Sigma SD 10 Newbie Help
Lex Mathews
from someone who has experience, yet isn't selling me a camera or lenses . .
.
I just got a Sigma SD 10, and am very disappointed (been waiting years to
get a camera with this technology). I realize there are many ways to
improve a photograph by experience and skill, but the initial photos that I
took outdoors in bright light are nowhere NEAR the resolution and detail of
the photographs I have seen on the web. Yes, I was using the highest
resolution setting and shooting at 100 ISO. I tried a wide variety of
apertures, shutter speeds, mirror up, etc.
MY QUESTION:
With the camera, I got one of those cheap zoom lens kits (28-70 and 70-300),
and used those to take the pictures.
Will I see a DRAMATIC difference if I just go with a high-quality prime
lens, I was thinking the 28mm EX. Or will it just be a subtle difference?
I would very much appreciate a response. If you are interested, I would be
happy to send you some test pictures.
Thanks so much.
- Lex Mathews
Randall Ainsworth
Mathews <lex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Will I see a DRAMATIC difference if I just go with a high-quality prime
> lens, I was thinking the 28mm EX. Or will it just be a subtle difference?
No. Get your money back if you can.
Drazen Stojcic / BUNTOVNIK
> I have a simple question I would very much appreciate an honest
> answer to from someone who has experience, yet isn't selling me a
> camera or lenses . . .
I don't understand why exactly did you go for the Sigma SD10, since she was
thumbed down by many reviewers. Why didn't you pick up Canon 10D, 300D or
Nikon D70 - all of these cameras are way better than Sigma. I have seen the
fullsize images from Sigma, and they just don't live up to either the
expectations or competition. Sure the dust-proof case in front of the sensor
is a nice thing (don't understand why other manufactures haven't implemented
this right from the begining) but in the image quality department I see
nothing to wish for.
Also, these Canon / Nikon dSLR's all have a huge lens line-up to choose
from, while Sigma takes only Sigma lenses. Same goes for other equipment,
such as flashes, remotes, etc.
--
------------------------------
online photo portfolio
www.stojcic.com
" If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph
the event, what film would you use?" - Anonymous
Mr 645
The SD-10 can certainly deliver excellent images
Randall Ainsworth
<mr...@aol.comREMOVE> wrote:
> The SD-10 can certainly deliver excellent images
Oh yeah? When did they start doing that?
Lex Mathews
have a real dislike for Sigma. Since you probably have more experience with
digital cameras than I do, I have to respect your opinion.
But I also have to weigh that with three other factors: 1) There are lots of
people who are equally passionate about the Sigma SD-10, but in a positive
way. 2) I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology.
3) I have seen lots of photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD-10s. They
look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution. Although I'm
sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.
Thanks for your time.
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:240720041927078253%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Lex Mathews
have a real dislike for Sigma. Since you probably have more experience with
digital cameras than I do, I have to respect your opinion.
But I also have to weigh that with three other factors: 1) There are lots of
people who are equally passionate about the Sigma SD-10, but in a positive
way. 2) I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology.
3) I have seen lots of photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD-10s. They
look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution. Although I'm
sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.
Thanks for your time.
"Drazen Stojcic / BUNTOVNIK" <drazen...@stojcic.com> wrote in message
news:ce0a49$3lp$1...@news1.xnet.hr...
Lex Mathews
to 3 factors: 1) I am learning that I was using the weakest part of an
inexpensive zoom lens. I took some more time and used some different focal
lengths and started to get some images that are getting closer to what I was
looking for. 2) I am learning a little more about some post-processing
options 3) I do think a quality prime lens will make a difference - I have
just ordered a 28 mm EX, and will take a look at that.
Thanks for your time.
"Mr 645" <mr...@aol.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:20040725103726...@mb-m19.aol.com...
Drazen Stojcic / BUNTOVNIK
news:WjSMc.13880$f4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I appreciate your response, and have read many posts from people who seem
to
> have a real dislike for Sigma. Since you probably have more experience
with
> digital cameras than I do, I have to respect your opinion.
>
> But I also have to weigh that with three other factors: 1) There are lots
of
> people who are equally passionate about the Sigma SD-10, but in a
positive
> way. 2) I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology.
> 3) I have seen lots of photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD-10s.
They
> look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution. Although I'm
> sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.
>
> Thanks for your time.
Hi Lex, sorry if I sounded a bit hard in my previous post. I didn't mean to
preach, and if you're happy with what you get out of the SD-10, than that's
the most important thing that counts.
When Foveon showed up I was every bit excited as the rest of the gang, but
somehow I feel that Sigma just wasn't big enough company to push the new
sensor into the market and make it wide used. I really like the 3-layer
concept of the Foveon, but I see no real future for it unless the Sigma
finds a way around the expensive technology, the limited mpixel count, and
things like RAW-only cameras.
I know I haven't been much help, but hope there's somebody else who can
answer you question. All I can say is - I'm pretty sure that same rule goes
for any dSLR in the world: buy the best lenses you can afford, because in
the end it all comes down to glass - not CMOS and CCD's and Foveons...
Drazen
Randall Ainsworth
Mathews <lex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But I also have to weigh that with three other factors: 1) There are lots of
> people who are equally passionate about the Sigma SD-10, but in a positive
> way.
Name one besides George Preddy.
> 2) I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology.
Can't imagine what it would be.
> 3) I have seen lots of photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD-10s. They
> look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution. Although I'm
> sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.
I haven't seen any. But you're right about polishing a turd.
Lex Mathews
your smarty-pants mindset, and I'm sure you think you know more than all of
the people you can find at the sites listed below, but the answers to all
three of your responses can be found at:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/
or
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027
or
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3212.htm
or
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/sd10/english/gallery/index.htm
or
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sigma/sd10-review/index.shtml
or
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SSD10/SD10A.HTM
or
http://ntotrr.smugmug.com/gallery/139399/1/6231169
I will not include the contact information from half a dozen other
experienced professional photographers who wrote very encouraging and
supportive comments that use and like the SD-10 - I'm sure you would dismiss
them as being part of some vast conspiracy of people who are stupid enough
to disagree with you.
By the way, I have no idea who George Preddy is, never heard of him - but he
must have amazing power over your life.
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:250720041317151358%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Randall Ainsworth
Mathews <lex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I doubt very seriously if you are truly open to anything that conflicts with
> your smarty-pants mindset, and I'm sure you think you know more than all of
> the people you can find at the sites listed below, but the answers to all
> three of your responses can be found at:
Smarty-pants. Listen, junior. I've been doing photography since 1966
in one form or another, many years as a business. I've seen a lot of
Sigma products and am well aware of what the company makes and who they
market to. Their cameras are junk. But if you like 'em, what do I
give a shit? Just don't try yanking my crank and telling me they're
great, because I know better.
> I will not include the contact information from half a dozen other
> experienced professional photographers who wrote very encouraging and
> supportive comments that use and like the SD-10 - I'm sure you would dismiss
> them as being part of some vast conspiracy of people who are stupid enough
> to disagree with you.
I don't know of any pros that use Sigmas, and I know a lot of 'em.
> By the way, I have no idea who George Preddy is, never heard of him - but he
> must have amazing power over your life.
Haven't been doing newsgroups long, eh?
Lex Mathews
2) You posted a childish rude response.
3) I gave you a courteous, thoughtful response.
4) You gave another childish, rude response, and challenged me to back up my
thoughts, and in my response I said I doubted you were truly open to any
information that was contrary to your opinions. You proved my point.
5) I put up - now it's time for you to shut up. Or better yet, go argue
with all the people out there at those sites I provided who disagree with
you. Contact the hundreds of people who put those gorgeous photos up on
some of those web sites and tell them their cameras are junk. Call the
contributing writers to the photo magazines who reviewed the camera and tell
them you are right and they are wrong. Contact all the professional
photographers who post their SD-10 pictures on some of those sites I
referred you to, call them Junior, and tell them about how you are more of a
professional than they are.
By the way, just because there are a lot of people out there who like the
camera, it doesn't prove to me that it is a good camera. But I'm trying to
take all sides into account - something you ought to try.
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:250720041632524030%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Randall Ainsworth
Mathews <lex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1) I posted a courteous request for helpful information.
>
> 2) You posted a childish rude response.
I gave you an honest opinion based on fact.
> 3) I gave you a courteous, thoughtful response.
>
> 4) You gave another childish, rude response, and challenged me to back up my
> thoughts, and in my response I said I doubted you were truly open to any
> information that was contrary to your opinions. You proved my point.
You inferred that I was an idiot. I explained that I didn't need to
step in dog crap to know it was something I didn't want to do.
> 5) I put up - now it's time for you to shut up. Or better yet, go argue
> with all the people out there at those sites I provided who disagree with
> you. Contact the hundreds of people who put those gorgeous photos up on
> some of those web sites and tell them their cameras are junk. Call the
> contributing writers to the photo magazines who reviewed the camera and tell
> them you are right and they are wrong. Contact all the professional
> photographers who post their SD-10 pictures on some of those sites I
> referred you to, call them Junior, and tell them about how you are more of a
> professional than they are.
You're obviously a newbie in these parts. I know what the Sigma is and
the quality of images it produces. And so does anybody that knows
anything about photography. But have fun with your kiddie toy.
> By the way, just because there are a lot of people out there who like the
> camera, it doesn't prove to me that it is a good camera. But I'm trying to
> take all sides into account - something you ought to try.
Maybe I've looked at it and made a decision. Does a person have to
forever stay on the fence and weigh options or is it possible to look
at something and actually make up your mind one way or the other?
Lex Mathews
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:250720041858497529%r...@nospam.techline.com...
X-Ray-Wa
On 26-Jul-2004, "Lex Mathews" <lex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But I also have to weigh that with three other factors: 1) There are lots
> of
> people who are equally passionate about the Sigma SD-10, but in a
> positive
> way. 2) I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology.
> 3) I have seen lots of photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD-10s.
> They
> look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution. Although I'm
> sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.
I was reading a review about the Sigma Camera and they said
that the X3 Foveon Technology is great but in the wrong camera
The Sigma Camera didn't give the X3 Foveon Technology justice
Is there any other camera that uses the X3
Lex Mathews
a consumer-oriented camera, but not sure - check the Sigma website
"X-Ray-Wa" <X-...@ask.com.au> wrote in message
news:2mk2q2F...@uni-berlin.de...
Steven Scharf
> Polaroid is coming out with one in the fall, but I think it is even more of
> a consumer-oriented camera, but not sure - check the Sigma website
The World Wide Resources camera will be marketed with the Polaroid
name on it, it really has nothing to do with Polaroid though. It's a
1.5 megapixel, entry level camera. It should end up selling for
$100-150, given the price erosion in the marked for everything less
than 3 megapixels.