(not George Preddy) What is really wrong with Sigmas?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gene Palmiter, Jun 13, 2004.

  1. Gene Palmiter

    Big Bill Guest

    And, since it's interpolated, no pro can use it.
    Your own words.
    Thus, you've never used a Sigma SDx camera.
    Your own words.
    Right.
    And if Ford made a Chevy, it would be better than the other Chevy.
    How do you figure this?
    You just said that Sigma sells 90% of all DSLR lenses sold.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gene Palmiter

    Alan D-W Guest

    Although it specifically says (not George Preddy) in the subject line, you
    just couldn't keep your fat meddlesome nose out could you?
     
    Alan D-W, Jun 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. But how many times do we need to hear them?? <g>.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 14, 2004
  4. until his OCD gets treated.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Jun 14, 2004
  5. Gene Palmiter

    Big Bill Guest

    The Foveon puts out 3.43MP; the Sigma SDx put out 10MP images. The
    cameras take the output of the sensor, and can upsize that to 10MP, bt
    that's not what the Foveon sensor puts out.
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 14, 2004
  6. Gene Palmiter

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No; there's no such element as a "1/3 photosensor" Filtered for 1/3
    spectrum; yes.

    By your definition, the X3 has only 3.43 million full photosensors. Is
    that where you want to go? Do you *EVER* think about the implications
    of your latest fabrications? You are a moron.
    Nonsense. There is far more interpolation in a 13.72MP SPP bitmap from
    an X3 RAW file. It is 75% total fluff, while a 6.29MP 10D bitmap has
    67% of its full-RGB data interpolated, but every pixel is a spatial
    witness to the original capture, and only 25% of the 13.72MP SPP output
    is based on spatial witness.
    No; it interpolates 67% of the RGB data, quantity-wise. As far as human
    perception goes, it interpolates almost nothing for normal viewing
    sizes.
    No; that way of looking at it has nothing to do what is really going on,
    either in a demosaicing algorithm, or in human perception.
    They're much more correct, collectively, as an image, than Sigma SD
    images, if there is any sharp focus in the image.
    Pure gibberish.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 15, 2004
  7. Gene Palmiter

    JPS Guest

    In message <lJlzc.202$>,
    I've been reading his posts since 1997. The humor element wore off a
    long time ago.

    --
     
    JPS, Jun 15, 2004
  8. Gene Palmiter

    Lionel Guest

    Good for you. Perhaps you could discuss this rubbish with him via email,
    so that the rest of us don't have to wade through it?
     
    Lionel, Jun 15, 2004
  9. Take it to email yourself, no one is interested in off-topic bandwidth
    wasting--which is 100% of what you post.
     
    George Preddy, Jun 15, 2004
  10. The skin tones of the SDs are fabulous--pink and rosey assuming that's
    the real skin color. The infinitely/forever adjustable WB can however
    be quite challenging for those who've never shot RAW before, which is
    the sole reason the skin tone "issue" exists.

    Well, the fact that using "Auto" processing the WB and saturation is
    sometimes yellow biased doesn't help. But it is purely a settings
    thing, not an image thing.

    AWB yeilds: http://www.pbase.com/image/24388672
    Plucked WB: http://www.pbase.com/image/24388673

    The SD's color is literally anything you wish it to be, the camera
    only captures relative differences, color is never set, it's not a
    JPEG shooter.

    Is it a drawback to set the perfect WB for each pic? Is it a drawback
    to have adjustable anything?
     
    George Preddy, Jun 15, 2004
  11. Gene Palmiter

    Dave Haynie Guest

    The janitorial business. However, professionals in the Photography
    business favor Canons and Nikons. A few like Kodak SLRs. Keep in mind
    that, together with Fujifilm, Olympus, and Sony, that's about 85% of
    the entire digital camera market.
    Routinely exceeded, sure, but never matched. Sigmas are consumer
    cameras, not professional cameras. Not even Sigma says differently,
    nor do they build differently.
    Kodak has never made their own DSLR bodies. Nor have they made a
    Sigma-mount lens. They buy the bodies from whoever they can get them;
    Nikon, traditionally, for Nikon-mount lenses. They dropped Canon mount
    when Canon decided not to play anymore. Kodak always has used their
    own sensors and electronics, which is of course what they actually
    bring to the table, anyway.

    The pros today are more likely to use the Kodaks as studio cameras;
    they're based on consumer-class bodies, all of 'em, and won't hold up
    well in the field. There have been issues with them before, but
    Kodak's unusually good about continual software updates and
    improvements, which is one big reason they're still accepted.

    Sigma, meanwhile, is probably looking for an exist strategy -- when
    they quit the SLR market, having an OEM to which they can sell bodies
    won't suck. Making your own body is an expensive endeavor. Kodak has
    outsold Sigma, even at their historically extravagant prices.
    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    | Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
     
    Dave Haynie, Jun 15, 2004
  12. Gene Palmiter

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that (George Preddy) stated
    that:
    Go sit on a fire-hydrant, you obsessional, delusional, microcephalic
    mental-case.

    PS: The reason you can't produce any new photos is because you
    accidentally breathed near your SD9, & your putrid breath dissolved the
    cheap glue retaining the elements of the godawful, blurry Sigma lens,
    which fell to the ground & shattered into a million
    environmentally-unsound pieces. The only photos you've ever 'sold' are
    the ones that you've forced on local schoolchildren, after mugging them
    for their lunch money, & your 'professional' 'gallery' photographs can't
    be seen because your mother's refrigerator doesn't have an Internet
    connection.

    Hope this helps!
     
    Lionel, Jun 15, 2004
  13. Gene Palmiter

    Dave Haynie Guest

    No, he means pixels. You need to stop huffing model cement and learn
    what a pixel actually is, George/Veronica/Sasquatch.
    No, there isn't. You need to go back and take a 7th grade Algebra
    course and lean the difference. A Bayer 13.72Mpixel camera has
    13.72Mpixels, and it will be _estimating_ the color in various ways to
    produce an RGB result. As JPS wrote, the reason to produce an RGB
    estimate is because software expects RGB. As I posted in another
    message, your vision system is dramatically more sensitive to spatial
    detail than color detail, they're processed via separate parts of the
    visual cortex, etc. You have no need for full RGB in high resolution
    images.
    Incorrect. However, if your Foveon cameras really do output
    13.72Mpixel from a 3.2Mpixel sensor, they are in fact inventing, with
    no basis in reality, 10.52Mpixels. You're pretending to have
    resolution -- it simply is not there, and the human vision system will
    absolutely know it isn't there. Which is why all of the Sigma stuff
    looks like crap. All of it. Just the same as taking a 3.2Mpixel image
    into Photoshop and resizing it... except that in Photoshop, I'll have
    a better resizing algorithm.
    Actually, no, Foveon didn't include a 13.72Mpixel output mode. That
    was Sigma, they're the ones shipping the camera and firmware. The only
    reason they offered this in-camera scaling function was so they could
    get away with a claim of 13.72 (or whatever) Mpixels without the FTC
    or other consumer groups getting medeval on their buttocks. You can
    claim to output 13.72Mpixel, even if most of it's made up, and since
    your market is only confused plebes anyway, no problems. It's like
    Sony writing "MP3" on the MiniDisc box -- it's technically false
    advertising, but there's a loophole in the difference between actual
    meaning and assumed meaning.

    Which just goes to tell you what a company like Sigma is really like.
    They make Apple look trustworthy...

    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    | Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
     
    Dave Haynie, Jun 15, 2004
  14. Gene Palmiter

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that (George Preddy) stated
    that:
    Your opinions are worthless, you drooling imbecile. Your knowledge of
    photography is roughly on par with that of the spoiled cabbage leaves in
    the gutters of a open-air fruit & vegetable market, & your artistic
    sensibilities are inferior to those of a poorly housetrained
    cocker-spaniel.

    Hope this helps!
     
    Lionel, Jun 15, 2004
  15. Gene Palmiter

    MarkH Guest

    (George Preddy) wrote in
    According to Sigma it’s 6, and it is 3.43MPix (though there are 3 sensor
    readings per pixel). According to most review sites the 3.43MPix images
    from the Sigma SD-10 and the 6MPix images from the Canon 10D both have
    about the same resolution as each other.
    Absolute lies here. The Canons are shoot priority cameras in both JPG
    and RAW modes. The Sigma does not have instant startup (0.5 seconds
    actually). The 10D does not have a 4 second startup (2.3 seconds
    actually). The 10D does not take 4.5 seconds to review an image (1.8 sec
    JPG and 2.3 sec RAW). The 10D doesn’t show the tiny JPG thumbnail for
    RAW, it uses the embedded JPG which can be set up to 6MPix.

    This illustrates why the OP didn’t want replies from Preddy, compulsive
    liars are not a good source of information.

    Note:
    With my 10D I can shoot RAW at 3fps for 9 frames, anytime I press the
    shutter release button it will take the shot if there is room in the
    buffer. This performance is something I find valuable when shooting
    motorsports, birds in flight or any other fast action. The Sigma would
    not be good enough for me, whether anyone else would have a problem with
    it’s slow shooting speed is something I can’t know. Also the Canon 300D
    (Digital Rebel) also wouldn’t be good enough for me, only 2.5fps with a 4
    frame buffer and no hacked firmware will fix that. I am not saying that
    you can’t be happy with a Sigma SD10 or a Canon 300D, but it is
    definitely worth considering whether fast shooting will be a priority
    before buying the camera.
     
    MarkH, Jun 15, 2004
  16. I didn't make the point badly, some simply couldn't understand the
    simple point I was making. To read between the lines and imply that I
    was comparing the handcrafted quality of a Rolls to a production line
    Sigma was ridiculous. Then again, I'm used to seeing some outrageous
    statements.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jun 15, 2004
  17. They don't, All-American on Long Island does (and their fries are even
    better).
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jun 15, 2004
  18. Gene Palmiter

    Tom Scales Guest

    No, it was not ridiculous; your statement was, you know it, we all know it.
    Sometimes in the excitement of an exchange, it is simple to make an
    embarassing statement. It is much more embarassing to attempt to defend it
    by stating that the reader misunderstood.

    Drink a sip of coffee, calm down and read your original post. Have a little
    laugh about the exchange since then, take a deep breath, and at least admit
    to yourself that the Rolls analogy wasn't a very good one.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 15, 2004
  19. Gene Palmiter

    Guest Guest

    you are comparing two vehicles with a *huge* difference in price -
    rolls royce is one of the most expensive cars made - it costs an order
    of magnitude more than a typical car! very few people can afford it,
    and even among those who can, most choose to not spend that much on a
    car.

    infact, the comparison with rolls royce better fits the $8000 canon
    eos-1ds. that also costs roughly an order of magnitude more than the
    low end dslrs and largely due to the price, it is not a big seller.

    there are a number of products where huge market share is lesser
    quality *and* the price difference was not a factor. the classic one is
    beta versus vhs. beta was technically better, but in the real world it
    wasn't significant enough to erode sales of vhs.

    so yes, your analogy was flawed.
     
    Guest, Jun 15, 2004
  20. SNIP
    It's not a yellow bias, it is desaturated reds that render pinkish skin into
    yaundice.
    Which, upon closer inspection results in:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24351586
    aka Blue whites of the eye. If you were to master Photoshop, it's avoidable.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.