Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma SD9 Review - What are you on Preddy?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:45 PM

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

After reading your post George, I decided to be fair and read a review on
the SD9 to see if it really was as you said 'the best digital slr made to
date'

I have to say that CNET begs to differ....


"...The Sigma SD9 works far better as a proof of concept for the Foveon X3
sensor it uses than as a practical digital SLR. The first camera to take
advantage of Foveon's 3.42-megapixel, 10.3-million photodetector imager, the
SD9 manages to capture extremely sharp images of stationary or slow-moving
subjects in good light. But action and low-light scenes produce mixed
results, and when combined with the rest of this camera's characteristics,
it all adds up to a mediocre digital SLR that displays flashes of greatness
only occasionally. "



Hardly effusing superlatives...



The only reason I can see for you Sigma obsession is that thing people used
to do as a child where when swimming in the ocean you would tell your mates
'come on in..the waters fine' knowing that it was freezing.

Perhaps you realise you realise you bought and Edsel and don't want to be
the only one.

It's also interesting that on the CNET website the user reviews for the
Nikon D70 total 192 where as the Sigma SD9 users total ummmmm 4 despite the
review for the Sigma being one year older.



You are a wanker preddy.
May 27, 2005 11:40:46 PM

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

The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs that I
have seen.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D 772j9$rqp$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs that
> I have seen.
>

To be fair, reviews of the SD10, like DPR and Steve's Digicams, make very
interesting reading.

The overall impression is one of great initial enthusiasm for the camera -
tempered later on in the review, perhaps by the realisation that being
honest about Sigma will upset the mainstream manufacturers who provide such
reviewers with their bread and butter.

All reviews are blighted by patronage - and, after all, Canon & Nikon can
offer far more perks than Sigma.

A similar unhealthy bias exists in the photographic press - until recently,
Pentax rarely good a mention. Then Pentax started promoting their DS
heavily in expensively glossy fully page ads - and, surprise,
surprise..............Pentax start getting terrific reviews.

Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford' to
like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.

The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.

Scott
May 27, 2005 11:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford'
> to like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be
>
>

or they are just the worst ?.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <3foqgsF8qj4gU1@individual.net>,
"Trapezium" <nothing@nothing.com> wrote:

>Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford' to
>like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be

No doubt that advertising revenue is a factor, but the fact is, the
Sigma DSLRs were supposed to be precise color-capturing devices due to
the foveon sensor, as their forte, but quite frankly, they are poor
separators of green and blue. They have failed at their alleged
advantage. The Foveon is an *excellent* greyscale sensor, which tries
in vain to accurately separate the wavelengths captured at each 2D
sensel location.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:48 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> dylan wrote:
>
> > The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs that I
> > have seen.
>
> I didn't think they did even that well.

someone reviewed sd10, 20d, and d70.

sigma came in in the top three,
d20 came in next to last,
and the d70 was third to last.

>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D 77cjc$3j4$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>> Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford'
>> to like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be
>>
>>
>
> or they are just the worst ?.


Not according to the two reviewers I mentioned - have a read, the main text
is very enthusiastic, but it all gets mysteriously toned down in the final
conclusions. It almost makes you wonder why there's no grovelling apology
to Canon & Nikon for daring to mention the SD10 in the first place!

"My sincere and humble apologies, Canon San, I prostrate myself before you
and plead for your merciful forgiveness and your continued patronage"
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
>
> The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
> care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.
>
> The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
> camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.
>
> Scott

To me, a relative greenhorn, Sigma always signified the very, very low
end of the market.

Perhaps they should have changed the name? To Enigma, or something?


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> To me, a relative greenhorn, Sigma always signified the very, very low
> end of the market.

No. They do have a few decent lenses. But below them are companies
like Phoenix.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:06:38 AM

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

In article <42975221.5A9C@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

> someone reviewed sd10, 20d, and d70.

Someone? George?

> sigma came in in the top three,
> d20 came in next to last,
> and the d70 was third to last.

Somebody needs to put down the crack pipe.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:32:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Trapezium wrote:
> "dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:D 772j9$rqp$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs that
> > I have seen.
> >
>
> To be fair, reviews of the SD10, like DPR and Steve's Digicams, make very
> interesting reading.
>
> The overall impression is one of great initial enthusiasm for the camera -
> tempered later on in the review, perhaps by the realisation that being
> honest about Sigma will upset the mainstream manufacturers who provide such
> reviewers with their bread and butter.

That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
defy their boss.

In the only unpaid published review I've seen (Consumer Reports' DSLR
showdown: SD9, S2, 10D, dR, D100, *ist) the Sigma SD9 finshed in first
place for image quality, but it finished in second place overall
(behind the S2 Pro) due to no JPEG-only shooting option and it's SA
mount.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:44:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> If you think that *any* Sigma product is as good as Canon, you've got a
> real discernment problem.

You'll be happy to know that I've switched to CAnon DSLRs from Sigma
DSLRs. Canon's lens selection is superior, not only in the focal
lengths offered but in the higher price ranges for the same focal
lengths. And let's face it, Sigma is no longer developing DSLRs.

As far as which manufacturer builds the better produirct, holding the
products side by side, there is no question Sigma is vastly superior to
Canon in the same price range.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:03:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Brownbe <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Odie Ferrous wrote:
>
>> To me, a relative greenhorn, Sigma always signified the very, very low
>> end of the market.
>
> No. They do have a few decent lenses. But below them are companies
> like Phoenix.
>
>

Even Phoenix makes a macro lens that while being flaky and gritty feeling
has optics that approach the Nikon 105 Micro's (between f/5.6 and f/16)
while only costing about $100. Mine may not last forever, but at that price
I could get a new one every year.

I'm more than happy with my Sigma 12-24 zoom.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:45:30 AM

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

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:22:53 +1000, Steve Franklin <honkey@lips.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have any photos where you have placed say the 20ds and the SD9 on a
> tripod with a comparable focal length lens that you could post?

DPReview did something like that with the SD10 and the 10D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page15.asp

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
May 28, 2005 4:37:04 AM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:270520052006380691%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <42975221.5A9C@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> someone reviewed sd10, 20d, and d70.
>
> Someone? George?
>
>> sigma came in in the top three,
>> d20 came in next to last,
>> and the d70 was third to last.
>
So if they added the Pentax *ist D, *ist DS, Maxxum 7D, then the Sigma would
still be in last place...
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:56:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1117259073.816608.310560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> As far as which manufacturer builds the better produirct, holding the
> products side by side, there is no question Sigma is vastly superior to
> Canon in the same price range.

Yeah <snicker>. A 3.4MP kiddie toy beats a 6.3/8MP pro-sumer unit every
time.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 10:05:27 AM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:270520052006380691%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <42975221.5A9C@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > someone reviewed sd10, 20d, and d70.
>
> Someone? George?
>
> > sigma came in in the top three,
> > d20 came in next to last,
> > and the d70 was third to last.
>
> Somebody needs to put down the crack pipe.

Did you feel the wind when this flew right over your head?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 11:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Trapezium" <nothing@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:3foqgsF8qj4gU1@individual.net...
>
> "dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:D 772j9$rqp$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs
>> that I have seen.
>>
>
> To be fair, reviews of the SD10, like DPR and Steve's Digicams, make very
> interesting reading.
>
> The overall impression is one of great initial enthusiasm for the camera -
> tempered later on in the review, perhaps by the realisation that being
> honest about Sigma will upset the mainstream manufacturers who provide
> such reviewers with their bread and butter.
>
> All reviews are blighted by patronage - and, after all, Canon & Nikon can
> offer far more perks than Sigma.
>
> A similar unhealthy bias exists in the photographic press - until
> recently, Pentax rarely good a mention. Then Pentax started promoting
> their DS heavily in expensively glossy fully page ads - and, surprise,
> surprise..............Pentax start getting terrific reviews.
>
> Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford'
> to like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be
>
>

Since Sigma is the largest (volume) aftermarket lens manufacturer, I have a
feeling they have nearly as much clout as the camera manufacturers. In a
world where one cannot afford to offend anyone, then opinions on everything
are suspect. The great reviews that Sigma lenses get (or Tamron, or Tokina)
have just as much chance of being biased as good reviews of what ever camera
is being reviewed. OTOH, damning with faint praise may be the only refuge
of a writer nervous about offending the manufacturer of whatever item that
writer is reviewing...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 11:13:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
> care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.
>
> The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
> camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.

That is probably true now, but that's also the desired result of black
balling promising newcomers in the industry. It's the same thing every
monopolized or well controlled cartel does, whether it'd DeBeers or
Canon/Nikon.

It is a real shame there isn't an non-paid photo review site available.
The Consumer Reports' DSLR run down was about as close as we've ever
come, and maybe not suprisingly the SD9 won 1st place in both image
quality and ease of use, but finished 2nd overall (behind the S2,
interestingly Canon and Nikon pulled up the rear) for two reasons
cited: no JPEG-only shooting mode and it's SA mount.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 11:57:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1117289581.520600.242360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It is a real shame there isn't an non-paid photo review site available.
> The Consumer Reports' DSLR run down was about as close as we've ever
> come, and maybe not suprisingly the SD9 won 1st place in both image
> quality and ease of use, but finished 2nd overall (behind the S2,
> interestingly Canon and Nikon pulled up the rear) for two reasons
> cited: no JPEG-only shooting mode and it's SA mount.

You're trusting Consumer Reports for accurate testing and reviews of
products? Get a grip!
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Franklin" <honkey@lips.com> wrote in message
news:429815aa$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I've read the review and seen the pictures and have come to the following
> conclusion.
>
>
> 1. The SD10 produces not only acceptable but comparable images to the 20d
> in most situations.
> 2. That the camera whilst comparable lacks features of the other players.
> 3. Is most severely hampered by it's own lens mount.
>
>
> As far as image quality goes I defy anyone to tell the difference between
> an image taken by the sigma and the canon with an 8x10, I just don't
> believe it's possible. Maybe on screen you can, but on a picture - no.
>
>
> However, if we assume that image quality is the same between say Sigma,
> Canon and Nikon, I can't for the life of me think of why someone would
> want to buy one when the extensive worldwide availability of lenses for
> both Nikon and Canon and so freely available, as is the support network
> that comes with that.
>
> E.g If you are a photographer and you drop your canon 300mm 2.8 at the
> french GP, the chances of you being able to get a replacement on the spot
> (by the canon reps at such event) is almost assured. However I doubt the
> same could be said for Sigma.
>
>
> So George, I agree the camera's are not only not bad, the quality is
> something I'd be more than happy with (as a Nikon D70 owner) but that
> there are too many negatives as a package for me. I'd recommend people
> stick with either canon or nikon.
>
>
> Those that dismiss the Sigma though as a toy, are misguided. Nothing wrong
> with the images I've seen.

--

That's an unusually sane and coherent response to the 'Foveon -v- Rest Of
The World' debate - are you sure you're on the right forum?......
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117289581.520600.242360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Scott W wrote:
>> The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
>> care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.
>>
>> The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
>> camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.
>
> That is probably true now, but that's also the desired result of black
> balling promising newcomers in the industry. It's the same thing every
> monopolized or well controlled cartel does, whether it'd DeBeers or
> Canon/Nikon.
>
> It is a real shame there isn't an non-paid photo review site available.
> The Consumer Reports' DSLR run down was about as close as we've ever
> come, and maybe not suprisingly the SD9 won 1st place in both image
> quality and ease of use, but finished 2nd overall (behind the S2,
> interestingly Canon and Nikon pulled up the rear) for two reasons
> cited: no JPEG-only shooting mode and it's SA mount.

While Consumer Reports is great for information gathering, reliability
ratings of washing machines and cars...safety crash-test
reporting...roll-over tests...and other more basic data...
They are NOT a good resource for anything technically or professionally
critical. While digital point-and-shoot cameras might be halfway within the
realm they can comment on, DSLRs are a whole different ballgame.

They just don't have the mindset or critical background to rate such devices
in the context of experience and understanding that is required. They are
wowed easily by things like artificial sharpness (Sigma), and slick looks
(Sony, etc.).

I DO subscribe to Consumer Reports--both their magazine, and their on-lone
version, because it can be a good way to gather information about
appliances, etc. But I NEVER use them for computers...printers...still
cameras...or other highly technical items.

-Mark
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:09:45 PM

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

In article <4296eb21@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, honkey@lips.com (Steve Franklin)
wrote:
> I have to say that CNET begs to differ....
Not commenting one way or the other on the SD9 but let's be honest, CNET
aren't exactly the greatest of reviewers. Lightweight, ill researched
reviews seem to be the order of the day.

> You are a wanker preddy.
Bit harsh. Certainly obsessive the way kids used to be obsessive about
owning a CBM C64 or an Atari 800XL but otherwise harmless enough.

Iain
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> Even Phoenix makes a macro lens that while being flaky and gritty feeling
> has optics that approach the Nikon 105 Micro's (between f/5.6 and f/16)
> while only costing about $100. Mine may not last forever, but at that price
> I could get a new one every year.

Since a Nikon 105 micro lens will last you 20 - 40 years with average
care, I would suggest that that approach doesn't make much sense.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Trapezium wrote:
> > "dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:D 772j9$rqp$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > The SD9 and SD10 always come last in any comparative reviews of DSLRs that
> > > I have seen.
> > >
> >
> > To be fair, reviews of the SD10, like DPR and Steve's Digicams, make very
> > interesting reading.
> >
> > The overall impression is one of great initial enthusiasm for the camera -
> > tempered later on in the review, perhaps by the realisation that being
> > honest about Sigma will upset the mainstream manufacturers who provide such
> > reviewers with their bread and butter.
>
> That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> defy their boss.

that is the only way you can pretend that sigma is so good,
and yet no photographic review seems to think so.

>
> In the only unpaid published review I've seen (Consumer Reports' DSLR
> showdown: SD9, S2, 10D, dR, D100, *ist) the Sigma SD9 finshed in first
> place for image quality, but it finished in second place overall
> (behind the S2 Pro) due to no JPEG-only shooting option and it's SA
> mount.

right.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:00:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <4297a0e9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, <"Ryadia@Home"> wrote:
>
>
>>Well now, JPS... I've listened to you and Randal Anusworth mouth off
>>about something you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of for long
>>enough. George Preddy is an idiot and he certainly has done Sigma
>>products no favors in his stupid remarks.
>
>
> HAHA - Anusworth - never heard that one before.

Quite typical of Dougie when he gets riled up he resorts to 5th grade
playgorund name calling...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:12:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:

> That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> defy their boss.

I'm sure that Phil would consider what you just wrote as highly
libelous, so I've taken the liberty of passing it on to him.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:23:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> > these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> > Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> > are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> > defy their boss.
>
> I'm sure that Phil would consider what you just wrote as highly
> libelous, so I've taken the liberty of passing it on to him.

I'm sure Sigma would LOVE to have an intense one-on-one chat with
Phillip about his Sigma reviews. Like his absurd asterisking of the
SD9's 13.72MP output is only "interpolated", as if every other digital
camera's output isn't interpolated.

And his standing assertion that the SD9's night shots are flooded with
huge white circles on the images (that simply doesn't happen).

And what about his genius statment that the Sigma DLSRs provide no WB
bracketing, no color space selection, and no image parameter
adjustments, when they only shoot RAW? Doesn't the guy know anything
about how digital cameras work? I think he probably does what a
ridiculous thing that is to stay about RAW-only shooters.

He has been told to fix all of those things, but he's said flat out he
won't fix the errors because it wouldn't be fair to his other sponsors.


Would a completely inaccurate and damaging review be allowed to stand
if it were a Canon or Nikon flagship DSLR? Not a chance. The site a
sham front for paid advertising, trying to pass itself off as
objective.

I still haven't found where he acknowledges that he takes money from
the camera manufacturers he reviews. I guess he "forgot" to mention
that little point. If dpreview was eithical at all, that disclaimer
would flashing in bold italic Headline 1 font, at the beginning, end,
at at the top of every page in every review.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:25:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:
> > That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> > these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> > Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> > are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> > defy their boss.
>
> that is the only way you can pretend that sigma is so good,
> and yet no photographic review seems to think so.

You mean no photographic review that was "paid for by Canon and Nikon."


The only objective review (Consumer Reports) rated Sigma #1 in image
quality. Live with it.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:
> > That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> > these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> > Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> > are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> > defy their boss.
>
> that is the only way you can pretend that sigma is so good,
> and yet no photographic review seems to think so.

You mean no photographic review that was "paid for by Canon and Nikon."


The only objective review (Consumer Reports) rated Sigma #1 in image
quality. Live with it.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Albert Nurick wrote:
> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Pro reviewers like
> > Phil Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what
> > they are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb
> > enough to defy their boss.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like libel, unless you have personal knowledge
> that this is true.

You don't think photo magazines and sites like dpreview take money and
perks from the big manufactures? Are you serious?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Trapezium wrote:
> >> Bottom line might well be that no-one in the review business can 'afford'
> >> to like Sigma - no matter what their true feelings might be
> >
> > or they are just the worst ?.
>
> Not according to the two reviewers I mentioned - have a read, the main text
> is very enthusiastic, but it all gets mysteriously toned down in the final
> conclusions. It almost makes you wonder why there's no grovelling apology
> to Canon & Nikon for daring to mention the SD10 in the first place!

They probably won't have to mention Sigma DSLRs at all for much longer.


Mission accomplished.

Canon and Nikon really should pass sites like dpreview a couple of
extra bucks for killing Foveon for them, what a pesky little company
that might have been. The last thing this massive Japanese cartel
needs is a snotty little silicon valley startup forcing them move
faster than the horizontal line they have graphed on their easels.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:44:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117315805.495276.216080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Albert Nurick wrote:
>> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Pro reviewers like
>> > Phil Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what
>> > they are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb
>> > enough to defy their boss.
>>
>> That sounds suspiciously like libel, unless you have personal knowledge
>> that this is true.
>
> You don't think photo magazines and sites like dpreview take money and
> perks from the big manufactures? Are you serious?

You can THINK all you like.
-But before statements of fact are made, one should have a shred of
verification.

Personally, I think Steve's Digicams is more prone to the kiss-butt
approach, as I have yet to see a negative review of ANYthing there.

DPreview, on ht eother hand, lists Pros AND CONS for every single camrea
they review, including some comments entirely unflattering--expressing
disappointment, criticism, etc. (Such as lines like, "Come ON Canon!").

These comments are the voice of balance, and point to at the very least...a
basic ability to criticize openly those manufacturers you feel are dictating
reviews. I guarrantee you that Canon does not "instruct" him to say, "Come
ON Canon!" ...or "Are you listening, Canon??" and other such remarks.

-Mark
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117289581.520600.242360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Scott W wrote:
>> The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
>> care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.
>>
>> The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
>> camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.
>
> That is probably true now, but that's also the desired result of black
> balling promising newcomers in the industry. It's the same thing every
> monopolized or well controlled cartel does, whether it'd DeBeers or
> Canon/Nikon.
>
> It is a real shame there isn't an non-paid photo review site available.
> The Consumer Reports' DSLR run down was about as close as we've ever
> come, and maybe not suprisingly the SD9 won 1st place in both image
> quality and ease of use, but finished 2nd overall (behind the S2,
> interestingly Canon and Nikon pulled up the rear) for two reasons
> cited: no JPEG-only shooting mode and it's SA mount.
>

Cartel? A Cartel is defined as:

"A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate
production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members. "

Do you really believe that Nikon and Canon are colluding to fix prices? As
aggresive as they're pricing?

You truly ARE an idiot.

But then we knew that.

Tom
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I'm sure Sigma would LOVE to have an intense one-on-one chat with
> Phillip about his Sigma reviews. Like his absurd asterisking of the
> SD9's 13.72MP output is only "interpolated", as if every other digital
> camera's output isn't interpolated.

what part of 2268x1512 locations confuses you?

as opposed to 3000x2000 locations?
or 4000 x 3000 locations?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> They probably won't have to mention Sigma DSLRs at all for much longer.
>
> Mission accomplished.
>
> Canon and Nikon really should pass sites like dpreview a couple of
> extra bucks for killing Foveon for them,

actually foveon and sigma killed themselves.

what would have happened if
the SD-N-10 had come out, with a nikon mount, and
the SD-C-10, with a canon mount?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Crownfield wrote:
> > > That's right, Canon and company inject massive amounts of money into
> > > these sites in exchange for favorable reviews. Pro reviewers like Phil
> > > Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what they
> > > are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb enough to
> > > defy their boss.
> >
> > that is the only way you can pretend that sigma is so good,
> > and yet no photographic review seems to think so.
>
> You mean no photographic review that was "paid for by Canon and Nikon."
>
> The only objective review (Consumer Reports) rated Sigma #1 in image
> quality. Live with it.

of course.

when I picked sound equipment, non of it was mentioned in comsumers
reports. but 10 years later, when stereo review picked recording
microphones, every mike I picked was in the top 5 selected.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:45:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:
> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > They probably won't have to mention Sigma DSLRs at all for much longer.
> >
> > Mission accomplished.
> >
> > Canon and Nikon really should pass sites like dpreview a couple of
> > extra bucks for killing Foveon for them,
>
> actually foveon and sigma killed themselves.
>
> what would have happened if
> the SD-N-10 had come out, with a nikon mount, and
> the SD-C-10, with a canon mount?

If they had a C/N mount, the review sites would've been paid and
instructed to rail on them even harder. There's no way C/N would put
up with that.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:50:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> I'm not trying to rip you, here...rather give you a heads-up on the photo
> you're presenting as advertising on your site:
> What is up with the skin-tone on that sample shot of the little boy in the
> above web-page?
> His skin goes from a twinge of pink near the cheek...to greenish...bluish(?)
> from the eye up.
> -OK...I just looked at it using the eye-dropper in photoshop. -Most of his
> face actually appears at near grey-scale...with the more pinkish areas
> appearing as slightly wamed grey tone.
> Perhaps you should calibrate your monitor and/or re-do your processing
> set-up.
> It's rather ghostly-looking.

I guess that's what you get with mixed lighting and Canon cameras! Hmmm,
Was it a Canon Camera that took that shot? Maybe it was shot with a P&S
Olympus or even a Nikon. Wait on, It might have been a Samsung P&S
digicam! Who could say? Could you Mark? And moreover, could you claim it
to be a camera problem, processing problem or lighting problem?

Arhhh... A monitor calibration problem. Of course, that's it! I knew I
should have bought a new monitor for that camera, the one on the back is
way too small for such a candid snap to be analyzed and re shot until I
got the colour and lighting just perfect. How long do you reckon a 3
year old would hold a pose like that while you position a few speed
lights and get the brolly unpacked, Mark? Or do you think you'd have a
hope in hell of getting him squeezed up like that a second or even third
time?

All Quips aside... Didn't you understand why that pic is there and the
conversion so distorted? In case it was too subtle, and in hindsight it
probably is... There are plenty of Pros out there with less than
technically perfect shots which still maintain a certain attraction for
their subject value.

Instead of suffering the embarrassment of someone pointing out the green
hair/skin in a $1500 photo session, why not manipulate it into an art
piece and instead of worry about recovering from a disaster, make a
feature of it and up sell the client to canvas? That's just good
business, wouldn't you agree?

Way too many Photographers lose track of the fact that to succeed, they
need to be really good business people, being a really good photographer
is secondary and has very little to do with succeeding in a photography
business. Dare I say, Pixie Photos is an extremely successful
photography business with some absolutely terrible photographers.
--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:57:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:
> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure Sigma would LOVE to have an intense one-on-one chat with
> > Phillip about his Sigma reviews. Like his absurd asterisking of the
> > SD9's 13.72MP output is only "interpolated", as if every other digital
> > camera's output isn't interpolated.
>
> what part of 2268x1512 locations confuses you?

What part of the 1DMkII's only 2M RGB triples confuses you? It's a low
res camera by 3 year old Sigma standards.

> as opposed to 3000x2000 locations?
> or 4000 x 3000 locations?

There are 10.3M unique, 2 dimensional, independent spatial sampling
locations in the SD9 and SD10. Obviously there are 3.43M unique red
locations spread out over the entire sensor's surface, 3.43M unique
green locations spread out over the entire sensor's surface, and 3.43M
unique blue locations spread out over the entire sensor's surface.
That beats the $4000 1DMkII, big time. Not to mention that the
relatively small pixel count of the 1DMkII loses 25% of the total
sensor count to keep interpolation cheap and scalable.

Whether you make tiny little Bayer pixels and wedge them all next to
one another, or make colossal Foveon pixels and layer them, doesn't
change the obvious fact that both technolgies take 3 mutually exclusive
exposures simultaneously. Thus all the pixels in both technologies
represent 100% spatially unique samples in 2D.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:59:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> Since Sigma is the largest (volume) aftermarket lens manufacturer,

They are the largest independent lens maker, but Tamron is really the
only other one. Neither means much to a camera review site or mag.

> I have a
> feeling they have nearly as much clout as the camera manufacturers. In a
> world where one cannot afford to offend anyone, then opinions on everything
> are suspect. The great reviews that Sigma lenses get (or Tamron, or Tokina)
> have just as much chance of being biased as good reviews of what ever camera
> is being reviewed. OTOH, damning with faint praise may be the only refuge
> of a writer nervous about offending the manufacturer of whatever item that
> writer is reviewing...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 9:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> <george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117289581.520600.242360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Scott W wrote:
> >> The Sigma sales are so low that I double either Canon or Nikon would
> >> care at all if someone were to give the Sigma DSLR's a good review.
> >>
> >> The idea of the camera is great but in the end it is not that good of
> >> camera and not real competition for either Nikon or Canon.
> >
> > That is probably true now, but that's also the desired result of black
> > balling promising newcomers in the industry. It's the same thing every
> > monopolized or well controlled cartel does, whether it'd DeBeers or
> > Canon/Nikon.
> >
> > It is a real shame there isn't an non-paid photo review site available.
> > The Consumer Reports' DSLR run down was about as close as we've ever
> > come, and maybe not suprisingly the SD9 won 1st place in both image
> > quality and ease of use, but finished 2nd overall (behind the S2,
> > interestingly Canon and Nikon pulled up the rear) for two reasons
> > cited: no JPEG-only shooting mode and it's SA mount.
> >
>
> Cartel? A Cartel is defined as:
>
> "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate
> production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members. "

Exactly.

> Do you really believe that Nikon and Canon are colluding to fix prices? As
> aggresive as they're pricing?

They are a classic Japanese keiretsu/zaibatsu business model. Anyone
who's done business over there understands exactly where they are
coming from. If you could get a truly straight answer from a Sigma
exec (never will happen to an outsider) they would tell you that their
strongest loyalties lie with their homeland business structures (i.e.
Canon/Nikon/Fuji) than to their foreign business ties with say, a
Foveon.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 9:34:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Pro reviewers like
> Phil Askey of dpreview.com, imaging-resource, etc, print exactly what
> they are told to print by the big manufacturers. They aren't dumb
> enough to defy their boss.

That sounds suspiciously like libel, unless you have personal knowledge
that this is true.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 11:02:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> <george_preddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117324657.183661.240590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SNIP
> > What part of the 1DMkII's only 2M RGB triples confuses you?
>
> The triples part. That is not how Bayer demosaicing is done, as has
> been explained to you several times before. Not only are you ignorent,
> you seem incapable of learning (but then again you are probably just
> trolling, since statistically only few people are that moronic).
>
> > It's a low res camera by 3 year old Sigma standards.
>
> It's a VERY low res camera by today's standards. What happened, or
> rather didn't happen?
>
> >> as opposed to 3000x2000 locations?
> >> or 4000 x 3000 locations?
> >
> > There are 10.3M unique, 2 dimensional, independent spatial sampling
> > locations in the SD9 and SD10.
>
> No, you are wrong, again, as usual. They are dependent on their
> physical location (=spatial).

As I said, but it flew over your headyou, there are 10.3M unique 2D
locations, obviously, since each of the 3 the RGB exposures sample from
fully mutually exclusive populations. The only advantage/difference
you achieve by layering indpendent samples vertically vs horizontally
is that Foveon pixels can be huge and Bayer pixels have to be tiny.

Each pixel obviously samples from a unique 2D location, why in the
world would Foveon stack a red sensor on top of another red sensor???
Don't you understand, yet, that 3 independent exposures are being taken
simultaneously? Or do you think that all the blue sensors, for
example, are stacked on a single 2D location?
May 29, 2005 1:59:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4298F328.4C6E@cox.net...
> george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> They probably won't have to mention Sigma DSLRs at all for much longer.
>>
>> Mission accomplished.
>>
>> Canon and Nikon really should pass sites like dpreview a couple of
>> extra bucks for killing Foveon for them,
>
> actually foveon and sigma killed themselves.
>
> what would have happened if
> the SD-N-10 had come out, with a nikon mount, and
> the SD-C-10, with a canon mount?

It would have still been a shitty little 3.43 megapixel dSLR..
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:38:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Crownfield wrote:
> > george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure Sigma would LOVE to have an intense one-on-one chat with
> > > Phillip about his Sigma reviews. Like his absurd asterisking of the
> > > SD9's 13.72MP output is only "interpolated", as if every other digital
> > > camera's output isn't interpolated.
> >
> > what part of 2268x1512 locations confuses you?
>
> What part of the 1DMkII's only 2M RGB triples confuses you? It's a low
> res camera by 3 year old Sigma standards.
>
> > as opposed to 3000x2000 locations?
> > or 4000 x 3000 locations?
>
> There are 10.3M unique, 2 dimensional, independent spatial sampling

no.

there are 3m spacially distributed sampling sites in the x-y plane.

for each of them there are 2 more colocated sampling sites that are not
spatially unique in the x-y plane.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:41:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>

> As I said, but it flew over your headyou, there are 10.3M unique 2D
> locations,

nonsense. absolute childish nonsense.

its clear even to a 6 year old child.

there are only 3 mp that are unique in the x-y plane.
that is 2268x1512 locations.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:42:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Crownfield wrote:
> > george_preddy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > They probably won't have to mention Sigma DSLRs at all for much longer.
> > >
> > > Mission accomplished.
> > >
> > > Canon and Nikon really should pass sites like dpreview a couple of
> > > extra bucks for killing Foveon for them,
> >
> > actually foveon and sigma killed themselves.
> >
> > what would have happened if
> > the SD-N-10 had come out, with a nikon mount, and
> > the SD-C-10, with a canon mount?
>
> If they had a C/N mount, the review sites would've been paid and
> instructed to rail on them even harder. There's no way C/N would put
> up with that.

sour grapes!
again, nonsense.
!