Sigma SD 10 Newbie Help UPDATE

Hi, folks - I wanted to update you on the original post (copied below), and
thank all of you who gave helpful advice, even if it was not what I wanted
to hear. Thanks very much for your thoughts and advice. I have gotten lots
of great responses from people from different newsgroups and from another
email I sent. With a few exceptions, what a nice group of helpful people.

I also got lots of posts from people who have a real dislike for Sigma,
although in some cases I wasn't sure if it was the company in general or the
Foveon X3 technology in the SD9 and SD10 in particular they were commenting
on. Since most of them probably have more experience with digital cameras
than I do, I have to respect their opinions, even though some of them were
kind of . . . weird.

But I also discovered there are lots of people who are equally passionate
about the Sigma SD9 and SD10, but in a positive way.

I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology, since I
have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD9s and
SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution and
great color. Although I'm sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't
polish a turd.

As far as I can tell at this point after EXTENSIVE experimentation, I think
my unhappiness is coming down to 3 factors:

1) I am learning that many of the shots that I was disappointed in were
caused at least partly because I was using the weakest part of an
inexpensive zoom lens, and didn't bracket my shots enough to give me the
options I needed. I took some more time and took different kinds of shots
using 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 post-processing options and techniques,
and although I wish that it wasn't such a complex endeavor, I guess that's
what it takes.

3) I do think a quality prime lens will make a noticeable difference - I
have just ordered a 28 mm EX, and will take a look at that.

I am a television producer/director by trade, mostly documentaries and
educational programs, and although my productions are almost always shot in
video, sometimes I am lucky enough to go work in 16mm film, which I love.
So, both as a producer and a hobbyist photographer, I have been hoping that
the SD 10 (i.e., Phoveon X3 technology) might be the next-step breakthrough
between digital and film I have been hoping for, but I guess the jury is
still out on that. I was one of the first people I knew of to start using a
digital still camera (a 1 megapixel HP) when they first started appearing a
long time ago.

I also wanted to provide some links about the SD9 and SD10 that I found
during my research in case any of you are interested.

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

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3212.htm

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/sd10/en...lery/index.htm

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/si...ew/index.shtml

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SSD10/SD10A.HTM

http://ntotrr.smugmug.com/gallery/139399/1/6231169

Thanks for your time,

- Lex Mathews



ORIGINAL POST

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 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

"Lex Mathews" wrote in message
ink.net...
I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology, since I
have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD9s and
SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution
and
great color. Although I'm sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't
polish a turd.

I don't know about the Sigma cameras, Lex, but you can polish a turd. I
just did it myself using Photoshop 7.

Simon

"Lex Mathews" wrote in message
ink.net...
I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology, since I
have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD9s and
SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution
and
great color. Although I'm sure they were heavily post-processed, you can't
polish a turd.

I don't know about the Sigma cameras, Lex, but you can polish a turd. I
just did it myself using Photoshop 7.

Simon

"Lex Mathews" wrote in
ink.net:

I also got lots of posts from people who have a real dislike for
Sigma, although in some cases I wasn't sure if it was the company in
general or the Foveon X3 technology in the SD9 and SD10 in particular
they were commenting on. Since most of them probably have more
experience with digital cameras than I do, I have to respect their
opinions, even though some of them were kind of . . . weird.

But I also discovered there are lots of people who are equally
passionate about the Sigma SD9 and SD10, but in a positive way.

This is your view. I do respect that - but it is somewhat skewd IMHO.
The weirdest people here are definitely pro Foveon. You had the bad
fortune to get some weird ansers to your post by one person that
was definitely weird and hated Sigma. This is not the norm though.
Most Sigma threads are dominated by weird pro Foveon posters.
There are not many of them either, maybe three - it depends of
the definition of weird.

I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology,
since I have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with
Sigma SD9s and SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously
have high resolution and great color. Although I'm sure they were
heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.

I have already answered to this. But - as you make a new thread
stating the same thing I feel that I have to answer it again.

Yes - there are gorgeous Sigma pictures out there. There are
also gorgeous pictures taken with other cameras, both film and
digital.

Now - Sigma pictures possess a quality that normally Bayer
pictures don't - they have high contrast sharpness at pixel
level. That looks very flashing; it adds to a kind of freshness
to the pictures. So - if that is a desirable thing, then it
is tempting to get a Sigma camera. But, there are some things
to consider before doing that:

1. The Sigma camera is only 3.4 Mpixels. Downscaling the
6 Mpixel pictures from the Bayer DSLRs will give you
just as flashing and sharp looking pictures. This downscaling
will remove information - so the original 6 Mpixel
Bayer contains more information than the 3.4 Mpixel
Sigma.

2. Bayer pictures use an anti alias filter. Those filters
are not perfects, so they decrease the local contrast.
Some sharpening with USM will bring back the local
contrast - thus making the picture more flashing.

3. Speaking of anti alias filter. Such a filter is needed
if you want to faithfully record the picture. The Sigma
camera has none; the sharpness you see is partly faked.
You can see this if you look closely at almost any
sharp Sigma picture. If you don't care. it is not a
problem. But I do - so I would not consider a camera
without anti alias filter.


/Roland

"Lex Mathews" wrote in
ink.net:

I also got lots of posts from people who have a real dislike for
Sigma, although in some cases I wasn't sure if it was the company in
general or the Foveon X3 technology in the SD9 and SD10 in particular
they were commenting on. Since most of them probably have more
experience with digital cameras than I do, I have to respect their
opinions, even though some of them were kind of . . . weird.

But I also discovered there are lots of people who are equally
passionate about the Sigma SD9 and SD10, but in a positive way.

This is your view. I do respect that - but it is somewhat skewd IMHO.
The weirdest people here are definitely pro Foveon. You had the bad
fortune to get some weird ansers to your post by one person that
was definitely weird and hated Sigma. This is not the norm though.
Most Sigma threads are dominated by weird pro Foveon posters.
There are not many of them either, maybe three - it depends of
the definition of weird.

I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology,
since I have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with
Sigma SD9s and SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously
have high resolution and great color. Although I'm sure they were
heavily post-processed, you can't polish a turd.

I have already answered to this. But - as you make a new thread
stating the same thing I feel that I have to answer it again.

Yes - there are gorgeous Sigma pictures out there. There are
also gorgeous pictures taken with other cameras, both film and
digital.

Now - Sigma pictures possess a quality that normally Bayer
pictures don't - they have high contrast sharpness at pixel
level. That looks very flashing; it adds to a kind of freshness
to the pictures. So - if that is a desirable thing, then it
is tempting to get a Sigma camera. But, there are some things
to consider before doing that:

1. The Sigma camera is only 3.4 Mpixels. Downscaling the
6 Mpixel pictures from the Bayer DSLRs will give you
just as flashing and sharp looking pictures. This downscaling
will remove information - so the original 6 Mpixel
Bayer contains more information than the 3.4 Mpixel
Sigma.

2. Bayer pictures use an anti alias filter. Those filters
are not perfects, so they decrease the local contrast.
Some sharpening with USM will bring back the local
contrast - thus making the picture more flashing.

3. Speaking of anti alias filter. Such a filter is needed
if you want to faithfully record the picture. The Sigma
camera has none; the sharpness you see is partly faked.
You can see this if you look closely at almost any
sharp Sigma picture. If you don't care. it is not a
problem. But I do - so I would not consider a camera
without anti alias filter.


/Roland

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
3. Speaking of anti alias filter. Such a filter is needed
if you want to faithfully record the picture. The Sigma
camera has none; the sharpness you see is partly faked.
You can see this if you look closely at almost any
sharp Sigma picture. If you don't care. it is not a
problem. But I do - so I would not consider a camera
without anti alias filter.

I didn't believe an anti-alias filter was needed for a foveon sensor.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
3. Speaking of anti alias filter. Such a filter is needed
if you want to faithfully record the picture. The Sigma
camera has none; the sharpness you see is partly faked.
You can see this if you look closely at almost any
sharp Sigma picture. If you don't care. it is not a
problem. But I do - so I would not consider a camera
without anti alias filter.

I didn't believe an anti-alias filter was needed for a foveon sensor.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
3. Speaking of anti alias filter. Such a filter is needed
if you want to faithfully record the picture. The Sigma
camera has none; the sharpness you see is partly faked.
You can see this if you look closely at almost any
sharp Sigma picture. If you don't care. it is not a
problem. But I do - so I would not consider a camera
without anti alias filter.

I didn't believe an anti-alias filter was needed for a foveon sensor.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

ah haa haa haa hee hee hee

Arty

"S Ramirez" wrote in
message .. .

"Lex Mathews" wrote in message
ink.net...
I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology, since
I
have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD9s and
SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution
and
great color. Although I'm sure they were heavily post-processed, you
can't
polish a turd.

I don't know about the Sigma cameras, Lex, but you can polish a turd. I
just did it myself using Photoshop 7.

Simon

ah haa haa haa hee hee hee

Arty

"S Ramirez" wrote in
message .. .

"Lex Mathews" wrote in message
ink.net...
I feel like there must be some value to the X3 Foveon technology, since
I
have seen lots of great photographs on the web taken with Sigma SD9s and
SD10s. They look absolutely gorgeous and obviously have high resolution
and
great color. Although I'm sure they were heavily post-processed, you
can't
polish a turd.

I don't know about the Sigma cameras, Lex, but you can polish a turd. I
just did it myself using Photoshop 7.

Simon