Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy

On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote:
$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Jul 16, 2:40*am, Bruce wrote:
: On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich
: wrote:
:
: On Jul 15, 7:09*pm, Me wrote:
: On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? *Are they insane? *As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
:
: Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
: will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
: You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
: performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
: assumption. *So perhaps it's you who is insane?
:
: So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? *Do you know any other
: lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or
: Leica? *
:
: It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus
: Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled
: Four Thirds sensors.
:
: Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2
: sensor a waste because of their format.

How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is
towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no
longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty
much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect
ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs.

Bob

On 17/07/2010 9:41 a.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
: On Jul 16, 2:40 am, wrote:
: On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT),
: wrote:
:
: On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, wrote:
: On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
:
: Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
: will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
: You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
: performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
: assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane?
:
: So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? Do you know any other
: lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or
: Leica?
:
: It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus
: Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled
: Four Thirds sensors.
:
: Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2
: sensor a waste because of their format.

How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is
towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no
longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty
much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect
ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs.

Perhaps he thinks the trend is a plot.

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...

How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is
towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no
longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is
pretty
much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4
aspect
ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs.

Bob

Computer screens are, to put it mildly, used a lot in business, where
squarish screens are usually more convenient than landscape.

In the office, I use 2 x 5:4 as you correctly point out, for convenience.
(I'm a computer programmer.)

At home I use 2 landscape monitors.

--
N

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
: Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
: will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
: You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
: performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
: assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane?

Adorama doesn't have it, but says they'd sell it for $669 if they did. B&H and
Hunt's don't appear to have heard of it yet.

I once paid about $700 for a Sigma telephoto, and so far it's been worth it.
But $670 for a 3rd-party walking-around lens does seem pretty steep. Sigma's
previous walker, the 18-50mm f/2.8, goes for about $250 less. Maybe they're
trying to hold the price up until they run out of the old one.

Bob

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich wrote:
: Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so
: any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.

Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no proof,
I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too wide
than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels than
cropping the same amount in the short dimension does.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:
: Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so
: any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.

Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no
proof,
I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too
wide
than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels
than
cropping the same amount in the short dimension does.

Bob

I've read a lot of nonsense in this group and that's up there with the best
of it.

Have you ever turned your camera through 90 degrees?

--
N

On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" said:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich wrote:
: Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so
: any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.

Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no proof,
I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too wide
than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels than
cropping the same amount in the short dimension does.

Bob

I've read a lot of nonsense in this group and that's up there with the
best of it.

Have you ever turned your camera through 90 degrees?

....but then you keep getting shots of your feet.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010071720124929560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" said:


...but then you keep getting shots of your feet.


Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating?

--
N

On 2010-07-17 20:37:27 -0700, "N" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010071720124929560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" said:


...but then you keep getting shots of your feet.


Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating?

Actually yes, but that was about 30 years ago.
I have since moved on to other things, some of which include an
occasional smile.

--
Regards,

Savageduck