Q:300D or 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by [email protected], Nov 17, 2003.

  1. You didn't understand what he said, he said that all that matters is what
    comes from the camera. The SD9 only outputs 10.3MP RAW files, no different
    than any 10.3MP Bayer DSLR outputting a RAW file, if such a high quality
    machine existed.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 29, 2003
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ok, you didn't know enough to lie. Fine by me. Shouldn't you apologize to
    Sigma or something?

    After all, Sigma is the only DSLR company willing to go to such lengths to
    allow a test drive. They also have the best RAW software, by an enormous
    margin. Canon knows no pro in their right mind would enojoy using their
    extraordinarily pitiful RAW software. Nikon charges big bucks for the
    complete version of their only-decent RAW software. And Fuji RAW is also
    crippled as shipped, and as bad as Canon's when you buy everything, worse,
    you can't view a RAW pic full res in camera (you only get a small JPEG
    preview, embedded in their RAW file format) which handicaps RAW mode
    unacceptably. It is amazing that Sigma dominates this area so completely,
    when the only way to do pro caliber work is using RAW mode (not that 6M
    sensors is enough for 35mm parity anyway, especially not when color
    interpolated).
     
    George Preddy, Nov 29, 2003
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

    Err no, he said "That's from SPP, not from the camera.", Can you
    explain what part of that says "all that matters is what comes from the
    camera".
     
    Junque, Nov 29, 2003
    #63
  4. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    Ok, you didn't know enough to lie. Fine by me. Shouldn't you apologize
    to
    Uh... no.
    YOU should, though, since you are single-handedly crippling Sigma's ability
    to sell their camera to anyone else on this forum. You are generating such
    proof and reinforcement of why people DON'T buy Sigma bodies, that I'm sure
    Sigma would be grateful if you would stop this nonsense.
    Canon RAW conversion is indeed a pain.
    Hmmm... The pros are most certainly using it thousands of times more than
    ANYTHING produced by Sigma.
    That would tell you something about Sigma, were you a rational being.
     
    Mark M, Nov 29, 2003
    #64
  5. Useless is more like it. There is no way to incoporate such a dog into pro
    workflow.
    After paying $700 more for less powerful RAW software.
    Yes, it does, it tells me the SD9 + 2 lens kit is the same price as the only
    usuable RAW software solution for the other DSLRs.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #65
  6.  
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #66
  7. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    Canon RAW conversion is indeed a pain.
    I'll be happy to grant you that the Sigma line of products is great for
    those seeking the cheapie alternative to quality products costing more.
    Of this there is no doubt: Sigma has ALWAYS compromised it's quality
    standards to accomodate the K-Mart shoppers of the photographic world.
     
    Mark M, Nov 30, 2003
    #67
  8. Iv@n

    zbzbzb Guest

    And yet you'll never be able to tell if a picture was taken with a Sigma lens
    or not.
     
    zbzbzb, Nov 30, 2003
    #68
  9. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    That sounds cute, but there is FAR more to it than that.
    Handling...fucus speed...image stabilization...build quality...etc.

    Example:
    The guy I met in Alaska could most certainly "tell the difference"...since
    his Sigma lens literally fell apart in his hands after merely working the
    focus ring...revealing the **TAPE** Sigma had used (yes, TAPE) to hold parts
    together inside (no joke!). In this regard...it is really quite simple to
    tell which pictures WERE taken with Canon (mine...since they COULD be
    taken), and Sigma (his...since he took NO MORE images on that particular
    hike).

    So again... K-Mart shoppers... Your Blue Light Special is always available
    at sigma.com! :)
     
    Mark M, Nov 30, 2003
    #69
  10. Iv@n

    zbzbzb Guest

    And yet you'll never be able to tell if a picture was taken with a Sigma

    I take it you have never handled cheap Canon and Nikon lenses then? Fact is,
    most lens manufacturers make very cheap and also very good lenses.
     
    zbzbzb, Nov 30, 2003
    #70
  11. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    Oops! You're wrong again, George!
    I've used and seen plenty of Canon cheapies in the field, and have yet to
    hear of a single failure.
    While I'm sure they have failed from time to time, I have not EVER heard of
    them falling apart--while this is NOT unheard-of with Stigma. There have
    been many many reports/testimonials (many of which I've personally
    seen/verified) citing Sigma quality issues. -But then...you get what you
    [DON'T] pay for...
     
    Mark M, Nov 30, 2003
    #71
  12. Iv@n

    zbzbzb Guest

    I take it you have never handled cheap Canon and Nikon lenses then? Fact

    Sorry buddy but my name is not George. Unless you are sure of someones identity
    then you shouldn't be addressing them by name.


    I have. What's so surprising about that anyhow? Sacrifices are made in build
    quality to make them affordable.


    Sorry, but I tend to be very skeptical about those that get so passionate over
    such issues.

    Price is not everything either. My best built lens was a Tokina 28-70 ATX lens
    that was cheaper than any of my Canon lenses and vastly superior in build
    quality.
     
    zbzbzb, Nov 30, 2003
    #72
  13. Then why does K-Mart cary the 300D but not the SD9?
     
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #73
  14. Canon lenses are typically either really expensive and very good, or
    absolute junk. Sigma's newer EXs are every bit as good as Canon L, often
    rated better than Canon L, and anywhere from 1/4th to 1/2 the price.
    Sigma's value line (non-EX) beats Canon's to a pulp, but that isn't saying
    much.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #74
  15. Iv@n

    MarkH Guest

    This shows that K-Mart have higher standards then they are usually given
    credit for.
     
    MarkH, Nov 30, 2003
    #75
  16. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

     
    Junque, Nov 30, 2003
    #76
  17. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    My Canon 28-105, 75-300 IS and 28-135 IS feel like junk toys in my hand
    compared to my Sigma 15-30 or the 50-500 I used for a while. My Canon
    50mm f1.4 fell apart after falling about 18 inches into the sod, off my
    leg when I was crouched down to the ground.

    The only Canon lenses that are well built are the L lenses.

    Anyone who associates Canon lenses with build quality is either very
    naive, or has so much money they forgot non-L lenses exist.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 30, 2003
    #77
  18. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <bqbst2$qta$>,
     
    JPS, Nov 30, 2003
    #78
  19. The 15-30 EX is a very lightly built EX, though it is the best performing
    lens in the 15-30mm range you can buy. My 24-70EX has about the same
    physical dimensions and 82mm front element, but it is a lot weightier, and
    sharper, but that is to be expected I suppose, given the focal length.
    And the two lenses mentioned above outperform their L counterparts.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #79
  20.  
    George Preddy, Nov 30, 2003
    #80
    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.