Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BarbaraArmstrong on July 14, 2011, 01:41:18 pm
-
Having been tantalized by some scenes from the Sigma SD1, I hope I'm not the only one who would like to see a report from our esteemed Michael R. on his experiences with this new camera. On my SD14, I've removed the internal IR-blocking filter, and added an external visible-light-blocking-filter to experiment with near-IR photography. Does the new camera have an IR-blocking filter that is as easily removed? I wouldn't spend that kind of money just for infrared experimentation, but enjoyed the posted pics and wondered what the overall image quality (in color) is from the camera. Also, after numerous comments from several sources that only some of Sigma's lenses would be up to the demands of the higher pixel count, I'd appreciate hearing which lenses those are.
-
Barbara,
Yes, the SD1's dust filter acts like your SD14; remove it and it will be sensitive to IR as well as visible light. I think with regards to lenses, what I'm hearing is that most of the primes are good (the exceptions being the older 20/24/28 and the newer 30). The 70 macro is well regarded as is the 85 f1.4 and 50 f1.4 (and 50 macro as well). Wide angle zooms---my best guess would be the 8-16. Longer zooms: the 120-300 will probably be best, followed by the 70-200 and 50-500.
-
http://www.x3magazine.com/2011/06/17/this-is-not-a-review-of-the-sigma-sd1/
-
My complete review will be up this Sunday evening.
Michael
-
Looking forward to that
-
Oh, I think the highlights are not so difficult to imaginate with Sigma, like the Greek economy.
Interesting sensor, slide-like look, skill demanding, very good printing output, good colors and minimalist "photopgraphical" body
then: slow like a turtle in operation, lack of pro lenses, limited mount, almost no sealed lenses to fit a sealed body, af not on the par with the competition pro line, no tethering, no 100% viewfinder, camera body heats, no video, poor low-light compared to the competition, messy menu, resolution claimed by the company exagerate, almost no accessories and expensives and price unrealistic etc etc...
If all what I just wrote is true it will be a remake of the SD14 version 2011
Let's wait the Michael evaluation.
-
Thanks for the responses. I'm looking forward to the review Sunday night. I did read the X3 article. I found the part about buffer depth, and the suggestion to shoot at a lower-res setting to overcome any buffer limitations, rather strange. I wouldn't think you'd buy this camera to take your shots at a lower resolution. I have very much appreciated the comments and insights on L-L. Thanks to all for your continuing contributions.
-
Michael
A while back you said you were going to investigate the reasons for the SD1's silly launch price. Now that you have reviewed it, so you have any insights as to why it doesn't cost $2500?
-
Looks to me the Foveon product manager has written a fairy tale to justify the R&D bucks, and now feels the premium price is the only way to recoup it. Michael and Nick are spot on with their evaluation of the pricing. Look for the price point to drop within a few months.
-
Many thanks to Michael for the SD1 review. For me, the observations about color rendering and the camera comparisons were especially helpful. Early in the review, I wondered why it was being illustrated with heavily desaturated and b&w images. The "why" became apparent later. I really don't need or want a camera for which "no amount of manual tweaking of colours can fine tune the camera's current palette to anything resembling normalcy..." And that is way too much money for my infrared fun. Thanks again. --Barbara
-
Michael
A while back you said you were going to investigate the reasons for the SD1's silly launch price. Now that you have reviewed it, so you have any insights as to why it doesn't cost $2500?
Yes, I do, but if I told you I'd have to shoot you.
Michael
-
Yes, I do, but if I told you I'd have to shoot you.
Michael
Come on...you said already too much!
-
Either a FF Sigma is in the making or another camera maker is adopting the sensor .
-
Hm, on Canon rumors it is report that canon filed a patent for a Foveon type sensor.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/07/canon-3-layer-sensor-foveon-type-patent/
While the patent seems fact, it is unknown if and when it may translate into a product.
If indeed the crazy price of the SD1 is to be explained by an upcoming competing product, this product must be due to come out very soon, otherwise Sigma would not need to milk the cow so quickly. However it seems hard to imagine that Canon rlease a Foveon camera within a couple of months of today. They would certainly not do so before getting high iso performance up to and possibley exceding their existing sensors. I doubt that they have come this far already.
-
Most interesting camera for a while - not in terms of me being interested in buying one, but just as an individual product.
Would certainly be interesting if Canon were to make a full frame camera with this technology with 30mp+ (claiming 90mp+ of course, lol). With a Canon pro body, a full frame sensor with no AA filter and the foveon technology along with Canons more advanced/faster processing (I am guessing!) it might well make a great portrait camera - even the warm tones might be nice for this application. Canon would no doubt also allow 3rd party RAW processing, and support in their own DPP, so that would take away another major issue that the SD1 suffers.
Anyway, that is all based on a rumor that may well never come to fruition. What I am curious about now after reading the review is the difference no AA filter has. I am wondering if anyone owning a 7D has had their AA filter removed and if so, how significant was the change.
Unless there is a major change in technologies, I am still leaning towards skipping full frame (35mm) and going to MF at some point. ANyway, it will be interesting to both see how the SD1 goes in the market place, and if the technology potential of the foveon sensor is reached or at least significantly advanced in future cameras from Sigma, Canon, or someone else.
-
We all seem to be assuming that Sigma can reduce the price to the $2,000-$2,500 range. Based on what information? It's very possible that they can't. Pricing isn't just based on manufacturing cost. It's also based on working down the R&D. I know this, because I was a partner in a pro audio manufacturing company.
If Sigma is concerned that they may never sell enough cameras at a significantly lower cost to realize their investment, they may feel, correctly or not, that they have to price at this level. It's very possible that yields aren't high enough (yet, hopefully) to allow a significantly lower price, and they may not want to admit that.
I do agree that this price is too high, and that they should have compromised somewhere in the middle, possibly at a $4,500 level. If the camera sold well at that price, they could go lower as the R&D/start-up costs became amortized.
A question about the lenses used for the test. They were supplied by Sigma from what I read, and I wonder if these were handpicked. While Sigma makes some fine lenses (and some pretty poor ones), the QC is nothing to be proud of. What is the chance of getting a good performer? Photographers buying an expensive camera expect top notch lenses without having to send them back several times.