|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
peter
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:16 am Post subject: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
 |
|
The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
surprisingly few reviews on it.
There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I can
find.
Does anyone know why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Bill Funk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:29:07 -0700, "nsag" <fac@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | It is a capable machine but has different characteristics because of its
sensor.
As with all cameras of reasonable capabilities it is the person using the
camera that determines the quality of the final product more than the camera
or lens.
|
"We live in an age where individual ego comes to the forefront."
:-)
Seriously, this does not in any way explain why there are so few SD-14
reviews being published at all.
Even though what you say is true ("It's not the camera, it's the
photographer"), it's a non sequitur.
So why are rthere so few SD-14 reviews? IMO, it's becasue it's a
camera based on a lie (it's not a 14MP camera), that is mediocre in
performance, and any review will garner the reviewer much flack and
hassle. Better to ignore it.
A 4.7MP DSLR that sells for $1600 (B&H) and only takes Sigma lenses
isn't going to be a big seller in today's market.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth enjoyed a
publicity bonanza Monday. A Napa Valley hotel
placed his book in the rooms' nightstands instead
of the Gideon Bible. What's the big difference
when you consider that both books end with the
world on fire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Martindale
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
| Quote: | Because Sigma is, shall we say, less than honest in their advertising.
The SD10 is not a 10MP camera, it's a 3.48MP camera. The extra pixels
are interpolated.
the extra pixels are not interpolated. sigma is simply counting the
individual red, green and blue layers of each pixel as a full pixel,
thereby inflating the number of pixels by three.
|
That's true when the output image is actually 3.5 MP. But the raw
converter apparently also has an option that actually gives you a 10 MP
output image, and that is generated purely through spatial
interpolation. Maybe that's what he is referring to.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nospam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
In article <1178748650.063365.62390@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Rich
<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | phil said he recently received both and they are queued for review.
Choke! That's good! Considering they've reviewed nothing DSLR-like
since the Nikon D40 since last Dec!
|
pma was in march, and phil no doubt had things to do in preparation for
it and then to report on it after. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nospam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
In article <jei443pj6mdpebpnoib8qg9f6isu6gj6nj@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
<BigBill@there.com> wrote:
| Quote: | the inflated pixel count comes from sigma's incorrect method of
counting pixels. the foveon pixels have three layers and sigma counts
each layer as a pixel. it is completely bogus, but it makes for more
impressive marketing numbers.
If you will look at the output of the SD14, you will see that the
image has 14 million pixels.
|
only in super-high jpeg mode.
the sd14 sensor has 2640 x 1760 pixels, which is 4.65 mpix. there are
also lower resolution modes.
| Quote: | According to Sigma's press release for the SD14 (can be seen at:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092605sigmasd14.asp)
the camera has "Super High (14.15 million pixels: 4608×3072 pixels)"
resolution, among others.
Where do you think the "14" in the camera's model name comes from?
|
4.65 * 3. they added the interpolated 14 mp jpeg to justify their
inflated pixel count. previously, the sd9 and 10 did not have a jpeg
mode at all, yet they claimed an inflated 10.2 mp instead of 3.4 mp.
| Quote: | as mentioned previously, the sigma raw converter (and also the sd14's
super-high jpeg mode) can interpolate up from the native resolutions.
Then you readily admit the 14MP is interpolated.
|
the sd-14's super-high jpeg is interpolated, but that's not the
camera's native resolution. any camera can add upscaled image sizes,
and that doesn't change the number of pixels on the sensor.
| Quote: | and it is - the sd9/10 outputs a 2268 x 1512 image which is 3.42
megapixels. the sd14 has a 2640 x 1760 sensor for 4.65 megapixels.
multiply by 3 and you get sigma's 'pixel count.'
And Sigma and Foveon both claim camera has three times that many
pixels.
From:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/cameras/cameras_cameras_details.asp?id=3256&navigato
r=1
"NEW 10.2 Million Pixels (3.4 Mp Red + 3.4 MP Green + 3.4 Mp Blue)
|
exactly what i've been saying - they count each layer seperately, and
that is simply incorrect. there are 3.4 million pixels, each of which
has three layers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
On May 10, 2:45 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fred Anonymous <a...@anon.org> wrote:
Hi there. Amateur Photographer magazine here in the UK has a review in its
issue that went on sale yesterday (Tue 8th May). I only perused the review
but I think it felt the price was high and the camera worked best using RAW
format.
The magazine gave it a score of around 72%.
Tryhttp://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/
They want me to pay three pounds for the article. So, how does the camera, in
terms of percent score, stack up to the major competition like the Nikon D80
or the Canon 400D?
At $1600 it needs to compete more with the D200 then the D80. |
The 400D cost less then half what the SD 14 does.
The thing it just way over priced for what you get IMO.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SMS
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: sigma SD 14 reviews? |
|
|
Rich wrote:
| Quote: | On May 6, 2:18 am, "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article <Fk9%h.2652$XZ2.2207@trndny01>, peter <nos...@nospam.com
wrote:
The sigma SD14 is supposedly available on the market but there is
surprisingly few reviews on it.
There are many previews and first impressions, but no full reviews I
can find.
Does anyone know why?
Because like the Sigma cameras that came before it, it sucks.
Few sites want to spend time reviewing a camera that nearly no one wants.
You make it sound like it requires a huge effort to review a camera.
|
Uh, yes it does. You can put up the specs easily, but to do a full
review is very time consuming.
| Quote: | Still, if sites want to become like the magazines, wholly subservient
to their advertisers, then I guess that's the direction they'll take.
|
Yeah well that's already happened with most commercial sites that are
funded by advertising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups