Used Sigma SD-9 body

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Tuthill, Feb 1, 2004.

  1. You don't see the logic in getting an artifact free 10.3MP camera for 25% of
    the price per sensor as a blurry 6MP camera? No wonder you use a prosumer

    $1500 blurry Canon 10D shown on the left, $630 10.3MP SD9 on the right...

    Actually the difference is greater than shown, since those are 100% crops
    from JPEGs. JPEG'ing an already blurry Bayer doesn't a bit--blurry is
    blurry--but a delicate 10.3MP true-single-pixel-resolution image from the
    SD9 should never be JPEG'd. The lossless image looks significantly better
    than shown.
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I've never seen a Bayer that is even acceptable. Some 14n images are ok,
    but not in the same league. 1Ds images are very blurry. Everything else is
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  4. The SD9 provides ISO 1600 explicitly, it's a RAW shooter. The SD10 provides
    ISO 6400.
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  5. Perhaps you are buying an SD9 right now.
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  6. High ISO 10D images are unusably blurry. Worse than low ISO
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  7. ?
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  8. Mike Tuthill

    Lionel Guest

    Show us an image, liar. Make sure that the exif info is still in it.
    You're all talk & no action, George. And why do you refuse to post your
    real name?
    Lionel, Feb 5, 2004
  9. Mike Tuthill

    Lionel Guest

    You can squirm all you like, but the fact that you can't produce such an
    SD9 image *PROVES* that your claims are complete bullshit.

    And what's your real name 'George'?
    Lionel, Feb 5, 2004
  10. Lionel.
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  11. You can't d/l software?
    George Preddy, Feb 5, 2004
  12. Mike Tuthill

    Guest Guest

    'explicitly' ??? there is no 1600 on the sd9, nor is ther 6400 on the

    iso 100, 200, 400

    iso 100, 200, 400, 800, and in extended mode, 1600

    iso 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and in with iso speed extension, 3200

    if you are going to do a two stop push process with the raw file, then
    canon gets to do that too, reaching iso 12800.
    Guest, Feb 5, 2004
  13. Mike Tuthill

    Lionel Guest

    You're pretty quick to post links to crappy SD9 pics of plastic-looking
    animals in bright sunlight. How come you can't find any SD9 photos taken
    at night with available light? I have literally hundreds of equivalent
    10D photos, but the FACT is that your Fisher-Price toy of a camera is
    even more useless at night than it is during the day.

    You're full of shit, 'George', and you know it - that's why you refuse
    to admit to your real name.
    Lionel, Feb 5, 2004
  14. Mike Tuthill

    Lionel Guest

    Another lie from you, 'George'. You really are a habitual liar. It's no
    wonder that everyone laughs at your idiotic claims about your toy
    Lionel, Feb 5, 2004
  15. Don't make the Foveon error and judge from poorly chosen JPEG configurations!
    I taught them that JPEG is not as bad as they thought it was, they listened
    and apologized:

    And 100% JPEG crops from delicate images can be made with Jpegcrop...
    JPEG can't retrieve bad Bayer images, of course, but there's nothing
    wrong with *carefully* applying JPEG to true-color images like those
    from Foveon sensors, because JPEG was designed for such.

    Guido Vollbeding, Feb 5, 2004
  16. Mike Tuthill

    Lionel Guest

    Looks like your newsreader is as crap as your camera, kook. No problem,
    I'll repeat what Bart said to you:
    You have a habit of snipping original messages in illogical places, the
    original message said: "You don't even know what the term "fill factor"
    means, kook".

    Guess it's a feeble attempt to deny reality on your part.

    Lionel, Feb 5, 2004
  17. Since there exists no 10.3 MP camera, I assume you mean the 3.4MP Sigma SD-9
    you keep lying about. You call images from that camera artifact

    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 5, 2004
  18. No Steve, that is not your real name, and you know it.

    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 5, 2004
  19. Yes indeed, why did you snip my response?

    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 5, 2004
  20. Yes, and they have no real solution to the lens issue. The knowledgeable
    D-SLR buyer recognizes that the body is only part of the equation. Canon and
    Nikon have much better quality amateur lenses. You can get decent Sigma
    lenses, but you have to go to their premium line. Amusingly, one reviewer of
    the SD-9 said that the low end Sigma lenses actually helped correct the SD's
    aliasing problems by blurring the image, and that with the premium Sigma
    lenses the aliasing issue was much more pronounced. Maybe that's the
    solution, don't fix the camera, make blurrier lenses!

    The SD-10 appears to correct some of the deficiencies in the SD-9. The ISO
    range is extended, maximum shutter speed is increased, noise is less, and
    sensitivity is increased. The new version of the Foveon sensor looks better
    due to the microlenses. Unbiased reviewers have stated that the SD-10
    produces images that are almost as good as the Canon 10D (not as good, but
    close). But the SD-10 body is $1350 from B&H, only $150 less than the Canon
    10D. Clearly no one is going to choose the Sigma SD-10 over the Canon 10D,
    unless they already own some premium SA lenses. With Canon, even the non-L
    lenses are good; with Sigma you have to go to their premium lenses for
    decent SA mount lenses. So a good SD-10 system will cost you much more than
    a good 10D system.
    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 5, 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.