 |
 | 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 / April 2007Canon 5D stomps Sigma SD14 into the dust
What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting these past few months. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22436468 > What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > these past few months. Like it would take a lot to stomp a Sigma into the dust. For once, you may have gotten it right. > What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > these past few months. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22436468 No surprise there. It is hard to see a reason for the SD14, but there will be a few people that will buy it. Sigma seems to always be about 2 to 3 years behind, if they came out with the SD14 in 2003 they might have had something, but now who cares? Scott > > What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > > these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is hard to see a reason for the SD14, well, compared to the sd10, it is heaven. the camera now has more than one autofocus point and in-camera jpegs! anyway, supposedly the sd14 is 'as good as a 10 megapixel bayer sensor.' but 10 mpix bayer cameras with more features cost half as much as the sigma and they can use a wider selection of lenses and accessories. if the camera was $499, it might warrant a second look, but certainly not at $1600. > but there will be a few > people that will buy it. <http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-DSLR-SD14-SD-14-Digital-Camera-In-Stock_W0QQi temZ290092844617QQcategoryZ31388QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem> such a deal! not. > Sigma seems to always be about 2 to 3 years behind, if they came out > with the SD14 > in 2003 they might have had something, but now who cares? agreed...this is destined to be a colossal failure. > In article <1173934047.036523.177...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > if the camera was $499, it might warrant a second look, but certainly > not at $1600. Well, the cheapest metal bodied camera right now is the Canon 30D at around $1100.00 for the body. $1600 does seem excessive but it's possible this is intentional. Remember the idea of creating a demand for presige? Price is prestige. Maybe they rationalized that if they sold it for $800, they wouldn't sell as large a total $ volume as at $1600 to Sigma adherents? : Well, the cheapest metal bodied camera right now is the Canon 30D at : around $1100.00 for the body. $1600 does seem excessive but it's : possible this is intentional. Remember the idea of creating a demand : for presige? Price is prestige. It's reminiscent of the "Tank McNamara" comic strip's parody of sneaker manufacturers a few years ago: "The price is the product." : Maybe they rationalized that if they sold it for $800, they wouldn't : sell as large a total $ volume as at $1600 to Sigma adherents? Does Sigma have "adherents"? I bought a Sigma lens for my XTi, but only because it was a lot cheaper than the corresponding Canon lenses and a colleague at work told me it was a better value. I didn't even know Sigma made cameras. Bob >> Well, the cheapest metal bodied camera right now is the Canon 30D at >> around $1100.00 for the body. $1600 does seem excessive but it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and a colleague at work told me it was a better value. I didn't even > know Sigma made cameras. Actually they do. There are those who have joined the Cult of Foveon and there are others who just like the lenses--contrary to popular belief, Sigma makes some very good lenses--their big failings have been quality control and the quality of their reverse engineering of the EOS mount (the xxxD ain't done 'til the Sigmas won't run), not their optical design, at least not on the lenses in the higher end of their price range. > Bob  Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with the SD14 > in 2003 they might have had something, but now who cares? I'm glad to see the retailers finally coming to their senses and stating the true resolution, not what the marketing people tell them to write. "B&H: SD14, 4.7 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera." It might sell well against the Olympus E-500, if they could get the price down to $400 for the body only. > >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It might sell well against the Olympus E-500, if they could get the > price down to $400 for the body only. I think they'll be happy with a niche market, they likely didn't bank on anything beyond that. No one is going to sell a metal shelled camera for less than $1000 today. >> >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > No one is going to sell a metal shelled camera for less than $1000 > today. Looks like the SD14 is busting a.s on the 5Ds color, and detail without a lowpass filter, NO morie seen. Only if it was good on Hi ISO. > >> >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > >> >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > lowpass filter, NO morie seen. > Only if it was good on Hi ISO. Fuji's S-5 seems to be the best bet when it comes to a "prosumer" camera. The Nikon D200 body, better noise control and compatibility with all Nikon accessories. Costs a bit, but WAY less than Canon's 5D with FAR better lens support. > Fuji's S-5 seems to be the best bet when it comes to a "prosumer" > camera. The Nikon D200 body, better noise control and compatibility > with all Nikon accessories. Costs a bit, but WAY less than Canon's 5D > with FAR better lens support. Stick with the 5D if image quality is your main concern. You also get a lot better selection of lenses, including lenses that aren't possible on the Nikon mount. You'll soon forget about the few extra hundred dollars. > Stick with the 5D if image quality is your main concern. You also get a > lot better selection of lenses, including lenses that aren't possible on > the Nikon mount. You'll soon forget about the few extra hundred dollars. what lenses are impossible on a nikon mount? > Fuji's S-5 seems to be the best bet when it comes to a "prosumer" > camera. The Nikon D200 body, better noise control and compatibility > with all Nikon accessories. Costs a bit, but WAY less than Canon's 5D > with FAR better lens support. My test cam went back today. I have been unable to get an image any way matching the EOS 5D in sharpness at 12 megapixels. It simply isn't the same. In fact it's less detailed than a D200/D80/A100 etc 8 megapixel blown up to 12. Pity because it has great colour and many excellent features. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 > > Fuji's S-5 seems to be the best bet when it comes to a "prosumer" > > camera. The Nikon D200 body, better noise control and compatibility [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > David $2200 is a fair bit for a "niche" camera, but the users on the Fuji group on dpreview seem to like it. I'd love to see this thing tested, if dpreview ever gets around to it. Assuming it's "worth" it to them to test it (or the Sigma). > $2200 is a fair bit for a "niche" camera, but the users on the Fuji > group on dpreview seem to like it. > I'd love to see this thing tested, if dpreview ever gets around to > it. Assuming it's "worth" it to them to test it (or the Sigma). phil said he received a fuji s5 before pma, so presumably it is being evaluated right now (or will be very soon). > What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > these past few months. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22436468 Here's another take on it from Mike Chaney (The QImage guy). Hmmmm..... http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmmmm..... > http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ Well there you go, time to dump Canon I think, what will a FF Foveon be like? >>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well there you go, time to dump Canon I think, what will a FF Foveon be > like? Just remember that Mike Chaney's QImage program is primarily based on selling you the idea that he knows how to resample (upsize) images better than anyone else (and I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong). >>>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > selling you the idea that he knows how to resample (upsize) images better > than anyone else (and I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong). Personally I really don't care, I will not be buying either, all my Pentax lenses will not fit either. ;-) > Just remember that Mike Chaney's QImage program is primarily based on > selling you the idea that he knows how to resample (upsize) images > better than anyone else (and I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong). More precisely, he is one of the few people who will sell you a program with a gui frontend to various upsizing algorithms. If I spent a couple of months reading journals, selected the 10 best algorithms I could find, and wrote a command-line program that upsized better than his (let's assume that this can be done, and assume further that I could do it), how much would you pay me for it? >> Just remember that Mike Chaney's QImage program is primarily based on >> selling you the idea that he knows how to resample (upsize) images [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >his (let's assume that this can be done, and assume further that I >could do it), how much would you pay me for it? sh.t, are people willing to pay for that sort of thing? Maybe I'd better write one myself. ;^) SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm. I thought Simga was making great strides... in stomping their own cameras in to dust. They still suck like a Hoover. =(8) >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmmmm..... > http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd only take a comparison of two cameras from someone who was more than merely competent in the use of both, not someone who "never got the hang" of either. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd only > take a comparison of two cameras from someone who was more than merely > competent in the use of both, not someone who "never got the hang" of > either. I don't think the problem is getting the hang of anything. But if he starts out by splitting out the red part of the CFA (which, fairly obviously, has around 1/4 the total pixels of the total array) and comparing that to the full image from a non-CFA imager, it occurs to me that he is setting out to prove a point rather than to investigate anything. His arguments are perfectly fine and his conclusions may or may not be right (I suppose they're not as far wrong as most people here would immediately think, but have no idea, not having used a non-CFA camera), but he hardly seems like an impartial observer. >> This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd only >> take a comparison of two cameras from someone who was more than merely [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > immediately think, but have no idea, not having used a non-CFA > camera), but he hardly seems like an impartial observer. And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the expected from the Canonista crowd. I think his comments re looking at the pictorial results instead of the "numbers" are appropriate, regardless in which "camp" you reside. Good advice at any time but usually ignored. Bob > And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the > expected from the Canonista crowd. > I think his comments re looking at the pictorial results instead of the > "numbers" are appropriate, regardless in which "camp" you reside. Good > advice at any time but usually ignored. Your irony is misplaced, I am not a "Canonista" (I don't own a Canon camera and actively dislike the idiotic cheerleading of canon going on here and elsewhere). Did you read that link? He starts by comparing the red part o the CFA (ie 1/4 of the pixels) to the full image of another camera. If you consider this "looking at the pictorial results" or impartial, well, I don't see how a meaningful conversation can occur between us. You also appeared to miss my second paragraph. But never mind, carry on replying to what you think is being said instead of what is actually being said. >> And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the >> expected from the Canonista crowd. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > camera and actively dislike the idiotic cheerleading of canon going on > here and elsewhere). Your categorization of my comments as irony is interesting and I'm relieved to see you dislike the cheerleading as well! > Did you read that link? He starts by comparing the red part o the CFA > (ie 1/4 of the pixels) to the full image of another camera. If you > consider this "looking at the pictorial results" or impartial, well, I > don't see how a meaningful conversation can occur between us. Not only did I read it, I took the time to understand it. Interesting that you consider his premise of starting comparative commentary from the weak point of the "normal DSLR" to result in your "biased" view of his comments. I feel he started out by exposing the weak points of both designs accurately and furthermore pointed to them photographically. Conversations are only meaningful when both parties give credit to the other's agenda-free position. Given that understanding, you may be right. > You also appeared to miss my second paragraph. But never mind, carry > on replying to what you think is being said instead of what is > actually being said. Since here is where you pointed out his non-impartiality, perhaps my understanding of the obvious is better than your statement of whatever it is you thought you said. Bob > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > You also appeared to miss my second paragraph. But never mind, carry > > on replying to what you think is being said instead of what is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understanding of the obvious is better than your statement of whatever it is > you thought you said. Please explain how "His arguments are perfectly fine and his conclusions may or may not be right (I suppose they're not as far wrong as most people here would immediately think, but have no idea, not having used a non-CFA camera), but he hardly seems like an impartial observer." can be interpreted to mean that I disagree with or dislike his conclusions. I was pointing out that he quite obviously started by blatantly throwing out 3/4 of the available pixels in the canon. This is hardly impartial; did he study colour accuracy in the sigma? especially as the ISO goes up? Look at fig. 5 in http://www.foveon.com/files/CIC10_Lyon_Hubel_FINAL.pdf and tell me how easy it is to separate R, G and B. Or look at the acrobatics needed to properly convert the sigma files (the R G and B separation isn't very good so the off-diagonal elements in the colour matrix are huge). Is the response of each separate channel linear? How much does it deviate? These things can be worked out from papers put out by Foveon themselves (with a bit of effort), and they are not very pretty. Look, I'd love for Foveon sensors to work, I find the low ISO photographs excellent in terms of sharpness (but it is partly due to the fact that they can get away with not having an AA filter because aliasing is less visually objectionable than in CFA cameras). But they do have their problems and it is easy to see why they have them (so it is not just a problem of the particular implementation but something that really does need more work). He said not a single thing about these; instead, he talked only about sharpness. That tells me he was out to make a point, not to test things. It doesn't mean that I will ignore what he says, just that it rings a warning bell. Just like all the people here who concentrate on signal/noise ratio to the complete exclusion of resolution, ergonomics etc, or other examples I can think of. I am sure he did this partly on purpose to have fun with the reactions. > did he study colour accuracy in the sigma? > especially as the ISO goes up? Look at fig. 5 in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > out by Foveon themselves (with a bit of effort), and they are not very > pretty. the sample images bear this out - the color isn't quite right (i.e. the yellow skin tones) and there are weird color blotches, particularly as the iso is increased. >> <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I am sure he did this partly on purpose to have fun with the reactions. Of course he was out to "have fun with the reactions" and to point out the obvious in a comparison of AA vs. non-AA captures. He also pointed out some glaring firmware shortcomings as well. However, let's not forget he also pointed out some obvious shortcomings in the production of the AA filter equipped 5D's images. My God he actually had the fortitude to stray into that hallowed ground of Canon criticism and that, in my opinion and especially in this theatre, is interesting in itself!! In my opinion, whether or not the Foveon is ultimately successful will depend upon whether or not the bodies can be made publicly acceptable (as in the mass market) before the development funds are exhausted. No astonishing news there. Bob > Of course he was out to "have fun with the reactions" and to point out the > obvious in a comparison of AA vs. non-AA captures. which demonstrates the effect of an anti-alias filter and not the difference in sensor design. > He also pointed out some > glaring firmware shortcomings as well. However, let's not forget he also > pointed out some obvious shortcomings in the production of the AA filter > equipped 5D's images. what he neglected to mention is that the eye can't see lower chroma resolution very well. what matters to humans is luminance resolution (measured with a b/w res chart), and the 5d easily wins there. > My God he actually had the fortitude to stray into that hallowed ground of > Canon criticism and that, in my opinion and especially in this theatre, is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the mass market) before the development funds are exhausted. No astonishing > news there. true. and the fact that the sigma is priced at 2-3 times what competing cameras cost, yet delivers less, does not bode well for its success. > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Canon criticism and that, in my opinion and especially in this theatre, is > interesting in itself!! > In my opinion, whether or not the Foveon is ultimately successful will > depend upon whether or not the bodies can be made publicly acceptable (as in > the mass market) before the development funds are exhausted. No astonishing > news there. I think they mainly have to do something about the colours and about the noise. If they manage to get good consistent colours up to, say, ISO 1600 (from what I've seen, things currently turn nasty much before that; it has to do with what I wrote above, I think), and if they manage to get a bit higher resolution (no matter what he says, upsampled images from the SD10 I've looked at seem significantly worse than from my D200; I don't know how different it is from the SD14, don't forget that we can also sharpen which this guy didn't seem to), then everything is fine. I saw some pbase gallery of SD14 images today, very disappointing. There were lots of ISO 800 images, and there was quite a bit of noise; not so bad, it was high frequency so probably not disturbing in a print, and I don't mind high-frequency noise anyway. But the problem was that it was there at lower ISOs too, even at 100! I assume the photographer lifted the shadows and that's why, but it's still unacceptable. I hope they manage to solve these problems, as an idea it's great (mainly because you can avoid the AA filter since you don't exacerbate aliasing/ringing artefacts by colour interpolation) but currently I personally wouldn't pay so much for this camera. Well, plus I wouldn't really like to be forced to use only Sigma lenses, and the camera itself is not all that impressive, but that's another story. > I hope they manage to solve these problems, as an idea it's great > (mainly because you can avoid the AA filter since you don't exacerbate > aliasing/ringing artefacts by colour interpolation) foveon sensors need an anti-alias filter too. it is just that the artifacts on a bayer sensor are very noticable and *really* ugly, but on a foveon sensor, the artifacts get mistaken for additional detail. > In article <1174191684.889706.99...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > foveon sensors need an anti-alias filter too. every discrete sampling needs a low-pass filter (oversampling also helps, which is another plus for more luminance sampling locations). > it is just that the > artifacts on a bayer sensor are very noticable and *really* ugly, but > on a foveon sensor, the artifacts get mistaken for additional detail. > In my opinion, whether or not the Foveon is ultimately successful will > depend upon whether or not the bodies can be made publicly acceptable (as in > the mass market) before the development funds are exhausted. No astonishing > news there. The Foveon is loser technology promoted by a loser company. > And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the > expected from the Canonista crowd. > I think his comments re looking at the pictorial results instead of the > "numbers" are appropriate, regardless in which "camp" you reside. Good > advice at any time but usually ignored. except that the pictorial results are flawed - look at the sample picture of the ribbon. the canon image has far less of the ribbon in focus than the sigma. out of focus images don't tend to resolve all that well... >>And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the >>expected from the Canonista crowd. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > focus than the sigma. out of focus images don't tend to resolve all > that well... This chart: Measured Resolution Canon EOS 5D Sigma SD14 B/W 2100 1700 Red 1630 1700 Green 2000 1700 Blue 1750 1700 Yellow 1950 1700 Magenta 1800 1700 Cyan 2000 1700 Average 1890 1700 Shows the sigma only has a slight advantage with pure reds, everything else it gets tromped on. >>>And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the >>>expected from the Canonista crowd. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Shows the sigma only has a slight advantage with pure reds, everything > else it gets tromped on. Actually blue is almost as good. >>>And, of course, he would only be impartial if his conclusions matched the >>>expected from the Canonista crowd. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Shows the sigma only has a slight advantage with pure reds, everything > else it gets tromped on. Could this (out of focus effect on the ribbon) be attributed to the Bayer Blur (color based because of chip design) that seems to be the basis of his hypothesis? By the way, the ribbon shot is gone since the update today !! Interesting. Bob > Could this (out of focus effect on the ribbon) be attributed to the Bayer > Blur (color based because of chip design) that seems to be the basis of his > hypothesis? > By the way, the ribbon shot is gone since the update today !! > Interesting. hmm.. so it is. i guess he got a lot of flack for that one. anyway, the focus in the two ribbon images was drastically different. the canon one had much less depth of field and appeared to be focused in a different spot than the sigma one was. he said he used the same f/stop on both, so this is not too surprising. he also said he didn't tweak anything in the raw processing, but the sigma software applies a healthy dose of sharpening by default. his tests do not take into account all the variables between the two cameras, different sensor sizes and raw workflow. >>> This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd >>> only [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > advice at any time but usually ignored. > Bob Looking at the pictorial results, I could hardly agree with him. Especially when it seems he used his majik algorithm to improve the Sigma shot, but not the Canon shot. All thinks were not equal in that "test." SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> This from the man who admits he "never got the hang" of his 5D. I'd >>>> only [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Especially when it seems he used his majik algorithm to improve the Sigma > shot, but not the Canon shot. All thinks were not equal in that "test." I think if you give it some serious thought you will find that not only "thinks", but the "things" in the test were not equal. Nor were they intended to be!! Bob >>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > competent in the use of both, not someone who "never got the hang" of > either. Maybe this guy might know... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22471926 > Maybe this guy might know... > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22471926 he claims that the sd14 is sharper but his raw workflow differs (in particular, the sharpening), as does the framing (for instance, with the girl pic). so the differences he is seeing could be due to any of a number of reasons. from looking at his samples, it looks like he is mistaking aliasing artifacts for real detail. here's a blowup of one of his images: <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22428737> he also tried using the sd-14 at a wedding, and was very dissatisfied: <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22487687> someone else shot this at iso 800 - you call this good? <http://www.pbase.com/cgreek/image/75713153/original> not only is it noisy, but the color blotches are simply horrifying. those blotches are even visible (but not as dramatic) in the iso 100 blowup from above. >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmmmm..... > http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ A side issue perhaps, but Mike states: "Also tried Canon's DPP 2.0 for 5D and several other converters but Bibble produced the best resolution" I haven't tried Bibble on 5d images - I use Nikon, and I'm not going to load a Bibble trial version again just to test it out. But I did do my own extensive tests on *nef files, and Bibble Pro produced *by far* the softest tiff or jpeg images of any of the raw converters that I have tried (RSP and RSE, UFraw, Capture, Capture NX, SilkyPix, and a few others). It wasn't a subjective "it looks softer", but a significant difference. Does Bibble really work well on Canon raw files? >>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > but a significant difference. > Does Bibble really work well on Canon raw files? There was already an answer to that: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page20.asp > What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting > these past few months. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22436468 I think you need to follow the threads from this pro photographer more closely. He comes to a different conclusion than what you allude to. He sees more resolution in his SD14 prints than he does in his 5D prints. >> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > closely. He comes to a different conclusion than what you allude to. > He sees more resolution in his SD14 prints than he does in his 5D prints. Of that might just mean that his preparation of 5D files for printing may be flawed or that his printing system is doing the wrong thing to prepare 5D files for printing. >>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be flawed or that his printing system is doing the wrong thing to prepare > 5D files for printing. Could be, but my point was that the OP was technically taking something out of context. The same shooter whose thread he referenced has been more than pleased with his results from the SD14. >>>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > out of context. The same shooter whose thread he referenced has been more > than pleased with his results from the SD14. Sure, I was just commenting that I don't think the testing was valid, as ever show us the prints!! >>>>> What a difference. Not exactly what those Sigma ads have been touting >>>>> these past few months. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sure, I was just commenting that I don't think the testing was valid, as > ever show us the prints!! I didn't mean you Pete, isn't RichA the OP? |
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.