Let's talk about the enw Sigma SD10

It was a sarcastic remark.

The problem is not that there are no decent Sigma lenses. There are a few in fact. Just a few. But anyone buying a Sigma camera is limited to Sigma lenses. A P42 screw adaptor is little consolation,

The Foveon chip is a fascinating bit of technology, but has regretably not lived up to its promise. Thus far only Sigma has stepped up the the plate, and it is well known that Foveon has been shopping the chip to every other camera maker for the past couple of years.

The Sigma SD10 is a low end niche product at best.

[Edward]

I am more sympathetic to the cost issues, and, to paraphrase Michael - it is better to be on the mountain at sunrise with a crummy camera than to not be there at all.

That said, there is a real advantage in going with Canon or one of the majors on the camera because it really does give you a lot more lens choices because you can include Tamron and Tokina, plus there is much more chance that you can upgrade the camera in the future without having to replace the lenses.

Based on the projected pricing, you could buy a digital rebel and the same kit of lenses from Sigma and have enough money left to buy a great Canon flash, and the 35 F2 for a fast, sharp normal, which would give you a wonderful setup.

A3,

Visitors are free to post their resonable opinions here, but not inaccurate statements such as...

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).

The Sony 828 is a real 8 Megapixel camera with a 3264 x 2448 (7.99 million pixels) CCD array. The fact that it uses a 4 colour rather than a 3 colour Bayer matrix has no relevance when describing its resolution.

Whether or not is will be noisy remains to be seen. I don't quite see how you can "guarentee" this, as production cameras have just left Japan this week.

I expect that it will be noisy above ISO 200, but should be no worse than many other DSLRs at ISO 100, which is to say, not bad.

In all likelyhood this will be a fascinating camera. I have one coming for review shortly. Readers can expect a preliminary review at least, prior to Christmas.

Michael

[Jeff Donald]

The mounts are licensed by their respective manufactures.  It is unlikely Sigma or Foveon could obtain the necessary licenses.  The bottom line is nobody wants the Foveon chip except Sigma, who was desperate to enter the digital market.

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?  Two years from now where will Canon be and what will there R & D bring forth.  In the same time frame Sigma might bring out one new camera. What if Foveon goes under? You end up with a bunch of Sigma lenses in Sigma mount.  Not exactly the most desirable set of lenses to have.  

A3, if you're used to shooting Zeiss lenses, with Contax and the G series, Sigma is not a close match in contrast, color, etc.  Canon or Nikon would be a better choice for a discriminating buyer familiar with the German optics.  I can understand you being leery of the 10D, but in my opinion the focus issues are over stated and Canon has done a respectable (not perfect by any means) job of addressing the issues.

[Matthew Cromer]

The SD9 is as cheap as the digital rebel in many places, or maybe $100 more.

So as far as I can tell Sigma has a very affordable camera available.

[a3]

Foveon X3 image sensor wins PC Magazine Technical Excellence Award:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1070562816.html

[a3]

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/news/80_400_45_56_os.html

The news about an OS lens from Sigma!

[Jeff Donald]

A3, I would take your posts with less cynicism and sarcasm if you registered as a member and used a real name.  I mean no disrespect to you, but when someone shows up on a board promoting a niche market camera as enthusiastically as you, I'm skeptical of their motives.  

On other boards (in which I act as an administrator) posts similar to yours have later been revealed to have been made by manufactures reps and marketing organizations.  I hope you prove me wrong, by registering and continuing to post about your use of the Sigma camera and lenses.

It seems as though you have made the decision to purchase, based upon your needs and budgetary concerns, the SD10.  I hope your future purchase meets your needs and expectations.

[A3]

Inmages taken by the SD10 viewable on www.pbase.com

show:
-extraordinary resolution and sharpness
-great color
-far less noise in higher ISO's than with SD9
-if used right, almost no noise at higher ISOs
-great dynamic range; better than I have seen on most DSLRs
-better picture quality than 6MP comeptition: D100, Canon D10 or Rebel, *ist and E1, etc.
-see for example: http://www.pbase.com/image/23799244
or:
http://www.pbase.com/image/23799709

[a3]

Is that a positive remark, or a sarcastic one? Not sure, but some Sigma lenses have won awards, and the 50mm with which the wagon was shot is an excellent lens.

Some guy in Japan makes a M42 adaptar for the SD9/SD10 and so, you can use any screwtype lens, although some lenses may not focus at infinity any more. Case by case.

See http://www.d-shell.net/

[David Mantripp]

Depends what you call decent.  They're hardly bottle ends.

What's better ? Sigma lenses affordable by mere mortals or no lenses at all ?

Sorry but I think things a getting a touch out of perspective here...  I'm sure a decent photographer can produce stunning work with a Sigma lens. And no amount of Canon L, Nikon whatever, Leica, Zeiss etc will make up for poor technique and vision.

I get better technical results from my Hasselblad / Fujinon lenses - it leaps off the page - but my Canon FD lenses are not so bad, my girlfriends Sigma 28-200 certainly works pretty well on her Dynax 5, and my ancient Tamron FD 28-200, whilst mechanically a liability, was not so bad either.

Getting a bit fed with feeling inadequate because I can't afford a Hasselblad H1 and Phase 1 back....

[a3]

Michael writes:

"The Foveon chip is a fascinating bit of technology, but has regrettably not lived up to its promise. Thus far only Sigma has stepped up the plate, and it is well known that Foveon has been shopping the chip to every other camera maker for the past couple of years."

If this is true, why aren't they perfecting the chip and making it work? The technology behind it is clearly worth anyone’s serious try.

I know Sony is going with four colors, and Fuji is going with honeycombs with an extra "eye", so they are probably not interested. But why not Pentax, Olympus, even Nikon?

There must be more at stake than just technology, like politics, economics, and which company is "sleeping" with whom, as there are many cooperative efforts, like between Fuji and Nikon, Hasselblad and Fuji, Kodak and many others, Zeiss with Sony and Kyocera/Contax, Schneider with Kodak and Samsung, Leica with Panasonic, etc.

Thus, there may be agreements in place that prevent these companies from embracing Foveon.

One thing is clear tough: when comparing images from pbase taken with 6MP DSLR's, the Sigma SD10 does come out as delivering better images.

I have been shooting 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 for many years, and have used some of the best lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, and Fujinon).

Nevertheless, I am impressed by some of the stuff I see coming from the Sigma SD10. It really is sharper than the Rebel; way sharper!

When it comes to lenses: Sigma is making new lenses, which will surpass the cheaper ones they made in the past. Does the average shooter really need the entire lens line that Nikon and Canon offer? Is the Olympus E1 a bad camera because there are only a few lenses? It is not a bad camera because of lenses, but because the 3/4 hip sinmpyl doesn't live up to the hype.

Did Contax make a bad digital SLR? In a way no, it was the chip's fault. I hope they will try again. They could make a killer camera.

You have to be careful with your sarcasm, as to some it may come over as terribly arrogant and snobbish. This kind of attitude does not make for objectivity. I am looking at the SD10 purely objectively, and so far I like what I see, so it deserves more than a simple push off the table.

Good photos are taken by good photographers, by good eyes, and by knowing what you are doing. No camera is perfect and no camera can do it all. In this day and age, we expect too many miracles from digital cameras.

Like someone wrote on another forum: suddenly, everyone judges digital cameras by their macro and night shooting abilities. We never used such criteria before, and it seems a bit silly, when many even never engage in that kind of shooting. A Leica M7 is a great camera, but can it do macros? The Contax G1/G2 is a great camera, but can it shoot sports? Wildlife? So, let’s keep things in their proper perspective.

[Tony Collins]

The only way to beat this lens one-upmanship is to take up pinhole photography... until "My pinhole is rounder than your pinhole"

OK Sigma lenses may be "inferior" but might there be a situation where the final product, ie a print might actually look rather good.

[Dale_Cotton]

a3: the problem with Sigma lenses are not their inherent quality, but their mount. I have a few top Nikon lenses and I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. The Sigma holds its own in image quality. Problem is that none of my lenses, including the Sigma, is compatible with a Sigma camera. If I wanted to buy an SD10, I would have to start over again buying duplicate 35mm lenses. If the SD10 were compelling enough, that's just what I would do, but clearly more SD10s are going to be sold to people without an investment in other lens mounts than to people with such an investment.

A3,

Visitors are free to post their resonable opinions here, but not inaccurate statements such as...

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).

The Sony 828 is a real 8 Megapixel camera with a 3264 x 2448 (7.99 million pixels) CCD array. The fact that it uses a 4 colour rather than a 3 colour Bayer matrix has no relevance when describing its resolution.

Whether or not is will be noisy remains to be seen. I don't quite see how you can "guarentee" this, as production cameras have just left Japan this week.

I expect that it will be noisy above ISO 200, but should be no worse than many other DSLRs at ISO 100, which is to say, not bad.

In all likelyhood this will be a fascinating camera. I have one coming for review shortly. Readers can expect a preliminary review at least, prior to Christmas.

Michael

[BJL]

Sony F818, do I hear someone suggest? No way. It will have too much noise, guaranteed

I have heard this argument a lot, including from myself until quite recently, but now I think it is a fallacy, and that the 828 can be expected to have the same or better noise levels than its predecessor. Just as the D60 had lower noise than the D30 and the D1x has lower noise than the D1, despite the halving of pixel size at constant sensor size in each case.
   Why should the noise not be expected to get worse? It is true that smaller pixels will individually have worse signal to noise ratio. However, on a print of a given size, more pixels are used to print a given part of the image, and thus there is more averaging out of the signal fluctuations, which reduces noise. Roughly, the collection of pixel values used to print a particular small part of the print contains the same total signal and the same total noise; these just come from more, smaller pieces. This suggests that the result is a wash as far as visible noise. On the other hand, wherever noise is low enough, the "more smaller pixels" option reveals more detail: better quality will be possible in large prints, at least in well-exposed scenes of low to moderate contrast.

   In fact, as technological progress allows it (such as increases in sensor read speeds), I now expect sensors of each given size to continue the strong recent trend of having more and smaller pixels. Ultimately, even a 35mm format sensor could have about 100 million tiny 3 micron pixels and still have the same visible noise levels and tonal gradations on a print of a given size as does the 1Ds. If, that is, there is any need for 100MP images.

[A3]

As far as the 818 is concerned: we will see whetehr I am right or not. May be I too hasty in calling it off, but my main point was no interchangeable lenses.

As far as Sigma coming out with different mounts to satisfy Canon or Nikon or Pentax lens owners: that will never happen, since they are primarily: you guessed it, a lens maker.

[David Mantripp]

a3, I don't think that you can say you're "totally open" when you then proceed to sumarily dismiss every DSLR known to creation :-)

...but I think I know what you mean.  I'm pretty much in the same position. No relevant legacy stuff, no prejudices to speak of, and in that position I cannot find a DSLR system sufficiently compelling enough to chose here and now.  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.

I'm in no great hurry. I still find that film reacts to light in the same way it always has. When a DSLR comes along that I like without reservations, I'll buy it.  I suspect it will have "Olympus" or "Fuji" written on it, but it could equally well be Nikon or Canon - or even Minolta. A digital Dynax could be quite something, although Michael will argue, with some reason, that it is crazy to buy into Minolta's lens mount when I could go for Canon, with the great IS technology.

Anyway, to console myself after deciding that the E-1 was not quite there, and the "APS" Canons are not terribly interesting with "35mm" lenses, I bought a soon-to-be-discontinued Fuji GS670III at an absolute bargain price.  Totally mechanical. Totally film. Superb quality and great fun...

[Wim van Velzen]

A problem I would have is that Sigma doesn't offer any fast prime lenses.

For 35mm film use, I would be very interested in a 35 and 85 1.4 (24 and 50 for SD?) - but alas Sigma has many zooms and just a few primes, mostly macro.

[Robert Roaldi]

My 2 cents, more for fun than anything else.

If you like the Sigma, buy it, take photographs, but then don't tell anyone what camera you own. Some of the best photographs hanging at my house were taken with a Stylus Epic. No need for anyone to know which ones.

I have often read the argument that if one buys C or N, then you are more likely to get access to future technological innovations. But do you need them, is the question? Only each individual can decide that. I used my manual focus Pentaxes for 30 years. All you ever do is control aperture and shutter speed, after all. All technology can do is make that control more convenient, and it doesn't always do that anyway.

I have no idea if the Foveon technology is promising, not quite there, never will get there, just a tweak away from greatness. But I certainly get the impression that Sigma is treated the same way Hyundai occasionally is. Unbelievably I still hear people say, "Did you ever drive a Pony?", when the topic comes up. Well, that was 2 decades ago. Things may have changed.

I think it is fair to say that the Foveon/Sigma camera has not blown everyone away. If they had delivered something much better either in terms of price or picture quality, we would know by now. It just seems to be competing technology, comparable in performance, that is available at approximately the same price as others, or as near as makes no difference. Buying it or not is a personal preference.