Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2006, 1:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I must say that I was tempted to buy a DSLR prior to Photokina (The Nikon D80 + 18-200mm VR), but I've decided to wait a little bit more cause I was my first priority is the IQ, and as far as I see it Sigma wins in this category (At least with the SD-10 photos). I don't care really that much with the High ISO performance cause most of the time I shot with my father's Nikon D70s in 400 ISO top, anyways, my questions for you dear users is should I go to sigma's path (Don't have any lenses from other manufacturers), I really think that Sigma can deliver the image quality I always wanted, and when I was browsing photos taken with Canon and Nikon and comparing them to the Sigmas (take out the High ISO advantage of Canon and Nikon) I was very impressed with the quality of those photos seems so much alive and from that point in time I just couldn't ignore the new SD-14 from Sigma and I am willing to pay more in order to get one, I want your opinion from those who experienced with both DSLR (preferred) and from everyone else.

as mentioned in the Teaser of Sigma's web site that was dedicated specially for SD-14, I don't care much with lots of functions (5 fps, weather sealed, Anti-shake etc..) I want The best image quality I can buy for my hard earned money.

Most thanks,

Idan.

Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 26, 2006, 2:35 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I think that we'll have to wait and see on that one.

The IQ may be fantastic or it may be essentially hype. This is an issue over which some people get incredibly heated. Real v interpolated values for pixels.

Everything depends on how accurate the interpolation algorithms are, so to some degree at least it may depend on the subject matter.

My guess is that 6Mp of really great information will of course be great up to A4 or A3 prints, but beyond that the higher resolution of other cameras will come in very useful.

I think we'll probably find it depends on the kind of photography you do as to which camera is best. Of course that's true now too.

But if you think that the Sigma is really cool and the technology gives you a buzz that's as good a reason as you need to buy it. But it doesn't mean you need to go over the top trying to convince yourself that its IQ is far superior to everything else on the market.

A great deal of what we buy is because we think it's cool, and in practice the differences in quality between the major manufacturers are really very small. Think cars, TVs, etc, etc.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 3:09 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

The thing that would make it tough for me to consider Sigma is being stuck with Sigma lenses. I don't understand why they don't release a Four-Thirds camera. I'm aware that people do adapt some nice Canon lenses for use with the Sigma mount, but it does make things more difficult.

I think they'd sell more cameras and lenses both if they did it in the Four-Thirds rather than their own proprietary mount.

Fuji is another one I'd like to see release a Four-Thirds camera; but their customers at least are getting a good selection of lenses available by using the Nikon F mount. And they would want existing customers to have a smooth upgrade. So they do need to continue to support that mount on that line (S3 & S5). Or existing customers might switch to Nikon. But would Sigma have much of a problem if they stopped making cameras in the Sigma mount?


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 4:04 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Don't you think that Sigma has many wonderful lenses ? , and what a best lens worth without the basic of the basic that controls the image quality the sensor, if the sensor can't read all colors, and there is a need for filters to correct problems that are there because the sensor made them and read reviews that comparing purple fingering and sharpness and all that crappy stuff that you will not see in the cameras with foveon sensor and don't forget the algorithms that need to color guessing , why the hack guessing the colors ?? We want it as they appear in real life and not an algorithm to guess and invent us colors that may not have been there at the first place !


Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 5:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
Don't you think that Sigma has many wonderful lenses ? , and what a best lens worth without the basic of the basic that controls the image quality the sensor, if the sensor can't read all colors, and there is a need for filters to correct problems that are there because the sensor made them and read reviews that comparing purple fingering and sharpness and all that crappy stuff that you will not see in the cameras with foveon sensor and don't forget the algorithms that need to color guessing , why the hack guessing the colors ?? We want it as they appear in real life and not an algorithm to guess and invent us colors that may not have been there at the first place !

Compared to other manufacturers, no Sigma doesn't have many wonderful lenses, and they are not as readily available, especially in the used market. Also, the lens has as much to do with IQ as the camera body, if not more, especially when you're talking about purple fringing and sharpness. The greatest sensor in the world cannot overcome lens deficiencies, or create sharpness or contrast if it isn't there already. It's already been proven that some newer sensors are beginning to outresolve lenses and actually worsen problems.

Don't discount high iso performance...it means alot, and the one time you need it and don't have it, you'll regret not having it. The great high ISO performance of many DSLRs is the most important innovation in photography, allowing us to create images that just wasn't possible a few years ago. Being able to produce quality images at high iso's is a huge advance.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 3:28 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I was just wondering can Canon's 'L' series lenses can perform better than those images from the Sigma SD10:

Portrait Portrait2 Animal Car

Portrait3YardOutdoor Portrait3

Kid Other Portrait4


Here is a Portrait from Canon 30D 17-55mm f2.8 CLICK HERE, The portrait from sigmalooks like the person in the portrait is seeting near you just like an human eye sharpness, I mean it looks so real, and the canon's one, just don't even though it is a great portrait and sharpness is very good.

The colors are so natural and the sharpness is just perfect, I haven't seen photos from other manufacturers and I've seen alot that can deliver such great results, Don't you agree ?



Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 3:58 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
The colors are so natural and the sharpness is just perfect, I haven't seen photos from other manufacturers and I've seen alot that can deliver such great results, Don't you agree ?
One of those images looked pretty washed out from flare, and I see excessive CA, too (the one from the Sigma 28-300mm). Some also look a bit overprocessed to my eyes (as if someone leaned on the sharpening slider a bit heavy). ;-)

My guess is that those are images that you found appealing, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Most Sigma owners seem to like their cameras. But, I can recall seeing a number of threads complaining about color accuracy on other forums until Sigma got their software tweaked a bit better.

Heck, it's not hard to find them here, either. Here is one example:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=79

Even Dave Coffin (the author of dcraw.c) says this about the Foveon sensor (and Dave probably knows as much as anyone alive about processing data from sensors):

Quote:
The Foveon X3 Capture chip requires a different kind of interpolation. Unlike CCD arrays, it captures three colors at every pixel location. But the colors are not well separated, so the raw data looks very gray. Much processing is needed to enhance color while suppressing noise.
http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

Keep in mind that just because 3 colors are being captured at each pixel location based on a differerent type of sensor technology, it's still a bit of a "stretch" (at least to my way of thinking) that the design is *that* superior to separate photosite locations and can provide more accurate colors, just because you aren't interpolating the information from separate areas on the sensor.

What "real world" difference does it make if you have a chip that's got color sensitive layers at each pixel location, versus more photosite locations that are only sensitive to one color each and require interpolation? Given enough pixels in a bayer pattern sensor, I really don't see the real world advantage to the Foveon technology, as cameras based on Bayer Pattern sensors are pretty good.

Now, given that this new sensor is likely to outperform the current crop of sensors in entry level DSLR models from a color detail perspective (since Foveon increased it's resolution), it may well be a great alternative to Bayer Pattern designs. But, I wouldn't based my assumptions on a manufacturers marketing (and I'll admit that the marketing is pretty slick). lol

Chances are, it will be a good camera. But, I'd wait for reviews before jumping to any conclusions.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 4:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

So what you are saying is that more pixels from bayer sensor will provide the accuracy of a lower resolution Foveon sensor? as far as I understand it, if there is a gradation of colors that are much differenr from each other, the bayer sensor can guess it wrong and that leads to artifacts in the image, isn't it ?

So the algorithms embended in the camera trying to correct the problems that wasmade because of an incorrect guessing (interpulation) using filters and software algorithms, seems like a mass to me cause all it needs is to have the right sensor that reads all the colors of the image and not just 34% of the colors (omitting 66% of the original colors). And I think that the next generation sensors will become foveon's some day.
Taking into consideration that there is a new sensor from Foveon in the Sigma SD-14 and maybe we all be surprised here (My first wish).

Take a look HERE


Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 4:38 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
So what you are saying is that more pixels from bayer sensor will provide the accuracy of a lower resolution Foveon sensor? as far as I understand it, if there is a gradation of colors that are much differenr from each other, the bayer sensor can guess it wrong and that leads to artifacts in the image, isn't it ?
I've seen the comparisons before. Sure, the interpolation algorithms can guess wrong. But, you've got similar problems from a color accuracy perspective with the Foveon sensor. You're reading from layers at each pixel location in the sensor (it's not like it's a continuous color spectrum). They're reading red, green and blue separately (from a pixel location that has layers sensitive to one color each based on how the light penetrates, not all colors). ;-)

Sigma doesn't have the depth of image processing experience that you find from some of the other manufacturers, since they're the new kids on the block, and the person that I respect the most concerning image processing (Dave Coffin) even comments on how the colors are not well separated between layers. A number of raw converters use some or all of David's code, and he probably knows more about image processing from sensors than anyone alive.

That's probably one reason I've seen a number of threads on other forums complaining about color accuracy with the Sigmas. With a Bayer Pattern Sensor, you've got filters to help out with that process.

Again, it may be a good camera. But, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions before seeing the reviews.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 4:42 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

That canon example is not a very good example of what Canon cameras can do. The lighting is very flat against a dull background. I don't think the sigma would have done any better in the hands of the same photographer. Some of the examples you posted from the sigma are not very good either. Several look quite flat and as JimC mentioned have traces of CA. Look around and you will find great images from every DSLR on the market. I don't think the foveon chip is inherently better than bayer chips and if it is, it is only marginally so. The truth is Sigma's track record is unproven in the DSLR market, and lack of availability (which makes it hard to try one out) makes me leery of buying into all the hype. There are many other proven brands that I would consider first.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.