Let's talk about the enw Sigma SD10

[And some not so great selection]

"I think it is fair to say that the Foveon/Sigma camera has not blown everyone away."

Isn't that a rather subjective remark? The Olympus E1 hasn't blown me away, but some people swear up and down by them, as do owners of the Pentax *ist, and of toher cameras. Not even the Kodak 14n has blown everyone away, and that's a hefty camera, pricewise.

No camera is going to blow everyone away. The world is far too pluralistic and too complex for that. Everyone's needs are different. Professional photographers are also very different to each other: a stock shooter and a photo journalist are in different worlds, just to mention two.

What will blow you away is a 10K + system, but onyl makes sanse if you are that deep into the professional side of photography.

Sigma does make some lenses faster than 2.8; just check it out yourself.   I think they are adjusting to the competition's lens lines; they just have to.

Rumors abound of things to come; some say that 2004 is going to be most exciting. I think so too. But no one can afford to wait forever; the ideal is not given; you and I have to make that ideal come true by investing now in those companies that will deliver the goods tomorrow.

Competiton is ghood inbnthat respect; but the problem si always: I wish my camera had this feature of the Nikon, that of the Canon, this of the Contax, and that of the Olympus, etc.

Meanwhile here are some links:

SD9 panorama http://www.pbase.com/image/20255548/original

SD10 samples
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871888
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871447
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871971
http://www.pbase.com/image/23445100
http://www.pbase.com/image/23322516
http://www.pbase.com/image/23584326
http://www.pbase.com/image/23455272
http://www.pbase.com/image/23322950
etc.

Best Fuji S2 samples I could find:
http://www.pbase.com/image/11865584
http://www.pbase.com/image/11889136/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/11861620/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/21491530
http://www.pbase.com/image/16125158
http://www.pbase.com/gwl/house&page=2
http://www.pbase.com/juninho03/day2_&page=all (focus problem? lens issue?)

etc.

[a3]

Do read this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums....6853061

[Robert Roaldi]

Yes, I guess my earlier statement "I think it is fair to say that the Foveon/Sigma camera has not blown everyone away." was subjective. Undeniably so.

All I was getting at was that, IMO, there has not been an overwhelming acknowledgement or declaration in the forums and magazines that the Sigma/Foveon marked a sea-change in digital photography. It seems to be a good product, and to my mind a really neat technology to boot. But it didn't deliver equivalent photos for half the price or twice the performance at the same price. It's not a bad buy so far as I can see, a decent camera and system.

It's usually true that no camera is going to blow anyone away, although some have come close and others may do so, but it is not an everyday occurence to be sure. But when you choose to market something a little out the mainstream, which both Sigma and Foveon represent, than you're scrutinized very closely by what is generally a conservative and brand-conscious market. So you need some neat tricks up your sleeve to get everyone's attention or you have to be prepared to be patient.

In the car analogy, Hyundai has chosen patience with ever improving engineering and it's working. There is, of course, no reason for Sigma not to invade the pro market if they develop the right bodies, lenses and accesories that appeal to that market. All they have to do is decide to do so, invest the money, and work at it. There is no law that says that Canon and Nikon will be top dogs forever. There's a long list of once industry leaders who aren't so anymore.

[flash]

Most people make purchases emotionally and then furiously defend those decisions with logic. This certainly applies to many "advanced" photographers including myself.  

"Sigma lenses are not best in class at any focal length. They do not hold their resale value as well as Nikon or Canon.  Sigma has no image stabilization or VR lenses.  Sigma has no tilt/shift lenses.  Canon has 4 digital models in their lineup, Nikon about the same, both with more on the way. Where do you have to grow with the Sigma line of cameras?  Which is the more innovative company?"

I have never purchased a car or a lens concerned with their resale value. I generally purchase lenses because I want to use them. They can pay for themselves many time over from my enjoyment in using them or the income I can generate from them. I don't purchase lenses with any intention to sell them.

For most DSLR owners with APS sized sensors, Sigma in fact make a superior range of lens choices to the current Canon lineup. A 12-24 or 15-30 from Sigma are unparralleled by Canon who are pursuing the full frame market for now. I owned a 17-35 2.8L and it was a poor contender next to the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 I upgraded to. I use a 15-30 now because I am not satisfied with not having a true wide lens and I have no desire to defish the 15 or pay through the nose fo the 14. I easily print to 19" with the 15-30 lens and it is fabulous. Where are Canon's APS DSLR wide lenses of any quality?

Who is the innovative company? In the APS/DSLR market Canon to me is by far the least innovative company. Canon want me to "need" that closer to full frame camera because there is no satisfactory wide alternative from Canon. Olympus is to me the most innovative, but I won't buy one for the same reason I won't buy a Sigma.

The Sigma 100-400 F4EX is very highly regarded by those who have used it. As good as the 70-200 2.8L? Most say yes. The 50-500 is the only cheapish long lens alternative of decent quality. Remember not everyone can afford the "L" badge and not everyone can even see the difference.

I mix and match Canon and Sigma and others to get the lens range I want at a price I can afford. I defy all my clients to tell me an image shot on a Sigma lens is less satisfactory in any way than a Canon. I also see no point spending more than I need to get results that under normal viewing conditions are indistinguishable to each other.

However the Sigma DSLR has two issues for me. And they both have to do with the lenses. Firstly why not have access to a wider range of lenses by choosing a Nikon or a Canon. There is no lens choice advantage to Sigma because all their lenses are available in every other mount. I don't use Canon because of this "every lens they make is better" crap. I appreciate that I can access every Sigma, Tokina, Canon and Tamron lens to make my perfect lens range. Sigma would sell more cameras if you needed one to use some of their excellent lenses, but you don't. Sigma, by having all their lenses available in all the major mounts, have in fact provided a major reason not to buy the SD10.

The second thing is consistancy. Sigma make some great lenses, but you sometimes need to try a few to get a great sample. Like I said my Sigma 17-35 was awesome. A freind and professional photographer had one also and his was awfull, really awfull. Sigma EX can be as sharp as Canon "L" but their build quality is as consistant a Canon consumer. Another good reason to support your local retailer I suppose.

An opinion worth the paper it is written on

Gordon

[BJL]

The closest for me is the E-1 (you're dead wrong about price by the way - I won't repeat the endless calculations you can find elsewhere, but comparing like for like, the E-1 is not an expensive system).  But I'm very nervous about that 5Mp sensor.

Getting off topic, and not too seriously, I agree about the quit reasonable price position of the E-1 when lens price and quality is considered, so how about this way to rationalize trhe sensor: compare to the "pro level" near APS format DSLR's from Nikon and Canon in the $3200 to $4000 prince range.
   As far as resolution, most of those options have fewer pixels and somewhat lower measured test pattern resolution, with the best being the D1x which is at best on par with the E-1. As to noise levels, from the measurements I have seen, they do not seem to outdo the E-1 overall in that respect either: the new D2H definitely does worse according to DPReview.
   I am not really serious, because I suspect that the far from spectacular resolution and noise numbers of those professional models mostly tells us that many professionals do not put much weight on relatively small differences in those numbers, so long as the test prints look good.

[A3]

"Maybe PC Magazine will review it too"

What are we going to do about all this sarcasm?

[Craig "Unregistered" J]

Jeff, if you follow a3's links provided in his first post on the thread I believe you'll find some information vitally important to you regarding a3's identity.  Not everyone feels there is value in registering or using their real name and there's no reason (for me) to believe that he's a Sigma salesman.  In any event, why can't a Sigma discussion proceed on merits rather than sarcasm?

Snobbery is not a good reason for panning a company's products.  It's happened more than once here.

[a3]

I assure you, I'm no salesman or Sigma rep. Far from it. Whether or not I'll buy the Sigma SD10 is not 100% determined yet. I do like the Foveon chip and what it can do.

I do agree and disagree with the last poster about Sigma lens quality, which has been the sole factor of me not having decided yet fully in favor of Sigma*. Many students will buy cheap lenses for obvious economic or out-of-ignorance reasons.

But Sigma does make more expensive lenses, and they are surely in an altogether better quality league. As I said, some have won awards, and some of these more costly Sigma have been tested by Popular Photography (and I think their tests are legitimate) and gotten very high ratings.

It's not as clearcut as you make it believe.

As I said, I have shot all kinds of high quality stuff and prefer Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock glass, which I all used.

But on a large format camera, I have also used Osaka (=Congo) lenses, and they are every bit as sharp and good as the best of the best. A good prime lens is not hard to make well, and Zeiss in that regard can be equaled by others, Sigma among them.

And, as far as my anonymity is concerned: since someone brought it up and started to imagine all kinds of things of who I am, I am going to stay anonymous. It's just far more fun. I’m just LOL. I will give one thing away: why the name A3? It’s a European paper size and the model name of a certain brand German car. You figure it out (you may or you may not).


*)
I am still in the tree watching from above: on second thought, I might consider a Sony F818 (as a second camera), and am waiting news about Nikon modular and Fuji S3. If only those darn medium format backs would come down in price, I’ll go that route. I have around $5,000 for this venture into digital (apart from the Canon G3 I use for family snapshots). Not enough for a Canon 1Ds. Enough for a Kodak 14n, but I held that thing in my hand yesterday and it felt extremely uncomfortable in my otherwise large hand. How large: let’s just say: I can reach an octave and a fourth on the piano with thumb and pinkie. Yes, great Nikon lenses as choice there, great resolution, but should I do it? I can get the body for $3700.

To go 14n or not, now that is the question! For where goest thou, A3, to which camera store? Sigma or Kodak? TOL (= thinking out loud)

And your get to buy all those neat Sigma lenses to.  

Michael

[Jeff Donald]

Sigma lenses would never be my first choice.  They have a few unique designs that might make them a second or third choice, but never first.  I just can't see limiting myself to only Sigma lenses.  At least by choosing any of the major digital camera manufactures you at least give yourself a choice, including Tokina and Tamron.

Content of images is always more important than the equipment used to achieve the results.  But after 25 years in the business, my techniques have matured.  I know what works for me and what doesn't.  I don't want the content to be limited by the quality of the lens.

[a3]

I agree with the last person. If you have lenses already, wait for the digital camera that can use it. I have no investment in SLR lenses. I sold my aging Contax RTS with all of its non-zoom lenses, as I had bought the Contax G1 with its superior lenses, and use medium format rangefinders for other work.

Personally, I am not planning a huge investment in all kinds of lenses, as I don't do all kinds of photography. At this moment in time, I own no loose lenses, except two large format lenses that cover 5x7.

I have been thinking Fuji S2 or even Kodak 14n as well.

Somehow inner wisdom tells me to wait for the new Fuji S3, but how long do I have to wait. The new sensor they put into consumer digicams have not lived up to expectations, but neither did a previous version of their honeycomb appraoch in consumer digicams. But it did well in the S2, reason being that the pixel sensors were bigger. So, only time will tell if they will indeed produce a killer amera that can use all that fine Nikon glass.

Since I am looking around for a digital SLR that will produce very fine images, I am totally open.

Olympus E1- No way, and too expensive all things considered

Pentax *ist - no way, the camera is not quite there yet

Canon DRebel? - no way, too primitive a camera

Canon D10? - No way, too many focussing issues; and images look decidedly soft compared to the Sigma D10.

Nikon D100- too old a camera by now. Capable, but again, Sigma D10 is sharper.

Kodak 14n? Not an all around camera, but is capable of very fine outdoor photos at lower ISOs, but is plasticy I heard. And overpriced, probably. But some reputable dealer is offering this one for around $3600 USA warranty. Tempting, to say the least.

Canon 1Ds? - I wish. But overpriced for my wallet.

Sony F818, do I hear someone suggest? No way. It will have too much noise, guaranteed, and no interchangeable lenses. Add-ons are a joke. And with 4 colors in the sensor, it's not 8MP, more like 6 in real life (8MP ÷ 4= 2 times 3 colors(RGB) makes 6MP).

new Nikon D70? It's just going to be a competitor against the Rebel.

So, personally, I am not all that happy with the current crop of choices. I would liekla  COntax type built with sharp lenses and a killer sensor, Foveon, CCD or cmos. As long as it produces killer images.

So, does the Sigma SD10 seem like a crazy choice from my point of view?

Of course, I could reverse engineer my buying process and first buy the lenses and then the body.

 ::  :p

Unless someone knows something is in the works, that I don't know about.

[JJP]

I've got two Sigma lenses and am a satisfied customer.
 
Secondly, Sigma should produce different mounts for the SD9/SD10 so that people who want to try out the new technology can do so with their Nikon, Canon etc...lenses.

[a3]

OK time to reply again (and fully spell checked this time)

There are rumors that Sigma is working on a stabilization lens. Their new lenses are getting better and better. As I said, some of them have won awards, and when I look at Foveon images, some of them are as good as they get, and the image quality seems to beat the rest, with possibly the exception of the Fuji S2, but so far I have not seen any samples on pbase that convinced me that it actually does. It does so on paper, and it did so on Imaging Resource's Shootout, but not from samples on pbase. I will look some more, but so far I am not convinced.

I have the Fuji GSWIII with 65mm lens; super sharp (poor man’s panoramic camera); easily beats the Biogon on my Hasselblad SWC/M (you may find this hard to believe, but it is true).

But the convenience and reduced cost of using digital cannot be beat. When you travel abroad, film is a hassle (and risk) to keep clear of xray machines. No scanning, no cleaning up of digital files (except for occasional dust spots) (even ICE is not almighty on film and I use a great Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the Scanhancer frosted glass).

Yes, it would be nice if the Sigma could shoot jpegs as well, but the nice thing about RAW is that you can save it double the size with no perceptible loss (I've tested their latest software with RAW samples sent to me by some helpful folks). Until you see these samples and print them out (I did two 13x19 and have been impressed), you cannot make adequate judgments about the camera. And isn’t final image quality that counts?

Is it OK to go gaga over a new Leica digital or a Sony F717 or F818 that have no interchangeable lenses, and badger Sigma because ”there aren’t enough lenses?”

There will be advanced amateurs who cannot afford every lens under the sun, who don’t need tilt lenses and what not. Just a few great lenses are all they need. All I need.

I would love to see some full res tiff samples from the Fuji S2, preferably of some grand piece of architecture to put to rest my hunger for comparison between the S2 and the Sigma SD10.

I don’t see Foveon going under; rather I see them perfecting the technology of the chip even a bit further than the current new incarnation with micro lenses. After all, Sigma has a partnership here, and Foveon will do more R&D. I don’t foresee a full 35mm size Foveon chip, as even Sigma knows that they cannot really compete with the biggies of Canon and Nikon (and thus also Fuji and Kodak that use the Nikon mount).

The workflow of the Sigma may not be for everyone, but if that workflow is key to producing better images, so be it. It’s still a better workflow than film!

By the way, what do you folks think about the Kodak 14n? In the same league of potential criticism as the Sigma, just with more pixels? Is $3600 a steal? And should I be the thief? I know, I know, only I can make that decision, but every decision got to be an informed one!

Hunting for the best on a somewhat limited budget is not always easy!

[Edward]

What does not make sense about the Sigma camera is that it is way out of the price range of Sigma lenses. Sigma lenses are very good alternatives for those of us who cannot afford Canon or Nikon top end glass.  At 1/3 the price of L glass, or less, they make great sense.  While I like a fast sharp lens as much as the next person, when I look at the best photographs by a broad range of photographers, esp. 35mm, I find very few images where that extra increment of sharpmess would make any difference. (The big problem with 6mp cameras is the crop factor screwing up wide-angle lens choices, not the 6mp.)

That said, I doubt Sigma would sell many lenses if they cost the same as Canon or Nikon.  A Sigma camera would make sense at $500, but it makes little sense to buy it at $1400 when you can buy a Canon at $900 that also has the advantage of letting you use Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Canon lenses.  Plus there is a lot more chance that Canon is going to give you a cost-effective next generation camera, since Sigma cannot give you a cost-effective camera right now.

[And some not so great selection]

"I think it is fair to say that the Foveon/Sigma camera has not blown everyone away."

Isn't that a rather subjective remark? The Olympus E1 hasn't blown me away, but some people swear up and down by them, as do owners of the Pentax *ist, and of toher cameras. Not even the Kodak 14n has blown everyone away, and that's a hefty camera, pricewise.

No camera is going to blow everyone away. The world is far too pluralistic and too complex for that. Everyone's needs are different. Professional photographers are also very different to each other: a stock shooter and a photo journalist are in different worlds, just to mention two.

What will blow you away is a 10K + system, but onyl makes sanse if you are that deep into the professional side of photography.

Sigma does make some lenses faster than 2.8; just check it out yourself.   I think they are adjusting to the competition's lens lines; they just have to.

Rumors abound of things to come; some say that 2004 is going to be most exciting. I think so too. But no one can afford to wait forever; the ideal is not given; you and I have to make that ideal come true by investing now in those companies that will deliver the goods tomorrow.

Competiton is ghood inbnthat respect; but the problem si always: I wish my camera had this feature of the Nikon, that of the Canon, this of the Contax, and that of the Olympus, etc.

Meanwhile here are some links:

SD9 panorama http://www.pbase.com/image/20255548/original

SD10 samples
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871888
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871447
http://www.pbase.com/image/23871971
http://www.pbase.com/image/23445100
http://www.pbase.com/image/23322516
http://www.pbase.com/image/23584326
http://www.pbase.com/image/23455272
http://www.pbase.com/image/23322950
etc.

Best Fuji S2 samples I could find:
http://www.pbase.com/image/11865584
http://www.pbase.com/image/11889136/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/11861620/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/21491530
http://www.pbase.com/image/16125158
http://www.pbase.com/gwl/house&page=2
http://www.pbase.com/juninho03/day2_&page=all (focus problem? lens issue?)

etc.

[David Mantripp]

Foveon X3 image sensor wins PC Magazine Technical Excellence Award

That would be the PC Magazine, the well known photographic reference, would it ?  How do they rate Hyundais ? Or indeed Porsche engine management chips ?

[Jeff Donald]

Here is a translation by Apple/Systran:

Sigma individual OS (OPTICAL STABILIZER) feature was loaded, super telephoto zoom lens APO 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS domestic sale day announcement (2003.12.5)

This time at this corporation, domestic sale day of new product AF APO 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS is announced. The super telephoto zoomlens which covers the wide scope of 400mm from 80mm, loads the hand blurring revision feature. Sigma individual OS (OPTICAL STABILIZER) with feature, two sensors inside the lens detect the shaking on up and down left and right of the camera. It moves the portion of optical system and revising blurring. The hand blurring reduction effect is shown. Because it corresponds to the photographing scene, loading the hand blurring revision mode of 2 types. With the hand blurring revision mode 1, you perceive the shaking on up and down left and right, revising the hand blurring. The effect is shown in the scenery and the snap etc. of the town. With the hand blurring revision mode 2, you perceive the shaking of the top and bottom, revising the handblurring. It is suitable for the sink taking of motor sport and the like. SLD (uniqueness distribution) the glass 2, 1 is adopted for the rear group low in the pre-group, revision, high descriptive performance can obtain chromatic aberration satisfactorily.  Installation and removal possible tripodal seat standard equipment.  The rear focusing mode where the front section does not turn is adopted, also use of the circularly polarized light filter is easy.  The zoom locks itch which prevents prudence falling of the lens was acquired, the improvement of the using selfishness was assured.  When APO TELE of the difference sale CONVERTER is installed, with APO TELE CONVERTER 1.4xEX, you can use with 112-560mmF6.3-8 and APO TELE CONVERTER 2xEX, as the super telephoto zoom lens of the manual focusing of 160-800mm F9-11.

Sigma individual OS (OPTICAL STABILIZER) feature was loaded, super telephoto zoom lens desired retail price (classified by tax): 195,000  Yen case, hood and shoulder strap, tripodal seat attaching AF corresponding mount: Sigma SA, CANON and Nikon

Sale due date:

2003 December 18th CANON AF

2003 December 25th sigma AF

2004 late February Nikon AF

(As for one for Nikon in D type correspondence)

- 20 lens configuration /14 groups - the angle of view /30.3° - the 6.2° - it squeezes and feather quantity /9 - smallest squeezes and (the W edge) /F32 - shortest photographing distance /180cm - largest magnification ratio /1:5 - filter diameter/? 77mm - maximum diameter × total length/? 95mm×189.5mm - weight squeezes to the lens for /1750g * Nikon and there is no ring. There are times when there is restriction in use depending upon the camera body.

I wish Sigma luck on their OS lens.  But I doubt it will measure up to Nikon or Canon.  Maybe PC Magazine will review it too.

The price translates as $1,800 USD.

[Jeff Donald]

Hi Craig,  

My experience with Sigma lenses goes back a number of years and continues to today.  I have a friend, whose a Sigma salesman, that I've tested lenses for over the years.  My association with him was through the camera industry and it only ceased because I moved to Florida.  Today, I am occasionally asked to test lenses for local stores.  During this time frame I've personally shot and owned Pentax, Leica, Contax, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus and Canon, so I don't think my observations are brand biased.  I've also tested many Tokina lenses during this same period (Tokina salesman was a friend too).  

My methods of testing are generally subjective in nature, comparing Kodachrome or Provia transparencies in the past.  Today I compare digital files and inkjet prints.  Without a single exception, I can't think of an instance when a Sigma or Tokina lens out performed a comparable manufactures lens.  They have offered zoom ranges that exceeded what the manufactures produced, but optically they never hit the mark.  Sigma and Tokina produced very similar results in small size prints (4x6 and usually 5x7), but by 8x10 the manufactures lenses superiority could be seen by most observers.  In projected slides there was never any comparison.

In my 25 years in photography, I've had the occasion to be at many professional sporting events as both a photographer and a fan.  I can't ever remember seeing a Sigma lens being used at any of those events.  Is that a reason to not buy Sigma lenses?  No, but I think it is safe to say they weren't being used because of the compromise they represent in optical quality.  

I understand that a3 may be looking for other features and benefits and doesn't have the same needs that a pro might have.  However, his desire to advance in photography, as a hobby, is not best served by using Sigma lenses.  In my day to day role as a photography instructor, I look at hundreds, if not thousands of images a day.  I see students that are producing very good work in respect to composition, originality and technical achievement. Yet, when they compare their work to other students, many times they find it lacking.  Why?  In many cases the root cause is traced to their mismatched, off brand, bag of lenses.  My advice to them is to gradually move to the manufactures lenses.  In those that follow my advice, I usually see an improvement in their work.

Do you have to own the manufactures brand lenses to enjoy photography?  No, of course not.  That is one of the great things about photography.  The photographers enjoyment is not necessarily linked to the use of specific brands, lenses, cameras etc.  I know several people enjoying photography with their decades old Canon Shure Shots.  But if they strive and practice to improve their photographic skills to a near professional level, their equipment may prove to be their biggest impediment to continued growth.