Sigma rumors.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dan Sullivan, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. SNIP
    You seem to have a problem seeing that the field of view of the images is
    totally different, while it is stated in the text, and it has been explained
    to you several times. Such selective perception is indicative of a person
    trying to twist the truth.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements



  2. You don't even undestand that the test was rigged completely in favour of
    the SD9 and is not an objective test.
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Jan 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dan Sullivan

    JPS Guest

    In message <bu2t2a$fns$>,
    We already know everything my pictures would "prove". Other than being
    my own personal compositions, the best of them are technically no better
    than the best 10D images you've already seen. We already know how you
    react; your eyes scan the image for places where a very high contrast
    exists between adjacent pixels, and you say "blurry" when you look at
    anything that wasn't taken by a Sigma SDx, or 14n.

    You have still not been able to realize that a properly sampled digital
    image capture can never look like computer-generated solid lines and
    shapes or with brushes with 100% opacity. The SD9 appeals to you
    because you naively believe that a recorded digital image can have the
    same type of razor-sharp contrast as the text fonts on your monitor.
    Many decades of research have proven that this is impossible, without
    recording things that aren't really there, in the mix.

    I'll call SD9 sharpness a special effect; not a sharp capture of an
    image. When SD9 images are in sharp focus, they look like someone
    painted them with a one-pixel pencil with 100% opacity.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 14, 2004
  4. Dan Sullivan

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    George, nowhere on the page that you linked does it say that the 300D is
    made of low grade plastic. You've posted two links in this thread
    claiming that they say the 300D is made of low grade plastic; one link
    pointed at the 300D review and the other pointed to the S2 review. The
    300D review does _NOT_ say the camera is made of low grade plastic; it
    says the 300D is made of plastic and can obviously take some knocks. The
    S2 review does not mention the 300D at all.

    To quote you - "You do realize that this isn't a matter of opinion
    right?"
     
    Jeff Shoaf, Jan 14, 2004
  5. Already done, check dpreview, it says it doesn't even have a metal frame,
    which is truly unbelievable. The dR is worse built than 80% of prosumers
     
    George Preddy, Jan 15, 2004
  6. Post the RAW files you are referring to.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 15, 2004
  7. For a1.5MP camera interpolated to 6M recorded output pixels, the 300D is
    fine.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 15, 2004
  8. Dan Sullivan

    JPS Guest

    In message <bu566j$jvh$>,
    I'm repeating what I've read from SD users. The Sigma SLR forum on
    DPReview is full of people talking about an inability to get fleshtones
    and sky consistent throughout the images.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 15, 2004
  9. Wrong. Look at Aiptek or Jay-Tech. They are very
    succesful in trying to emulate the shitty colors
    of the SD9. And that at a much lower price point.
     
    Michael Quack, Jan 15, 2004
  10. And isn't it amazing how it declasses the Sigma dirt?
     
    Michael Quack, Jan 15, 2004
  11. Dan Sullivan

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    George, I've read the DPReview review on the 300D. It doesn't say that
    the 300D "doesn't even have a metal frame".

    Making up quotes and misquoting reviews are significant, but only to
    your reputation. Do you post under a fake name so that your actual
    reputation isn't tainted by your inaccurate posts?

    I know that you will consider this a victory, but I'm tired of messing
    with you so you'll hear no more from me. I'm sure that anyone perusing
    these threads who takes the time to follow some of the links you've
    posted to various reviews will see that you have misrepresented and
    misquoted what was said in those reviews and weigh your postings
    accordingly.
     
    Jeff Shoaf, Jan 15, 2004
  12. Dan Sullivan

    daytripper Guest

    That boat clearly set sail long ago.

    This group ought to give the effwit a good ignoring. Care to join the cause?
     
    daytripper, Jan 15, 2004
  13. Yes it does, read it. Says no metal frame too. Yuck.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 16, 2004
  14. Yes it does, read it.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 16, 2004
  15.  
    George Preddy, Jan 16, 2004
  16. No its not. You are confusing people who show up not understanding what RAW
    is, and what default processing is, with camera output. Have you ever
    heard about what a RAW file is?
     
    George Preddy, Jan 16, 2004
  17. Dan Sullivan

    JPS Guest

    In message <bu7e0a$nov$>,
    A RAW file is binary data quantized from the charges collected in the
    sensor during exposure.

    Anything you do in SPP is global in nature, and does not address the
    inconsistencies across the foveon sensor, or its lack of sensitivity.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 16, 2004
  18. Dan Sullivan

    Mark M Guest

    Quote that, please, so you can put it to rest.
     
    Mark M, Jan 16, 2004
  19. Dan Sullivan

    Ray Fischer Guest

    It actually says that George Preddy is a liar.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 16, 2004
  20. Dan Sullivan

    Ray Fischer Guest

    No you don't.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 16, 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.