Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Re. Sigma Kills Canon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 21, 2005 3:07:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That was an interesting thread.

I made it 58 postings, of which only 7 had anything nice to say about Sigma
Cameras, and all of them came from George Preddy.

Has anyone heard of any reports of Canon Executives throwing themselves out
of high windows at their Corporate Headquarters?

Should I try selling my Nikon D70 before its resale price plummets?

Does George Preddy have anything in common with David Icke?

I must go down to the beach as soon as it is light, to see if the Island of
Arran has actually vanished beneath the waves.

Perhaps both predictions will come true on the same day?

Roy G

More about : sigma kills canon

Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Does George Preddy have anything in common with David Icke?

Preddy has more in common with "Baghdad Bob", Saddam's "Information
Minister" :) 
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:12:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:

>>Does George Preddy have anything in common with David Icke?
>
>
> Preddy has more in common with "Baghdad Bob", Saddam's "Information
> Minister" :) 
>

You scoff, but the infidel devotees of the false Beyer God will soon be
squashed like bugs. Even now they are being flattened and desaturated on
the streets. They should be beaten with hot shoes. We will fry them in
their own FAT, by the 3.4 millions! (x 3)

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:57:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Peter Stavrakoglou writes ...
>
>There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma
>cameras, including a few pros that use them regularly

Can you name some of the "pros" who use Sigma cameras? Just curious
.....
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:35:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:05uje.13704$sE4.3889@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> That was an interesting thread.
>
> I made it 58 postings, of which only 7 had anything nice to say about
> Sigma Cameras, and all of them came from George Preddy.
>
> Has anyone heard of any reports of Canon Executives throwing themselves
> out of high windows at their Corporate Headquarters?
>
> Should I try selling my Nikon D70 before its resale price plummets?
>
> Does George Preddy have anything in common with David Icke?
>
> I must go down to the beach as soon as it is light, to see if the Island
> of Arran has actually vanished beneath the waves.
>
> Perhaps both predictions will come true on the same day?
>
> Roy G

There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma cameras,
including a few pros that use them regularly as well as the casual hobbyist
like myself. Simply put, we don't bother anymore due to hostile reactions
that aren't worth the time to argue or discuss the points with. As much as
"George" is criticized, there are more than a few who are just like him
except they hold an opposing view. Then there is the self-proclaimed
"expert" Steven Scharf who won't engage anyone like myself in a discussion
because he killfiles us. Suffice it to say tha the man is a liar and isn't
1/10th the "expert" he claims to be.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:35:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:UMGje.13178$yx.2448@fe08.lga...

>
> There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma cameras,
> including a few pros that use them regularly as well as the casual
> hobbyist like myself. Simply put, we don't bother anymore due to hostile
> reactions that aren't worth the time to argue or discuss the points with.
> As much as "George" is criticized, there are more than a few who are just
> like him except they hold an opposing view. Then there is the
> self-proclaimed "expert" Steven Scharf who won't engage anyone like myself
> in a discussion because he killfiles us. Suffice it to say tha the man is
> a liar and isn't 1/10th the "expert" he claims to be.
>
>
>
Wait a minute, I thought you had an Oly. You staunchly defend it, too,
don't you?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:13:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <UMGje.13178$yx.2448@fe08.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma cameras,
> including a few pros that use them regularly as well as the casual hobbyist
> like myself. Simply put, we don't bother anymore due to hostile reactions
> that aren't worth the time to argue or discuss the points with. As much as
> "George" is criticized, there are more than a few who are just like him
> except they hold an opposing view. Then there is the self-proclaimed
> "expert" Steven Scharf who won't engage anyone like myself in a discussion
> because he killfiles us. Suffice it to say tha the man is a liar and isn't
> 1/10th the "expert" he claims to be.

I don't care what "pros" use. Used to be one myself and I wouldn't have
wasted my money on anything with the Sigma name on it. I've seen enough
of their digital images to know that their digital stuff is as bad as
their film stuff.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116683857.545463.302660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Peter Stavrakoglou writes ...
>>
>>There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma
>>cameras, including a few pros that use them regularly
>
> Can you name some of the "pros" who use Sigma cameras? Just curious
> ....

Now, I hpe you don't think I meant any world-famous photographer that anyone
recognizes by name, but rather someone who uses the camera as a professional
to make his living. There's Lin Evans, Karl Ryterfalk, and David
Kilpatrick, to name a few. There are a few others, check the Sigma forum on
dpreview and you'll see. They're all pros and they like their Sigma
cameras.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:33:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 May 2005 06:57:37 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

> Can you name some of the "pros" who use Sigma cameras? Just curious

I can't name any, but anyone using Kodak's 13.5mp Pro DCS SLR/c is
using a Sigma camera, although probably with a Canon lens. But it's
entirely possible that despite the Kodak label on the camera, both
the body and lens would be manufactured by Sigma. :) 
May 22, 2005 1:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Sigma and Freddie Sigma both are very fond of their Sigmoidoscopies.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116683857.545463.302660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Peter Stavrakoglou writes ...
> >
> >There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma
> >cameras, including a few pros that use them regularly
>
> Can you name some of the "pros" who use Sigma cameras? Just curious
> ....
>
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:55:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210520051413355862%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
> I don't care what "pros" use. Used to be one myself and I wouldn't have
> wasted my money on anything with the Sigma name on it. I've seen enough
> of their digital images to know that their digital stuff is as bad as
> their film stuff.

I'll bet nobody cares to hear your opinion.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:55:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <JuSje.13273$yx.9230@fe08.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:210520051413355862%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> >
> > I don't care what "pros" use. Used to be one myself and I wouldn't have
> > wasted my money on anything with the Sigma name on it. I've seen enough
> > of their digital images to know that their digital stuff is as bad as
> > their film stuff.
>
> I'll bet nobody cares to hear your opinion.

You're the one that always stands up for Sigma. That makes you the
loser.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:10:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:21av81thpej573g56hl7b68v75jdf815l6@4ax.com...
> On 21 May 2005 06:57:37 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>> Can you name some of the "pros" who use Sigma cameras? Just curious
>
> I can't name any, but anyone using Kodak's 13.5mp Pro DCS SLR/c is
> using a Sigma camera, although probably with a Canon lens. But it's
> entirely possible that despite the Kodak label on the camera, both
> the body and lens would be manufactured by Sigma. :) 

It's perhaps no coincidence that the above mentioned Kodak is among the
worst-received professional DSLRs of all time.
It is extremely limited in it's usefulness, as it has odd renditions
requiring careful lighting, etc.

The Sigma curse apparently extends well beyond the Foveon sensor...
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:14:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210520052159387584%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <JuSje.13273$yx.9230@fe08.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>> news:210520051413355862%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> >
>> > I don't care what "pros" use. Used to be one myself and I wouldn't have
>> > wasted my money on anything with the Sigma name on it. I've seen enough
>> > of their digital images to know that their digital stuff is as bad as
>> > their film stuff.
>>
>> I'll bet nobody cares to hear your opinion.
>
> You're the one that always stands up for Sigma. That makes you the
> loser.

Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:47:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:10:41 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> It's perhaps no coincidence that the above mentioned Kodak is among the
> worst-received professional DSLRs of all time.
> It is extremely limited in it's usefulness, as it has odd renditions
> requiring careful lighting, etc.
>
> The Sigma curse apparently extends well beyond the Foveon sensor...

That's just anti-Sigma bias speaking. The Pro DCS SLR/n body is
manufactured by Nikon and if not for a business decision, the Pro
DCS SLR/c would have been manufactured by Canon. If it had been
manufactured by Canon it's unlikely to have made much of a
difference in the sales of Kodak's Pro DCS cameras. They may not
appeal to many pros for whatever reason, but it has practically
nothing to do with Sigma being hired to manufacture the body. If
Canon made the body as originally planned does anyone really think
sales would have soared?

Whatever faults Sigma products may have, in this newsgroup the
company's reputation is far worse than is called for, probably due
to the seemingly insane efforts of the Predator. He makes one want
to find reasons to disparage Sigma products. That that may be his
intent doesn't seem to have been considered. It seems to me that
the scorn risked by admitting to owning a Sigma product (and I've
never owned nor used one) is preferable to risking the ignominy of
being found to have been duped by our resident troll, the obnoxious
Mssr. G. Preddy. Choose your poison. :) 
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:47:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:t2d091lmcj829lsohhptofga5humrgcd1u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:10:41 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> It's perhaps no coincidence that the above mentioned Kodak is among the
>> worst-received professional DSLRs of all time.
>> It is extremely limited in it's usefulness, as it has odd renditions
>> requiring careful lighting, etc.
>>
>> The Sigma curse apparently extends well beyond the Foveon sensor...
>
> That's just anti-Sigma bias speaking.

That was tongue-in-cheek, bub.
:) 

But there is no denying that Sigma has NEVER made a competetive SLR neither
digital nor film.

>The Pro DCS SLR/n body is
> manufactured by Nikon and if not for a business decision, the Pro
> DCS SLR/c would have been manufactured by Canon. If it had been
> manufactured by Canon it's unlikely to have made much of a
> difference in the sales of Kodak's Pro DCS cameras. They may not
> appeal to many pros for whatever reason, but it has practically
> nothing to do with Sigma being hired to manufacture the body. If
> Canon made the body as originally planned does anyone really think
> sales would have soared?

Of course true. :) 
Again... Tongue/cheek.

**However...I do think there's a common thread in that Canon wouldn't be
associated with the sensor. Nikon sorely needed SOMETHING to allow
photographers to put Nikon lenses on a body with resolution similar to
Canon's 1Ds (at the time, the highest DSLR to date). Nikon had reason to
make the big compromise. Canon needed no such boost. Sigma would build
it... Is it a coincidence that Sigma is the only manufacturer who would
build a body around two highly flawed sensor implementations? I don't think
we're talking about mere chance here. Sigma has repeatedly tried...and
failed to produce camera bodies that are competetive. They failed miserably
with film bodies, and they have failed just as miserably with digital...in
several forms.


>
> Whatever faults Sigma products may have, in this newsgroup the
> company's reputation is far worse than is called for, probably due
> to the seemingly insane efforts of the Predator. He makes one want
> to find reasons to disparage Sigma products. That that may be his
> intent doesn't seem to have been considered. It seems to me that
> the scorn risked by admitting to owning a Sigma product (and I've
> never owned nor used one) is preferable to risking the ignominy of
> being found to have been duped by our resident troll, the obnoxious
> Mssr. G. Preddy. Choose your poison. :) 
>
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:15:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> Matt
> Groening relies on lots of Sigma equipment, preferring the Foveon
> sensors to all others. :) 
>

That must be why the Simpsons are yellow.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:15:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:15:46 -0000, Bubbabob wrote:

> That must be why the Simpsons are yellow.

Shhhh. Don't want to make it too easy for the RAin_man. :) 
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 10:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

> Now, I hpe you don't think I meant any world-famous photographer
> that anyone recognizes by name, but rather someone who uses the
> camera as a professional
> to make his living. There's Lin Evans, Karl Ryterfalk, and David
> Kilpatrick, to name a few. There are a few others, check the Sigma
> forum on
> dpreview and you'll see. They're all pros and they like their Sigma
> cameras.
This is as good as no recommendation at all. In the 1940 and 1950's in
Southampton (England) there was a pro. who used a couple of Kodak 620
box brownies for his work (I cannot now remember his name- it was a
long tome ago) mainly around the docks. The secret was using the
cameras within their capabilities and always on a tripod with cable
release that he had adapted the cameras to use. He had the cameras
loaded with differing film to suit the conditions he might expect.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 10:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <t2d091lmcj829lsohhptofga5humrgcd1u@4ax.com>, ASAAR
<caught@22.com> wrote:

> Whatever faults Sigma products may have, in this newsgroup the
> company's reputation is far worse than is called for, probably due
> to the seemingly insane efforts of the Predator. He makes one want
> to find reasons to disparage Sigma products. That that may be his
> intent doesn't seem to have been considered. It seems to me that
> the scorn risked by admitting to owning a Sigma product (and I've
> never owned nor used one) is preferable to risking the ignominy of
> being found to have been duped by our resident troll, the obnoxious
> Mssr. G. Preddy. Choose your poison. :) 

One needn't search for reasons to dis Sigma products. Touch one...hold
one...use one.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Neil Ellwood" <car@benone.com> wrote in message
news:D 6p8dg$7cg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> Now, I hpe you don't think I meant any world-famous photographer
>> that anyone recognizes by name, but rather someone who uses the
>> camera as a professional
>> to make his living. There's Lin Evans, Karl Ryterfalk, and David
>> Kilpatrick, to name a few. There are a few others, check the Sigma
>> forum on
>> dpreview and you'll see. They're all pros and they like their Sigma
>> cameras.
> This is as good as no recommendation at all. In the 1940 and 1950's in
> Southampton (England) there was a pro. who used a couple of Kodak 620
> box brownies for his work (I cannot now remember his name- it was a
> long tome ago) mainly around the docks. The secret was using the
> cameras within their capabilities and always on a tripod with cable
> release that he had adapted the cameras to use. He had the cameras
> loaded with differing film to suit the conditions he might expect.

???
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:07:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> Sigma has repeatedly tried...and
> failed to produce camera bodies that are competetive. They failed miserably
> with film bodies, and they have failed just as miserably with digital...in
> several forms.

But according to their site
(http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/sd10/quality/lowpass.ht...), "FOVEON X3
image sensor does not use Low Pass Filter, there fore if mains maximum
quality." Can't argue with those words.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 4:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:51:24 -0700, RAins_man wrote:

> One needn't search for reasons to dis Sigma products. Touch one...hold
> one...use one.

Indeed, look at how it affected you, Smeagol. :) 
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:29:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 01:34:20 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>>> The Sigma curse apparently extends well beyond the Foveon sensor...
>>
>> That's just anti-Sigma bias speaking.
>
> That was tongue-in-cheek, bub.
> :) 

That may be, but with Frankenstein's monster no longer available,
the townsfolk have picked up their torches and are hunting Sigma.
I'm sure most readers here read it as literal truth.


> Is it a coincidence that Sigma is the only manufacturer who would
> build a body around two highly flawed sensor implementations?

I don't think you'd get too much disagreement about the Foveon's
flaws, but I think you've missed the mark as relates to Sigma and
Kodak. Were you thinking of the C14 full frame sensor in the DCS
14/n? From what I've read it produced fine, highly detailed images
as long as it was used no higher than ISO 80, which would have been
a problem when not used in a studio. The newer X14 imager, used in
both the Pro DCS SLR/c and SLR/n has much less noise. Not much to
speak of until ISO 400 is exceeded. It's still not the fastest
sensor but it's much improved. I don't think the X14 can be
considered to be "highly flawed". Although it's not a Foveon, it
does share one of its features. Do you know what it is?
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:29:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:uqd1919rhiuq3e9qtfbbdnvtop447d9ghv@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 01:34:20 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>>> The Sigma curse apparently extends well beyond the Foveon sensor...
>>>
>>> That's just anti-Sigma bias speaking.
>>
>> That was tongue-in-cheek, bub.
>> :) 
>
> That may be, but with Frankenstein's monster no longer available,
> the townsfolk have picked up their torches and are hunting Sigma.
> I'm sure most readers here read it as literal truth.
>
>
>> Is it a coincidence that Sigma is the only manufacturer who would
>> build a body around two highly flawed sensor implementations?
>
> I don't think you'd get too much disagreement about the Foveon's
> flaws, but I think you've missed the mark as relates to Sigma and
> Kodak. Were you thinking of the C14 full frame sensor in the DCS
> 14/n?

Yes.
I was.

>From what I've read it produced fine, highly detailed images
> as long as it was used no higher than ISO 80, which would have been
> a problem when not used in a studio. The newer X14 imager, used in
> both the Pro DCS SLR/c and SLR/n has much less noise. Not much to
> speak of until ISO 400 is exceeded. It's still not the fastest
> sensor but it's much improved. I don't think the X14 can be
> considered to be "highly flawed". Although it's not a Foveon, it
> does share one of its features. Do you know what it is?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:LqmdnXFdK_uvDw3fRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
SNIP
> But according to their site
> (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/sd10/quality/lowpass.ht...), "FOVEON
> X3 image sensor does not use Low Pass Filter, there fore if mains
> maximum quality." Can't argue with those words.

The Low-pass filter should be there to prevent aliasing. When it is
left out to save cost or fake resolution, image artifacts will
develop, especially when good lenses are used.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/orig.asp?/reviews/sampl...
will show you what happens with the 9 hyperbolic lines, they will be
presented as 4 wider lines near the 20 mark. Also check the diagonals,
they are stairstepped due to aliasing (which looks ugly on images with
power lines rooftops, etc., etc.).

Bart
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:55:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...

Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:55:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>
> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I should be so important!
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:55:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>
> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?

I don't know Peter.
Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?

George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:18:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>
>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>
> I don't know Peter.
> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>
> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.

A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
are Sigma's worst enemies.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:18:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
> are Sigma's worst enemies.

A Yankee fan? <spit>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:37:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:18:12 -0400, Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

>> I don't know Peter.
>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>
>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>
> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
> are Sigma's worst enemies.

And you'd be correct. Neither you nor they are harming Sigma's
reputation. George, on the other hand, due to his inane hyperbole,
lying, and all around obnoxiousness generates much ill will for
Sigma. Despite first appearances, that's probably his goal.

Now that I think of it, the owner of the Yankess is usually pretty
obnoxious too, and . . . no, it couldn't be the same George. He
doesn't seem the type that would even know how to type, let alone
post newsgroup messages. But the guy that works for him, you know,
that little balding troublemaker, George Costanza . . .
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>>
>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>>
>>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>>
>> I don't know Peter.
>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>
>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>
> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
> are Sigma's worst enemies.

And if you're really interested in the quality of the images, head over to
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10 and have a look at the very
pedestrian images posted there.

I particularly get off on the images posted by the supposedly most erudite
and photographically competent of the posters on the dpreview sigma forum.
Their photos are bloody awful, on the whole.




>
>
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:240520050551261758%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
>> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
>> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
>> are Sigma's worst enemies.
>
> A Yankee fan? <spit>

What did you expect, a Man U fan?
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:24:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4293019f$0$247$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga...
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>>>
>>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>>> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>>>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>>>
>>>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>>>
>>> I don't know Peter.
>>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>>
>>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>>
>> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
>> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
>> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that they
>> are Sigma's worst enemies.
>
> And if you're really interested in the quality of the images, head over to
> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10 and have a look at the very
> pedestrian images posted there.
>
> I particularly get off on the images posted by the supposedly most erudite
> and photographically competent of the posters on the dpreview sigma forum.
> Their photos are bloody awful, on the whole.

Rubbish. Many of them are simply beautiful and a few of the photographers
have been published.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <21av81thpej573g56hl7b68v75jdf815l6@4ax.com>, ASAAR
> <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>
> But they're not using the oddball Foveon technology,

Isn't that Hasselblad and Leica both choose Foveon's technology for
their digital back? If this is true, Foveon's sensor tehnology can not
be that bad. We'll have to be fair to it. Afterall we'd like to have as
many good technology as possible, and to have continous competition to
aim to be perfect.

I do, however, have some question about this 3-in-1 layered sensor
technology. The question is about the light attenuation through the
layers, that might greatly degrade the bottom layer's sensitivity.

The bottom layer sensor must have a relative larger area than the
element in the Bayer-matrix. If the light energy is evenly divided
between the three layers, than each 3-in-1 layered sensor must be 3X
area of an element in Bayer-matrix. Since the light won't be evenly
divided between the three layers, there will be one layer (presumed the
bottom) that gets less than 1/3 of the energy, I'd say, probably around
1/4 or less. This means the layered sensor area must has 4x of the
Bayer-matrix. This also means Each 3-in-1 layered sensor is about the
same size of 2x2 Bayer matrix.

I don't see true benefit of layered sensor.

Correct me.

Now we can argue about the colored film techology. It's also 3-in-1
layered sensor. It should also suffer the same energy dividing problem.
Would a Bayer matrix type color film (not exists, yet) perform better?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:14:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1117247471.598634.122030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<einst_stein@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > But they're not using the oddball Foveon technology,
>
> Isn't that Hasselblad and Leica both choose Foveon's technology for
> their digital back? If this is true, Foveon's sensor tehnology can not
> be that bad. We'll have to be fair to it. Afterall we'd like to have as
> many good technology as possible, and to have continous competition to
> aim to be perfect.

The only manufacturer using Foveon technology is Sigma.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:52:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:05uje.13704$sE4.3889@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

> There are quite a few who have nice things to say about Sigma cameras,

Including Steven Scharf, who is now posting raving praise of his Sigma
DLSR using the name Geaorge Preddy (but with an email address
registered to him).

> including a few pros that use them regularly as well as the casual hobbyist
> like myself. Simply put, we don't bother anymore due to hostile reactions
> that aren't worth the time to argue or discuss the points with. As much as
> "George" is criticized, there are more than a few who are just like him
> except they hold an opposing view. Then there is the self-proclaimed
> "expert" Steven Scharf who won't engage anyone like myself in a discussion
> because he killfiles us. Suffice it to say tha the man is a liar and isn't
> 1/10th the "expert" he claims to be.

Steven Scharf IS George Preddy.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:13:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Excuse me, I didn't catch your point. But what part of the sampling
theory tells you 3-in-1 sensor can't be better than Bayer matrix?
(other than that the spatial sampling rate is lower due to the
assumption/argument that each sensing element will be much larger).

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > I don't see true benefit of layered sensor.
>
> Neither does anyone who knows anything about sampling theory.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:o kNle.3272$So7.3117@fe10.lga...
> "Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4293019f$0$247$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga...
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>> news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>>>>
>>>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>>>> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>>>>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know Peter.
>>>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>>>
>>>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>>>
>>> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that doesn't
>>> make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few big Sigma
>>> fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly say that
>>> they are Sigma's worst enemies.
>>
>> And if you're really interested in the quality of the images, head over
>> to http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10 and have a look at the very
>> pedestrian images posted there.
>>
>> I particularly get off on the images posted by the supposedly most
>> erudite and photographically competent of the posters on the dpreview
>> sigma forum. Their photos are bloody awful, on the whole.
>
> Rubbish. Many of them are simply beautiful and a few of the photographers
> have been published.

Have a look at the aerial photographs and everything else from one of the
most frequent posters, Chunsum or something like that. Blood awful.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:49:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<einst_stein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> <caught@22.com> wrote:
>>
>> But they're not using the oddball Foveon technology,
>
> Isn't that Hasselblad and Leica both choose Foveon's technology for
> their digital back? If this is true, Foveon's sensor tehnology can not
> be that bad.

The MF backs are all Bayer CFA systems. Most do not have a low-pass filter,
and some people are finding nasty Moire problems as a result. But that's a
different question.

> I don't see true benefit of layered sensor.

Neither does anyone who knows anything about sampling theory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4297a91b$0$267$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:o kNle.3272$So7.3117@fe10.lga...
>> "Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4293019f$0$247$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga...
>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>> news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>>>>>
>>>>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>>>>> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>>>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know Peter.
>>>>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>>>>
>>>>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that
>>>> doesn't make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few
>>>> big Sigma fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly
>>>> say that they are Sigma's worst enemies.
>>>
>>> And if you're really interested in the quality of the images, head over
>>> to http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10 and have a look at the very
>>> pedestrian images posted there.
>>>
>>> I particularly get off on the images posted by the supposedly most
>>> erudite and photographically competent of the posters on the dpreview
>>> sigma forum. Their photos are bloody awful, on the whole.
>>
>> Rubbish. Many of them are simply beautiful and a few of the
>> photographers have been published.
>
> Have a look at the aerial photographs and everything else from one of the
> most frequent posters, Chunsum or something like that. Blood awful.

Rubbish again. I look at Chunsum's photos quite often, they are not awful
in any sense.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:54:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cv0me.26655$NZ1.9585@fe09.lga...
> "Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4297a91b$0$267$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:o kNle.3272$So7.3117@fe10.lga...
>>> "Ben Cramer" <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4293019f$0$247$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:a9Dke.661$So7.489@fe10.lga...
>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:D Gxke.43931$Qp.29010@fed1read04...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:k62591pp498reg0s2l54e3coi2bvpr7e76@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> In message <WqVje.43246$Qp.2195@fed1read04>,
>>>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sigma really needs to bump off it's own troops.
>>>>>>>>So far, their worst enemies are their biggest fans...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter is one of their worst enemies? How?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know Peter.
>>>>>> Is he really a Sigma DSLR fan?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George is a thorn in Sigma's side, no doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fan? You might say that I am. I'm a big Yankee fan too, that
>>>>> doesn't make me one of the Yankees enemies. There are more than a few
>>>>> big Sigma fans, check the Sigma forum on dpreview, and I would hardly
>>>>> say that they are Sigma's worst enemies.
>>>>
>>>> And if you're really interested in the quality of the images, head over
>>>> to http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10 and have a look at the very
>>>> pedestrian images posted there.
>>>>
>>>> I particularly get off on the images posted by the supposedly most
>>>> erudite and photographically competent of the posters on the dpreview
>>>> sigma forum. Their photos are bloody awful, on the whole.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Many of them are simply beautiful and a few of the
>>> photographers have been published.
>>
>> Have a look at the aerial photographs and everything else from one of the
>> most frequent posters, Chunsum or something like that. Blood awful.
>
> Rubbish again. I look at Chunsum's photos quite often, they are not awful
> in any sense.

Do you have a link to these?
Thanks.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:51:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:5T1me.4653$Gp.4409@fed1read04...
>
> Do you have a link to these?
> Thanks.

Chunsum's photos can be seen here: http://www.pbase.com/chunsum. He's got
a lot fo really nice stuff posted.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:yZ3me.641$hg.286@fe12.lga...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:5T1me.4653$Gp.4409@fed1read04...
>>
>> Do you have a link to these?
>> Thanks.
>
> Chunsum's photos can be seen here: http://www.pbase.com/chunsum. He's
> got a lot fo really nice stuff posted.

Thanks.

I just don't see sharp images there, nor do I see any images that would
dispell Sigma's bad rep.
See this squirrel?
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum/image/23959651
The reason I noticed this shot in particular was it's similarity to the
content of Bret's rabbit shot:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43883014
The other zoo/wildlife shots do NOT impress, and I'm not being unfair here.
They are so un-sharp as to appear improperly focussed.

I see a distinct lack of pictures that include human skin, and those few
shots that do include skin do nothing to dispell the reputation of
cheese-like skin-tones. Half of the few people shots have been converted to
grey scale (a tendency I've noted as common with Sigma shooters--perhaps by
necessity?)
Note the hands/arms in this shot:
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum/image/40064237

Have a look around the site.
Perhaps you'll see what I'm referring to.

The animal shots are almost universally and woefully soft...
The tonal range in the flower photos are not good at all.

All in all, this site's presentation of Sigma images will do absolutely
nothing to further Sigma's cause, IMO.

If you know of another (perhaps more impressive) source, I'd verymuch like
to see it.
Thanks for the link.
-Mark
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:19:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<einst_stein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, I didn't catch your point. But what part of the sampling
> theory tells you 3-in-1 sensor can't be better than Bayer matrix?
> (other than that the spatial sampling rate is lower due to the
> assumption/argument that each sensing element will be much larger).

Both require antialiasing, so Foveon's claims for a resolution advantage are
wrong.

>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see true benefit of layered sensor.
>>
>> Neither does anyone who knows anything about sampling theory.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 11:08:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> All in all, this site's presentation of Sigma images will do absolutely
> nothing to further Sigma's cause, IMO.

When a camera creates only RAW files, there is a big problem of quality
control. You can easily make skin tones any color of the spectrum, and
the pic is just as much an authentic Sigma original as a properly
balanced version.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:45:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zPEme.1814$HP1.1542@fe08.lga...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:BQ5me.4665$Gp.3317@fed1read04...
>>
>> If you know of another (perhaps more impressive) source, I'd verymuch
>> like to see it.
>> Thanks for the link.
>> -Mark
>
> Try these:
>
> http://www.rytterfalk.com

The face shots in EVERY SINGLE PEOPLE PICTURE are overwhelmingly yellow.
(And no...the CHinese stereotype is not to blame here...)

> http://www.lin-evans.net/sigma/sigma.htm

The animal and landscape pictures here appear as though they are images
printed on some sort of rough cardboard.
http://www.lin-evans.net/sigma/k_comehither800.html
http://www.lin-evans.net/sigma/k_bighorn800.html
None of these appear natural at all. -Something strange going on there.

This next one is perhaps the most UNnatural-looking landscape shot I've ever
seen:
http://www.lin-evans.net/sigma/k_oldglorybarn800.html

> http://www.pbase.com/mdejong

OK. I looked.
See the skin in this shot??
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/31056960
I mean...GOOD GRAVY! -Look at this one!!
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/33725578
The others are no less indicative.
-These skin-tones are plagued by the exact same sort of custard-like skin
texture/color that is the downfall of Sigma.
This one is LESS yellow:
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/34321481
-But look at the slightly shadowed area under the chin/on the neck...
Cheese.

Again. You have only pointed to the problems.
Unless one is simply blind to color and detail, these shots will appear
woefully sub-par.
While there ARE some nice **subjects**, the camera just isn't doing the
subjects justice.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117462112.800981.57820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> All in all, this site's presentation of Sigma images will do absolutely
> nothing to further Sigma's cause, IMO.

When a camera creates only RAW files, there is a big problem of quality
control. You can easily make skin tones any color of the spectrum, and
the pic is just as much an authentic Sigma original as a properly
balanced version.
-----------------
Why is it, then, that every similar-subject Sigma image has similar
problems?
You can't "balance out" horrible texture qualities, nor can you put good
coloration into a shot that hasn't got the color information there to begin
with. While you can add colors here and there, there is no substitute for
properly captured color. This is a major downfall of Sigma.

As to your general comments regarding RAW:
Even with a simple UNedited jpeg-converted RAW file from my 10D renders
natural skin tones/textures.
If there is adjustment to be made, I can assure you it won't be stuck trying
to get rid of the horrible Sigma Cheese-textured skin.
!