is improved but stays in character. I'm still
    waiting for sample photos with three-dimensional detail. Do I need
    special glasses?
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 6, 2007
    #6
  7. peter

    =\(8\) Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01...
    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?
    >


    Could it be because it is a piece of shit!?!?!

    =(8)
    =\(8\), May 6, 2007
    #7
  8. peter

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <-sjc.supernews.net>,
    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:

    > I'm still
    > waiting for sample photos with three-dimensional detail. Do I need
    > special glasses?


    yes, you do need special glasses!

    have you noticed the magenta and yellow blotches on sigma images?

    at first glance, they appear to ruin the pictures, but a little known
    secret is that those images are actually anaglyphs! those blotches
    encode the 3d information, and when viewed with the special sigma
    two-color reality distortion goggles, the images just jump right out at
    you with full three dimensional detail. amazing stuff.
    nospam, May 6, 2007
    #8
  9. peter

    Mark² Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01>, peter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    >> surprisingly few reviews on it.
    >> There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I
    >> can find.
    >> Does anyone know why?

    >
    > Because like the Sigma cameras that came before it, it sucks.


    Few sites want to spend time reviewing a camera that nearly no one wants.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², May 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    []
    > "The new SD14, powered by the 14 megapixel Foveon X3®
    > direct-image-sensor, can reproduce high definition images rich in
    > gradation and impressive three-dimensional detail."


    ... particularly when it doesn't have 14 megapixels.

    David
    David J Taylor, May 6, 2007
    #10
  11. peter

    Guest

    On May 6, 10:30 am, "peter" <> wrote:
    > The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    > surprisingly few reviews on it.
    > There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
    > find.
    > Does anyone know why?


    U can find a test/review here:

    http://www.sigmauser.eu/content/view/143/47/

    I think u gota REALLY love taking photos to justify the price

    Kinga
    , May 6, 2007
    #11
  12. peter

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:29:07 -0700, "nsag" <> wrote:

    >It is a capable machine but has different characteristics because of its
    >sensor.
    >As with all cameras of reasonable capabilities it is the person using the
    >camera that determines the quality of the final product more than the camera
    >or lens.


    "We live in an age where individual ego comes to the forefront."
    :)

    Seriously, this does not in any way explain why there are so few SD-14
    reviews being published at all.
    Even though what you say is true ("It's not the camera, it's the
    photographer"), it's a non sequitur.

    So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
    camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
    performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
    hassle. Better to ignore it.
    A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
    isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth enjoyed a
    publicity bonanza Monday. A Napa Valley hotel
    placed his book in the rooms' nightstands instead
    of the Gideon Bible. What's the big difference
    when you consider that both books end with the
    world on fire?
    Bill Funk, May 6, 2007
    #12
  13. peter

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 05 May 2007 23:12:59 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article
    ><-sjc.supernews.net>,
    >Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm still
    >> waiting for sample photos with three-dimensional detail. Do I need
    >> special glasses?

    >
    >yes, you do need special glasses!
    >
    >have you noticed the magenta and yellow blotches on sigma images?
    >
    >at first glance, they appear to ruin the pictures, but a little known
    >secret is that those images are actually anaglyphs! those blotches
    >encode the 3d information, and when viewed with the special sigma
    >two-color reality distortion goggles, the images just jump right out at
    >you with full three dimensional detail. amazing stuff.


    Waitaminit... I still have some X-Ray glasses I ordered from the back
    of a Graphic Novel of the 50's...
    Nope, no joy.
    <sigh>

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth enjoyed a
    publicity bonanza Monday. A Napa Valley hotel
    placed his book in the rooms' nightstands instead
    of the Gideon Bible. What's the big difference
    when you consider that both books end with the
    world on fire?
    Bill Funk, May 6, 2007
    #13
  14. peter

    Spam THis Guest

    =(8) wrote:
    > "peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01...
    >> The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
    >> surprisingly few reviews on it.
    >> There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I
    >> can find.
    >> Does anyone know why?
    >>

    >
    > Could it be because it is a piece of shit!?!?!
    >
    > =(8)


    Could explain the "baby shit yellow" skin tones from the 4.5 megapixel
    Stigma.
    Spam THis, May 6, 2007
    #14
  15. > So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
    > camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
    > performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
    > hassle. Better to ignore it.
    > A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
    > isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.


    And yet B&H gives it legitimacy by carrying it. Could be a requirement if
    they want to sell Sigma lenses?

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:29:07 -0700, "nsag" <> wrote:
    >
    >>It is a capable machine but has different characteristics because of its
    >>sensor.
    >>As with all cameras of reasonable capabilities it is the person using the
    >>camera that determines the quality of the final product more than the
    >>camera
    >>or lens.

    >
    > "We live in an age where individual ego comes to the forefront."
    > :)
    >
    > Seriously, this does not in any way explain why there are so few SD-14
    > reviews being published at all.
    > Even though what you say is true ("It's not the camera, it's the
    > photographer"), it's a non sequitur.
    >
    > So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
    > camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
    > performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
    > hassle. Better to ignore it.
    > A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
    > isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.
    >
    > --
    > THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
    >
    > Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth enjoyed a
    > publicity bonanza Monday. A Napa Valley hotel
    > placed his book in the rooms' nightstands instead
    > of the Gideon Bible. What's the big difference
    > when you consider that both books end with the
    > world on fire?
    Mike Jacoubowsky, May 7, 2007
    #15
  16. peter

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:44:44 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
    <> wrote:

    >> So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
    >> camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
    >> performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
    >> hassle. Better to ignore it.
    >> A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
    >> isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.

    >
    >And yet B&H gives it legitimacy by carrying it. Could be a requirement if
    >they want to sell Sigma lenses?


    B&H is in the business of selling things, not conferring legitimacy.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Hillary Clinton refused to fly in a Gulfstream II
    private jet provided for her in South Carolina
    and demanded the more luxurious Gulfstream III.
    She was on her way to California. She can't be
    seen in something the valets are embarrassed
    to park.
    Bill Funk, May 7, 2007
    #16
  17. peter

    Mark² Guest

    Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
    >> So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
    >> camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
    >> performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
    >> hassle. Better to ignore it.
    >> A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
    >> isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.

    >
    > And yet B&H gives it legitimacy by carrying it.


    To the contrary...B&H legitimizes ITSELF...by selling everything under the
    sun...even if it's not the best stuff.
    Mark², May 8, 2007
    #17
  18. peter

    Scott W Guest

    Scott W, May 8, 2007
    #18
  19. On 2007-05-07 19:27:17 -0600, Scott W <> said:

    > On May 6, 4:44 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <> wrote:
    >> And yet B&H gives it legitimacy by carrying it. Could be a requirement if
    >> they want to sell Sigma lenses?

    >
    > B&H also sells the barbie cam, which I might add I am a lot more
    > likely to buy then
    > the SD 14.
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/263546-REG/Kalimar_45269_Barbie_35mm_Camera_.html


    It
    >
    > might be crap but at least it is priced as crap, unlike the SD 14.
    >
    > Scott


    I've never been able to understand why Sigma dslrs cause such emotional
    responses. Although I shoot with a Nikon D200 now due to the Sigma
    SD10 not meeting some of my needs, the quality of the shots out of the
    Sigmas is phenomenal when taken in the right conditions. Granted they
    are not sports or low light cameras, although their performance has
    improved in these areas with the SD14, however the per pixel sharpness
    is unmatched in my opinion. If I didn't have a need for a good low
    light rig with better than 3 FPS I'd certainly have no problems
    shooting with the SD14.
    Michael Tuthill, May 8, 2007
    #19
  20. peter

    Scott W Guest

    On May 7, 4:50 pm, Michael Tuthill <> wrote:
    > On 2007-05-07 19:27:17 -0600, Scott W <> said:
    >
    > > On May 6, 4:44 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <> wrote:
    > >> And yet B&H gives it legitimacy by carrying it. Could be a requirement if
    > >> they want to sell Sigma lenses?

    >
    > > B&H also sells the barbie cam, which I might add I am a lot more
    > > likely to buy then
    > > the SD 14.
    > >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/263546-REG/Kalimar_45269_Barbie...

    >
    > It
    >
    >
    >
    > > might be crap but at least it is priced as crap, unlike the SD 14.

    >
    > > Scott

    >
    > I've never been able to understand why Sigma dslrs cause such emotional
    > responses. Although I shoot with a Nikon D200 now due to the Sigma
    > SD10 not meeting some of my needs, the quality of the shots out of the
    > Sigmas is phenomenal when taken in the right conditions. Granted they
    > are not sports or low light cameras, although their performance has
    > improved in these areas with the SD14, however the per pixel sharpness
    > is unmatched in my opinion. If I didn't have a need for a good low
    > light rig with better than 3 FPS I'd certainly have no problems
    > shooting with the SD14.

    On a per pixel basis I am sure the SD14 looks good, under most
    scenes. But the SD14 has very view pixels to work with compare to
    other cameras in its price range. If you were to down sample from
    your D200 to the same number of pixels that the SD14 has I believe you
    would find it as sharp or sharper then the SD14. If you up sample
    that SD 14 to match the number of pixels that D200 has it would likely
    look pretty soft.

    If the SD 14 cost in the $500 range then I would not have as much of a
    problem with it, as it is the thing is far too expensive for what you
    get, IMO.

    As for the emotional responses, in part this is from Sigma trying to
    redfine what a pixel is and what many of us view as BS marketing.

    Scott
    Scott W, May 8, 2007
    #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. Mark N
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,940
  2. Jorge Prediguez
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    906
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 6, 2004
  3. rolento

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

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,376
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page