hmmm, interesting.  Reading between the lines, it looks like Sigma is
putting all their eggs in the resolution/sensor basket, since they ask if
you could have "fundamentally better technology, would you settle for added
improved functions, instead?"  That reads, to me, like the camera will have
what Sigma considers a killer sensor, but will be relatively de-contented.
Also, looking at the brief glimpses of images they show, it lacks the AA
filter as did its predecessors, and it still suffers from slightly yellowish
skin tones...
I'm wondering what actual resolution it will offer, if the 14 refers to the
actual pixel resolution, or Sigma/Foveon's pumped up number, 3x the actual.
Or if i'ts just a progression from the SD9/10...

As you know, I've watched Sigma for many years. I know the kind of
products that they produce, and this will be another cluster.

I am.

(yes that's a Canadian joke)

The SD10 performed quite well.

But the problem with samples is they are not controlled and taken under
the same conditions.

The images all have different quality lenses - SD10 used a 50mm prime,
the Canon 24-105, and the Nikon 18-200.

The time of day, focal length, and exposure is different for each
camera, which greatly affects resolution of fine detail like the numbers
on the dumpster, as does JPG compression which varied greatly.

It should be noted that the SD10 had very little or no compression in
its JPG, while the other two had significant compression (check the file
sizes), so sharpness can't be argued.

Most of the shots are taken using auto mode, so there is little control
over the saturation and sharpness to balance the shots for comparison,
so colour rendition can't be argued.

I'm not saying the SD10 is bad, but these are just sample images, not a
controlled comparison. If all three had been shot from the same location
using a 50mm prime on each camera, converted from raw using low
compression, the results would be quite different.

I won't bother going into features and ergonomics.

Oh, and even when it comes to "side-by-side" comparisons, Steve needs to
learn some basics. If you're comparing camera bodies, you use the same
lenses from each brand, traditionally a 50mm prime. Otherwise you're
more closely comparing lenses, not cameras.

Yes.  Some of us.

In what respect, just pixel-pixel sharpness?  How about dynamic range,
high ISO, flesh tone accuracy?  What is your opinion of the two shots
in that series that contain skintones?

The drop on over to Sigma's SD-14 website (http://www.sigma-sd14.com/):
Do a screen grab and catch the girl's face that is flicked up ever so
briefly....
What do *you* think of that?  Granted, it's just a screengrab from a
Flash presentation, but do you think it portends well for this camera?
Even taking the above into account - it's *bloody awful*!!

Here are some comments I made elsewhere - I'll be interested to hear
yours:
The girl's skin colour isn't *too* bad, but it shows a bit of that ugly
yellow/orange tinge imo.  It has other very serious problems, including
noise where it shouldn't be - look into her eye 'whites' and the
midtones - yuch!!, and a lot of 'pepper grains' plus (or perhaps
because of) ridiculous over-sharpening.  On further inspection, the
image also shows some strange fine banding in various areas, eg along
the shadow of her nose, also above the i and the v of 'believe'.  Maybe
it's just an ad agencies over-processing, but it doesn't augur well.

IF they (Sigma) have fixed the non-linear colour (esp jaundiced skin
tones), the poor high ISO performance (which produces even *more*
non-linear colour and objectionable noise), and IF they fitted the
camera with a few modern features, like IS and/or sensor cleaning, I
might get vaguely interested too, but it's not looking good so far..
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, though.

Well, yes, it's a good comparison if resolution is your only critieria
and you shoot a lot of red buildings, a/c's and dumpsters...  I don't
think many people dispute that the Sigma performs better *per pixel*
than a bayer, strictly in terms of direct comparison of resolution
*only*.  But resolution isn't the thing that effectively meant the old
Sigma's were not regarded highly.  Color fidelity, dynamic range and
noise are the problems.

Oh, and a proprietary lens mount that no-one else is interested in,
and..

(O;