 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Is Sigma....hiding?
They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. > They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, > Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. The longer the myth can perpetuate that it's a "14mp equivalent" camera, the less chance that it'll be exposed for what it probably is, close but not beating a typical entry level dslr for resolution, but with lots more noise and more than double the price. >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not beating a typical entry level dslr for resolution, but with lots > more noise and more than double the price. At 4MP it's pretty damn sharp & groovy but yeah the price doesn't work. > They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, > Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. If you were stuck trying to convince the world your 4-5MP sensor was really a "14MP" sensor...you'd want to hide, too.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson I don't know Fuji seems to be able to get away with it with their S3. So why not Sigma. The big difference I think is that the S3 actually has good looking images even if it is only 6MP. So far Sigma not only has a much lower true resolution, but really crappy colors and lost of noise. I doubt the new one will be a whole lot better. I still don't know why Sigma decided to enter the camera business to begin with. That is like Wal-Mart building digital cameras or McDonalds. R >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, >> Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. > > If you were stuck trying to convince the world your 4-5MP sensor was > really a "14MP" sensor...you'd want to hide, too. >I don't know Fuji seems to be able to get away with it with their S3. So >why not Sigma. The big difference I think is that the S3 actually has good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > R Sigma built film cameras a long time ago, and the first SD9 body was based on one of those. It's more like VW building a full on luxury car. Oh, wait, they did that... Actually, it's more like Michelin or Goodyear building a car... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> I don't know Fuji seems to be able to get away with it with their >> S3. So why not Sigma. The big difference I think is that the S3 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > car. Oh, wait, they did that... > Actually, it's more like Michelin or Goodyear building a car... Oh I don't know... At least VW can make cars that actually do what they claim they do. I'm thinking more along the lines of YUGO making claims that THEY can do things no other high-dollar European car manufacturer can do...since, after all, those other cars from Europe use kilometer-marked speedometers...and everyone KNOWS that KILOMETERS **really** only count for about a 1/3rd of a mile...so these YUGOS, which have MILE speedometers, are actually FASTER/BETTER than those Ferraris that use faulty mileage indicators... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Mark² (lowest even number here) schreef: > >> I don't know Fuji seems to be able to get away with it with their > >> S3. So why not Sigma. The big difference I think is that the S3 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > mile...so these YUGOS, which have MILE speedometers, are actually > FASTER/BETTER than those Ferraris that use faulty mileage indicators... And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a single wheel.... > -- > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a single wheel.... Actually, isn't that what a speedometer does? Since it reads only one wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going just as fast, in the same direction. Not always true, on wet or icy surfaces... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four > wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going just as fast, > in the same direction. Not always true, on wet or icy surfaces... ;-) No, a speedometer does not interpolate wheels. > -- > Skip Middleton > www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > www.pbase.com/skipm >> And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four >> wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, a speedometer does not interpolate wheels. How about interpolating a sense of humor?? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson According to Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>: [ ... ] > >> Actually, isn't that what a speedometer does? Since it reads only > >> one wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How about interpolating a sense of humor?? > :) Actually -- most speedometers *do* interpolate the speeds of the two rear (or two front) driven wheels, as they actually measure the RPM of the drive to the differential -- knowing the gear ratio of the differential and correcting for that. The exception to that are the cars which pick up speed from one *non*-driven wheel. Apparently, some people who rent cars know which ones do this, and prefer such, as it is easier to disconnect the speedometer to minimize what they are charged for mileage. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- Mark² (lowest even number here) schreef: > >> And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four > >> wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How about interpolating a sense of humor?? > :) Damn, your right... needed that! ;) > -- > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson > And then Canon would claim they could interpolate three of the four > wheels, as driving speed is solely based on the rotating speed of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going just as fast, > in the same direction. Not always true, on wet or icy surfaces... ;-) Most speedometers in cars tap off of the transmission, not a wheel. In any circumstance in which you really car about what the speedometer is telling you it's good enough. Where it can get bad is with black box recordings--you hit an ice patch, the wheels start spinning, the speedometer all of a sudden shows that you're going 90 MPH, and so the cop who investigates the wreck says "excessive speed resulting in an accident" instead of "black ice on road". A smart cop would see that sudden change as meaning "hit black ice" but when you _need_ Sheriff Taylor what you get is Barney Fife. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Actually, isn't that what a speedometer does? Since it reads only one > wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going just as fast, > in the same direction. Not always true, on wet or icy surfaces... ;-) Nowadays the speedometer is usually driven off the transmission. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >> Actually, isn't that what a speedometer does? Since it reads only one >> wheel, the assumption is made that the other three are going just as >> fast, >> in the same direction. Not always true, on wet or icy surfaces... ;-) > > Nowadays the speedometer is usually driven off the transmission. Well, then it really is interpolating, since the tranny could be turning the wheels, but, spinning, they could be not going anywhere. Or that the tire size is correct, and not influencing the number of rotations. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Sigma built film cameras a long time ago, and the first SD9 body was based > on one of those. It's more like VW building a full on luxury car. Oh, > wait, they did that... > Actually, it's more like Michelin or Goodyear building a car... Even their film gear was crap. They've always made junky stuff...preying on cheapskate amateurs who wouldn't buy OEM equipment. > I don't know Fuji seems to be able to get away with it with their S3. So why > not Sigma. The big difference I think is that the S3 actually has good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to enter the camera business to begin with. That is like Wal-Mart building > digital cameras or McDonalds. Hmmm, Fuji S3Pro has 6.1 megapixels of "s-sensors" and 6.1 megapixels of "r-sensors" that adds up to 12+ megapixels. Besides the Fuji has excellent color, the Sigma, well renders skintones as baby sh.t yellow. > Hmmm, Fuji S3Pro has 6.1 megapixels of "s-sensors" and 6.1 megapixels > of "r-sensors" that adds up to 12+ megapixels. Besides the Fuji has > excellent color, the Sigma, well renders skintones as baby sh.t yellow. Be careful...Homer Simpson might get pissed. > They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, > Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. They've fooled 'em for years...why not keep foolin' 'em? >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, >> Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. > >They've fooled 'em for years...why not keep foolin' 'em? It's obvious from this thread that they cannot fool all consumers all of the time!!! > It's obvious from this thread that they cannot fool all consumers all > of the time!!! I've never been stupid enough to give them a dime of my money. > They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? Nikon, > Olympus, Canon, etc, all post images prior to official release. Well perhaps because no retailer sees a point is stocking a over priced dSLR that NOBODY WILL BUY in any real numbers. From a retail point of view why would the Sigma SD14 get any shelf space? Canon, Nikon, Pentax all have third party lenses available, the Sigma has a proprietary lensmount, forcing the end-user to only use Sigma lenses on an over-priced 4.5 megapixel body. > They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? I am not sure what you mean exactly by "posted" but I saw a portrait taken with this camera in a recent photo magazine using a 30mm f1.4 lens. It was amazingly detailed and sharp. Not knowing whether there was any post-processing on the image, how many images were combined together...etc...however, it is pretty tough to tell how good the camera really is. The image quality reproduced in the magazine was comparable to a 4x5 however. Tien >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tien I've seen some prints and photos on-screen taken with the camera. Like you, I found them to be very sharp. The photos I viewed on-screen had minimal processing done (Sigma RAW convertor and Aperture). They were very sharp and had excellent color. > I've seen some prints and photos on-screen taken with the camera. Like you, > I found them to be very sharp. The photos I viewed on-screen had minimal > processing done (Sigma RAW convertor and Aperture). They were very sharp > and had excellent color. you thought the samples at photo plus expo were sharp and had excellent color??? >> I've seen some prints and photos on-screen taken with the camera. Like >> you, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you thought the samples at photo plus expo were sharp and had excellent > color??? Not the ones at the expo, I didn't say that. I said the photos that I saw on-screen which were not at the expo. >>>I've seen some prints and photos on-screen taken with the camera. Like >>>you, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not the ones at the expo, I didn't say that. I said the photos that I saw > on-screen which were not at the expo. Camera launch delayed till end Feb/early March - they just found a hardware problem and pulled the launch. David > I am not sure what you mean exactly by "posted" but I saw a portrait > taken with this camera in a recent photo magazine using a 30mm f1.4 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > camera really is. The image quality reproduced in the magazine was > comparable to a 4x5 however. Don't believe everything you see in magazine advertisements. > > I am not sure what you mean exactly by "posted" but I saw a portrait > > taken with this camera in a recent photo magazine using a 30mm f1.4 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't believe everything you see in magazine advertisements. Only believe Randall, he knows... It was a single shot photo btw. Look at the lashes. > Only believe Randall, he knows... If you want to waste your money on this crap, be my guest. Just don't try to fool me and the rest of the world by telling us it's a 14MP camera. You're stuck with what it is...an overpriced, underperforming piece of junk. >> Only believe Randall, he knows... > If you want to waste your money on this crap, be my guest. [...] > You're stuck with what it is...an overpriced, underperforming > piece of junk. The camera is not out. The price for the camera has not been announced. Are you some sort of psychic since you are able to comment on its performance and price at the present time? Or are you just obsessed with Sigma, in the same way that RichA here is obsessed with plastic? Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The camera is not out. And the photographic world breathes a sigh of relief. > The price for the camera has not been announced. Their other DSLRs were outrageously priced for what they were...why would this be any different? Even if the price is cheap, it will still be junk. > Are you some sort of psychic since you are able to comment on its > performance and price at the present time? I've been in photography for 40 years. I've watched Sigma produce crappy equipment as long as I can remember. Go waste your money on it, I don't give a sh.t. > Or are you just obsessed with Sigma, in the same way that RichA > here is obsessed with plastic? Are you obsessed with defending mediocrity? > > The price for the camera has not been announced. > > Their other DSLRs were outrageously priced for what they were...why > would this be any different? Even if the price is cheap, it will still > be junk. the price of the sigma sd-14 was announced a while ago. $1999 msrp; $1599 street price. > the price of the sigma sd-14 was announced a while ago. > > $1999 msrp; $1599 street price. That's a bit steep for a proprietary 8MP (at best) camera that uses oddball technology. >> Are you some sort of psychic since you are able to comment on its >> performance and price at the present time? > I've been in photography for 40 years. I've watched Sigma produce > crappy equipment as long as I can remember. Go waste your money on > it, I don't give a sh.t. Obviously you do give a sh*t. Otherwise you wouldn't keep spamming this newsgroup with your contempt for Sigma. >> Or are you just obsessed with Sigma, in the same way that RichA >> here is obsessed with plastic? > Are you obsessed with defending mediocrity? I've been hanging out in this newsgroup for a number of years, following your almost daily rants about all things Sigma with mild amusement. AFAIR, I've never responded to any of them them before yesterday. If you think that answering you once (now twice) make someone "obsessed", you probably need to look up that particular word in a dictionary. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Obviously you do give a sh*t. Otherwise you wouldn't keep spamming > this newsgroup with your contempt for Sigma. I'm not spamming anybody. Why not attack some of the other people who have made disparaging comments about Sigma products? I'm just giving out the truth. > I've been hanging out in this newsgroup for a number of years, > following your almost daily rants about all things Sigma with mild > amusement. AFAIR, I've never responded to any of them them before > yesterday. If you think that answering you once (now twice) make > someone "obsessed", you probably need to look up that particular > word in a dictionary. I have not made daily rants about Sigma. You're not paying very good attention. > Gisle Hannemyr >> I've been hanging out in this newsgroup for a number of years, >> following your almost daily rants about all things Sigma with mild >> amusement. AFAIR, I've never responded to any of them them before >> yesterday. If you think that answering you once (now twice) make >> someone "obsessed", you probably need to look up that particular >> word in a dictionary. > I have not made daily rants about Sigma. You're not paying very good > attention. Since your debut in July 2003 (884 days ago), you've posted 379 messages to the rec.photo-hierarchy that mentions "Sigma" or "Smegma". http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=(sigma+OR+smegma)+group%3Arec.photo*+auth or%3ARandall+author%3AAinsworth&start=0&scoring=d&num=50&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_mind=1 &as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=8&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2006&safe=off& That is at least one message about "Sigma" from you every other and a half day. Whether that qualifies as "almost daily" is of course debatable, but I don't think I missed the mark by much. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Since your debut in July 2003 (884 days ago), you've posted 379 > messages to the rec.photo-hierarchy that mentions "Sigma" or > "Smegma". Quite often, there were more than one per day followed by long periods of inactivity. But hey, go buy one. What do I care? >> Gisle Hannemyr > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and a half day. Whether that qualifies as "almost daily" is of > course debatable, but I don't think I missed the mark by much. Actually, that's remarkably close. His "comments" have tended to blend together to the point where, to me, they just look like one extended post... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Actually, that's remarkably close. His "comments" have tended to blend > together to the point where, to me, they just look like one extended post... Truth never changes. >> Actually, that's remarkably close. His "comments" have tended to blend >> together to the point where, to me, they just look like one extended >> post... > > Truth never changes. Well, Randall, we have one Sigma lens that we use on a consistent basis that is, by all intents, as good as its Canon equivalent. The 15mm f2.8 Fisheye. It's as well built, and as distorted, as the Canon 15mm f2.8 fish. And it's been used on a succession of Canon bodies, from my old A2 through my D30 to the 5D. So, some things don't fit into your diatribe. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Actually, that's remarkably close. His "comments" have tended to blend >>> together to the point where, to me, they just look like one extended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fish. And it's been used on a succession of Canon bodies, from my old A2 > through my D30 to the 5D. So, some things don't fit into your diatribe. And neither does the 50mm EX, the 70mm EX, the 105mm EX, the 150mm EX... > Well, Randall, we have one Sigma lens that we use on a consistent basis that > is, by all intents, as good as its Canon equivalent. The 15mm f2.8 Fisheye. > It's as well built, and as distorted, as the Canon 15mm f2.8 fish. And it's > been used on a succession of Canon bodies, from my old A2 through my D30 to > the 5D. So, some things don't fit into your diatribe. Oh, you got the good one that slipped through QC. >> Well, Randall, we have one Sigma lens that we use on a consistent basis >> that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Oh, you got the good one that slipped through QC. Randall, hope you've been healthy and have a Merry Christmas. BTW, I got a lot of 'em that slipped through QC. >> Well, Randall, we have one Sigma lens that we use on a consistent basis >> that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Oh, you got the good one that slipped through QC. Cute, Randall, but that's not the whole story, and you know it. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> I've been hanging out in this newsgroup for a number of years, >> following your almost daily rants about all things Sigma with mild >> amusement. AFAIR, I've never responded to any of them them before >> yesterday. If you think that answering you once (now twice) make >> someone "obsessed", you probably need to look up that particular >> word in a dictionary. > I have not made daily rants about Sigma. You're not paying very good > attention. Since your debut in July 2003 (884 days ago), you've posted 379 messages to the rec.photo-hierarchy that mentions "Sigma" or "Smegma". http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=(sigma+OR+smegma)+group%3Arec.photo*+auth or%3ARandall+author%3AAinsworth&start=0&scoring=d&num=50&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_mind=1 &as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=8&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2006&safe=off&filter=0 That amounts to at least one message about Sigma every other day and a half. Characterising this as "almost daily" is not very far off the mark. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't believe everything you see in magazine advertisements. And I won't believe everything written in this NG either. :)) Heh, it's a bit academic for me anyway since the hand-held lazy photography that I do most often is of my family and none of us have the flawless complexion to take advantage of such extreme sharpness. On the other hand, being a gadget freak, yah, it would be nice to know it's there if ever I needed it... Tien > > Don't believe everything you see in magazine advertisements. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tien It is likely that there will be any real advantage of the SD14 over any of the current crop of 8MP DSLR from others. They are about 2 1/2 years behind the 20D and will likely not even match its over all image quality. Sigma tried to claim 10MP for the SD10 but if you compare it to the 400D you will see that it does not even come close to a 10MP Bayer camera, in fact I think the 10D produces better images. Some people like the sharp pixels the Sigma camera produce, but if this is what you are after you can buy a something like the 400D and shoot it in 5.3 MP mode, then you get the same thing, fewer pixels that are sharper. Scott >>>Don't believe everything you see in magazine advertisements. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it in 5.3 MP mode, then you get the same thing, fewer pixels that are > sharper. A lot of people put this down to the Foveon (stacked) pixels, but I think it has more to do with the lack of an AA filter. We have been testing the Mamiya ZD this week, and it comes without an AA filter (£1,400 extra). It produces results as sharp as the Sigma, but it's working from a Bayer pattern. For those who are interested, I've never seen any digital image sharper than the Mamiya, including the AA-filter free Kodak models. There are artefacts, and moirés, easily produced by choice of subject but the crispness is awesome. Also, with the 80mm f2.8 which I thought would be pretty soft wide open, it's perfect at all apertures. Even a shot focused on a difficult distance like 30 feet is bang on wide open, precisely focused, and sharp corner to corner with no hint of chromatic or any other abb. Using the ZD has made me think hard about 35mm DSLRs. They should be able to do the same thing. Surely a typical good 35mm fixed focal length 50mm f1.8 should be as good as the Mamiya 80mm f2.8? It can't be that much harder to make them focus as accurately either. But they don't, except the Sigma, which whatever its faults (SD10 and 9) does appear to be well collimated so it can make full use of the non-AA, stacked pixel sharpness. Has anyone here removed the AA filter from a commercial 35mm DSLR? David > Has anyone here removed the AA filter from a commercial 35mm DSLR? I don't think you can. The AA-filter is molded onto the surface of the sensor as part of the manufacturing process. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Has anyone here removed the AA filter from a commercial 35mm DSLR? > > I don't think you can. The AA-filter is molded onto the surface > of the sensor as part of the manufacturing process. I don't believe it is - the RGB filter array is moulded on, but the AA filter is separated from the sensor by a vacuum or air space, and glued round its edges only. In the Canon 400D, the AA filter is separated from the sensor and can be ultrasonically vibrated to remove dust; in the Sony A100 and the Pentax K10D, the AA filter is fixed to the sensor and both are vibrated to remove dust; in the Olympus E 4/3rds models, the AA filter is fixed to the sensor and a thin plastic membrane just in front of the AA filter is vibrated to remove dust. I know that the AA filter could be removed from some earlier DSLRs, and one website (no idea where) gave instructions - I think maybe for a Kodak model. I just wondered if anyone had customised a current generation DSLR this way. David >>> Has anyone here removed the AA filter from a commercial 35mm DSLR? >> I don't think you can. The AA-filter is molded onto the surface of >> the sensor as part of the manufacturing process. > I don't believe it is - the RGB filter array is moulded on, but the AA > filter is separated from the sensor by a vacuum or air space, and > glued round its edges only. > I know that the AA filter could be removed from some earlier DSLRs, > and one website (no idea where) gave instructions - I think maybe for > a Kodak model. You are right about the Kodak. The AA-filter for the Kodak 760 was optional and removable: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs760/page4.asp > I just wondered if anyone had customised a current generation DSLR > this way. Me too - if its doable. Both my DSLRs (a Sigma SD10 & a Kodak DCS460) come without an AA-filter, and the absence if the filter distinguishes the images from these two cameras from images taken by cameras with a filter. Whether the "distinction" caused by the absence of the filter is beneficial or harmful has been argued ad nauseam. However, I happen to like it, so if anyone has data on how to modify a current camera in this way, I'm all ears. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tien Sigma sensors do produce "sharp" edges, but that's because they don't use a filter over the sensor as bayer sensors do. This becomes HIGHLY problematic with certain textures and with fine details that only occupy a few pixels. The trouble is that it often produces what I would call "artificial sharpness." This is especially notable with power lines, wires, etc., but also in the very plasticky/artificial looking textures of boulders or tree trunks, etc. It just looks weird. That's Sigma. They thrash quality of one type so that they can claim "quality" in another aspect. -Sort of like their lenses. They're best quality is their affordability...not usually their quality (though there are apparently a few exceptions). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> They've had images purportedly taken with the SD14 in mags for 2 > >> months. So why not one image posted from the camera yet? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > their lenses. They're best quality is their affordability...not usually > their quality (though there are apparently a few exceptions). Maybe that magazine shot is an attempt by Sigma to approach "realism" then because that 30mm f1.4 is described as not having the usual "Japanese" sharpness and contrast. The shot looked good to me, but yes, different as well. It's in the latest issue of Digital Photo Pro (U.S.) and spans 1.5 pages. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.