Sigma10D review in a Japan web site.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bunny, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. Bunny

    Bunny Guest

    Bunny, Jun 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bunny

    Bunny Guest

    Bunny, Jun 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bunny

    Mick Sterbs Guest

    Mick Sterbs, Jun 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Mick Sterbs wrote:

    > "Bunny" <> wrote in message
    > news:cak8v3$217o$...
    >
    >>http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0527/date002.htm
    >>
    >>Sigma10D review in a Japan web site.
    >>Quite interesting.
    >>

    >
    > I'm sure it is - to those who can read read Japanese.
    >
    >

    You don't have to reas Japanese to read the picture captions, and the
    difference in colour on the windmill shot comparisons doesn't need any
    downloading tedium either - though viewing the full size files does.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 14, 2004
    #4
  5. "Mick Sterbs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Bunny" <> wrote in message


    > > http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0527/date002.htm
    > >
    > > Sigma10D review in a Japan web site.
    > > Quite interesting.
    > >

    > I'm sure it is - to those who can read read Japanese.


    No. It repeats the lie that the Foveon doesn't need a low-pass filter. In
    big print, no less.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Bunny

    E. Magnuson Guest

    On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    > You don't have to reas Japanese to read the picture captions, and the
    > difference in colour on the windmill shot comparisons doesn't need any
    > downloading tedium either - though viewing the full size files does.


    Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    of the other cameras are on auto.

    --
    Erik
     
    E. Magnuson, Jun 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Re: SigmaSD10 review in a Japan web site.

    "Bunny" <> wrote in message
    news:cak94j$21d0$...
    > title corrected.
    > "Bunny" <> ¦b¶l¥ó
    > news:cak8v3$217o$ ¤¤¼¶¼g...
    > > http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0527/date002.htm
    > >
    > > Sigma10D review in a Japan web site.
    > > Quite interesting.


    Just enter the URL in a translating service like:
    http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/babelfish/tr , select translation
    from Japanese to English and, although not perfect, you'll get the idea.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Bunny

    Crownfield Guest

    Re: SigmaSD10 review in a Japan web site.

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >
    > "Bunny" <> wrote in message
    > news:cak94j$21d0$...
    > > title corrected.
    > > "Bunny" <> ¦b¶l¥ó
    > > news:cak8v3$217o$ ¤¤¼¶¼g...
    > > > http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0527/date002.htm
    > > >
    > > > Sigma10D review in a Japan web site.
    > > > Quite interesting.

    >
    > Just enter the URL in a translating service like:
    > http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/babelfish/tr , select translation
    > from Japanese to English and, although not perfect, you'll get the idea.


    absolutely amazing!!

    the sigma camera it is like reading talking about the clarity preddiot
    himself.

    if that does not seem clear, look at the site using babblefish.


    >
    > Bart
     
    Crownfield, Jun 14, 2004
    #8
  9. E. Magnuson wrote:

    > On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >
    >>You don't have to reas Japanese to read the picture captions, and the
    >>difference in colour on the windmill shot comparisons doesn't need any
    >>downloading tedium either - though viewing the full size files does.

    >
    >
    > Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    > that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    > of the other cameras are on auto.
    >



    Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
    skies except the Sigma. For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    client to click the shot. The others generally had very low impact. I
    would have treated them to 20 per cent saturation boost and a contrast
    increase too.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 14, 2004
    #9
  10. David Kilpatrick wrote:

    > E. Magnuson wrote:
    >
    >> On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> You don't have to reas Japanese to read the picture captions, and the
    >>> difference in colour on the windmill shot comparisons doesn't need
    >>> any downloading tedium either - though viewing the full size files does.

    >>
    >> Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    >> that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    >> of the other cameras are on auto.

    >
    > Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
    > skies except the Sigma. For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    > results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    > client to click the shot. The others generally had very low impact. I
    > would have treated them to 20 per cent saturation boost and a contrast
    > increase too.


    How can one know how much or little any of those images were adjusted?

    --
    John Mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 14, 2004
    #10
  11. John McWilliams wrote:

    > David Kilpatrick wrote:
    >
    >> E. Magnuson wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> You don't have to reas Japanese to read the picture captions, and
    >>>> the difference in colour on the windmill shot comparisons doesn't
    >>>> need any downloading tedium either - though viewing the full size
    >>>> files does.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    >>> that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    >>> of the other cameras are on auto.

    >>
    >>
    >> Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed
    >> out skies except the Sigma. For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    >> results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    >> client to click the shot. The others generally had very low impact. I
    >> would have treated them to 20 per cent saturation boost and a contrast
    >> increase too.

    >
    >
    > How can one know how much or little any of those images were adjusted?
    >

    By reading the precise list of adjustments made to the Sigma image in
    one case - by the auto adjust function - and comparing it with the
    unadjusted image shown right next to it.

    The assumption is that the other camera images were converted or
    captured using the default adjustments of the camera and its software,
    and so was the Sigma. However, because of the 'shot by shot' nature of
    the Sigma auto adjust function, the author has been careful to show, and
    to give exact details for, an example.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Bunny

    E. Magnuson Guest

    On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:

    > Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
    > skies except the Sigma.


    I guess it depends on what the skies were like that day, that place.

    > For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    > results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    > client to click the shot.


    Yes, but the question in a camera comparison context is usually which
    is more accurate. It's hard to be sure, but you have to balance the
    likelihood of *all* of the other cameras getting it wrong with the
    frequently observed tendency of the Sigmas to exaggerate blue skies.

    --
    Erik
     
    E. Magnuson, Jun 15, 2004
    #12
  13. David Kilpatrick wrote:
    >
    > John McWilliams wrote:


    >>>> How can one know how much or little any of those images were adjusted?

    >>

    > By reading the precise list of adjustments made to the Sigma image in
    > one case - by the auto adjust function - and comparing it with the
    > unadjusted image shown right next to it.
    >
    > The assumption is that the other camera images were converted or
    > captured using the default adjustments of the camera and its software,
    > and so was the Sigma. However, because of the 'shot by shot' nature of
    > the Sigma auto adjust function, the author has been careful to show, and
    > to give exact details for, an example.
    >

    That seems a large assumption, and how is one to know whether the author
    of the site has any axe to grind or not? How is one to know whether the
    list of adjustments is accurate?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 15, 2004
    #13
  14. David Kilpatrick <> wrote in message news:<cal141$arm$>...
    > E. Magnuson wrote:
    >
    > > On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    > > Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    > > that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    > > of the other cameras are on auto.

    >
    > Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
    > skies except the Sigma. For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    > results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    > client to click the shot. The others generally had very low impact. I
    > would have treated them to 20 per cent saturation boost and a contrast
    > increase too.


    This is simply a dynamic range issue, Foveon has dramatically higher
    dynamic range of the next closest Bayer DSLR. So Bayers have to to
    blow the skies to a pale white if you want any shadow detail at all
    (you'll never see a Bayer pic with both attributes). Not so with
    Foveon, direct shadow is displayed in gorgeous detail along with
    luscious blue skies, just like reality, and better than any film can
    deliver...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/30173730/large
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24653641/large
     
    George Preddy, Jun 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Bunny

    E. Magnuson Guest

    On 2004-06-15, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > That seems a large assumption,


    Why? It's the same assumption you have to make for any review.
    You can download the full size images and examine the header
    information yourself.

    > and how is one to know whether the author
    > of the site has any axe to grind or not?


    The results are consistent with other reviews and images.
    The main flaw is using a manual WB for the Sigma when the
    others were auto.

    > How is one to know whether the
    > list of adjustments is accurate?


    SPP 2.0 records the adjustment settings in the EXIF Maker Note.

    --
    Erik
     
    E. Magnuson, Jun 15, 2004
    #15
  16. John McWilliams wrote:
    > David Kilpatrick wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> John McWilliams wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>>> How can one know how much or little any of those images were adjusted?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> By reading the precise list of adjustments made to the Sigma image in
    >> one case - by the auto adjust function - and comparing it with the
    >> unadjusted image shown right next to it.
    >>
    >> The assumption is that the other camera images were converted or
    >> captured using the default adjustments of the camera and its software,
    >> and so was the Sigma. However, because of the 'shot by shot' nature of
    >> the Sigma auto adjust function, the author has been careful to show,
    >> and to give exact details for, an example.
    >>

    > That seems a large assumption, and how is one to know whether the author
    > of the site has any axe to grind or not? How is one to know whether the
    > list of adjustments is accurate?
    >

    No more so than any other review.

    You can't trust me, or anyone else. We all tell lies habitually.

    Nothing you see or read on Internet, or in any books ever published, at
    any time, can be trusted. Nor can anything you learned in your entire
    childhood, schooling and life which is based on anything except your own
    observation and experience. Most knowledge is conditional and its truth
    or factuality is a cultural variable.

    Language itself prevents the objective tranmission of experience or
    information.

    And when it's all in Japanese :)

    Seriously, why mistrust this review any more than another?

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 15, 2004
    #16
  17. George Preddy wrote:

    > David Kilpatrick <> wrote in message news:<cal141$arm$>...
    >
    >>E. Magnuson wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >>>Yes, that shows the common "too blue" skies of the Sigma. Interesting
    >>>that he used manual white balance of Sunlight for the Sigma when all
    >>>of the other cameras are on auto.

    >>
    >>Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
    >>skies except the Sigma. For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
    >>results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
    >>client to click the shot. The others generally had very low impact. I
    >>would have treated them to 20 per cent saturation boost and a contrast
    >>increase too.

    >
    >
    > This is simply a dynamic range issue, Foveon has dramatically higher
    > dynamic range of the next closest Bayer DSLR. So Bayers have to to
    > blow the skies to a pale white if you want any shadow detail at all
    > (you'll never see a Bayer pic with both attributes). Not so with
    > Foveon, direct shadow is displayed in gorgeous detail along with
    > luscious blue skies, just like reality, and better than any film can
    > deliver...
    >
    >

    Hate to say this George, but more saturated colours are generally a
    result of a LIMITED dynamic range and low bit depth conversion.

    A higher bit depth, and greater dynamic range, will always tend to make
    colours look less saturated and contrast appear lower.

    I can confirm, however, that an unadjusted Sigma X3F image under studio
    conditions shows better shadow detail than a Kodak DCS Pro/n image with
    the same highlight levels. I can't confirm that for any other camera,
    this just happened to be a test we were running, and it was surprising
    how much more open the unadjusted X3 image shadows were.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Bart van der Wolf, Jun 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Bart van der Wolf wrote:

    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    >
    >>http://www.pbase.com/image/30173730/large

    >
    > Never seen a sky look like that, except through a polarizing filter or at
    > near stratospheric altitudes.
    >
    >
    >>http://www.pbase.com/image/24653641/large

    >
    > The gamma is wrong, probably around 1.8, and when adjusted to 2.2 it looks
    > pale but uninteresting.
    >



    What have these pictures got to do with the Japanese test report? They
    have been discussed here long ago. Any opinions seemed to be mainly
    divided between PC 2.2 gamma 5000K users and Mac 1.8 6500 users. As one
    of the latter I found no problem with the second image.

    The first image - well, it's the sort of sky which my clients want and
    why I tend to like when editing pix. It may look more like a polarised
    sky but why complain? That's why we use polarizers. It is also quite
    possible that the Foveon sensor is having a polarising effect.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Bunny

    imbsysop Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:35:24 +0000 (UTC), David Kilpatrick
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >
    >> "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> SNIP
    >>
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/30173730/large

    >>
    >> Never seen a sky look like that, except through a polarizing filter or at
    >> near stratospheric altitudes.
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/24653641/large

    >>
    >> The gamma is wrong, probably around 1.8, and when adjusted to 2.2 it looks
    >> pale but uninteresting.
    >>

    >
    >


    > That's why we use polarizers. It is also quite
    >possible that the Foveon sensor is having a polarising effect.


    NO KIDDING ? ROTFL !
     
    imbsysop, Jun 15, 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. George Preddy

    Re: Sigma SD10 test in Japan web site

    George Preddy, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    460
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Ben Franklin's Web Site", Robert Ellis Smith

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    701
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jan 2, 2004
  3. GNUEMAIL-Postmaster
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,568
    GNUEMAIL-Postmaster
    Aug 14, 2006
  4. SteveB
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,290
    SteveB
    Mar 26, 2009
  5. raviraj joshi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    697
    raviraj joshi
    Jul 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page