A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 12th 12, 02:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mr. Strat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,089
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

In article
,
RichA wrote:

From 100-800 ISO, it looks good. High resolution, flat colour, no
issues. Noise above that is a problem. But IMO, in the default
comparison of 4 cameras, the Sony 77 (24mp) looks worse at 1600-3200.
It is a very noisy camera. Below 1600, the Sigma's noise (at least in
these shots) looks clean and monochromatic, luminance noise only. I
guess further tests would be needed. Apart from that, it is kind of
neat seeing resolution tests with no moire, both in-terms of colour
and pattern. For $2300, at lower ISO's it looks like it would make a
good high-resolution camera. Maybe they should have introduced it at
that price, instead of $8000? Too bad you can't put Nikon lenses on
it, though there are some M42 adapters for it.


Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked ass.
Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.
  #2  
Old April 12th 12, 03:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:36 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: In article
: ,
: RichA wrote:
:
: From 100-800 ISO, it looks good. High resolution, flat colour, no
: issues. Noise above that is a problem. But IMO, in the default
: comparison of 4 cameras, the Sony 77 (24mp) looks worse at 1600-3200.
: It is a very noisy camera. Below 1600, the Sigma's noise (at least in
: these shots) looks clean and monochromatic, luminance noise only. I
: guess further tests would be needed. Apart from that, it is kind of
: neat seeing resolution tests with no moire, both in-terms of colour
: and pattern. For $2300, at lower ISO's it looks like it would make a
: good high-resolution camera. Maybe they should have introduced it at
: that price, instead of $8000? Too bad you can't put Nikon lenses on
: it, though there are some M42 adapters for it.
:
: Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked ass.
: Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.

I've had pretty good luck with several Sigma lenses (carefully avoiding any
that have a bad reputation or whose zoom ranges challenge common sense). But I
can't imagine buying one of their cameras.

Bob
  #3  
Old April 12th 12, 10:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

Robert Coe writes:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:36 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:


: Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked ass.
: Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.

I've had pretty good luck with several Sigma lenses (carefully avoiding any
that have a bad reputation or whose zoom ranges challenge common sense). But I
can't imagine buying one of their cameras.


Well, I *am* a cheapskate.

The Sigma 12-24 full-frame has no competitor (at least, nothing that
reaches the extreme of 12mm). I got mine for $800 or some such. It's
been very handy to have (I lost my wide-angle when I went full-frame, my
Tokina 12-24 DX).

The Sigma 120-400 got a bunch of better reviews than the Nikon 80-400
when I bought it, and again was $800 or some such (I believe one was
$750 and one was $850 but I forget which was which) compared to (then)
$1300 for the Nikon. Again, this was an unexpected cost of going back
to FX unexpectedly; I had gotten very used to having the angle of view
of a 300mm lens on full-frame, but actually had only a 200mm when I went
to full frame.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #4  
Old April 13th 12, 02:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

Bruce wrote in
:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Robert Coe writes:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:36 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked
: ass. Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.

I've had pretty good luck with several Sigma lenses (carefully
avoiding any that have a bad reputation or whose zoom ranges
challenge common sense). But I can't imagine buying one of their
cameras.


Well, I *am* a cheapskate.

The Sigma 12-24 full-frame has no competitor (at least, nothing that
reaches the extreme of 12mm). I got mine for $800 or some such. It's
been very handy to have (I lost my wide-angle when I went full-frame,
my Tokina 12-24 DX).

The Sigma 120-400 got a bunch of better reviews than the Nikon 80-400
when I bought it, and again was $800 or some such (I believe one was
$750 and one was $850 but I forget which was which) compared to (then)
$1300 for the Nikon.



Sigma lenses get far better reviews than they deserve because the
review samples are carefully hand-assembled with particular attention
paid to centering the lens elements.

They are therefore unrepresentative of the Sigma lenses sold to
real-world buyers which suffer from many flaws of which decentered
lens elements is the second most frequent (and serious) after
mechanical build quality. You don't get what you don't pay for.

It is almost impossible to find a Sigma lens from a store that
performs as well as one reviewed in a magazine. The fact that the
lenses are then sometimes offered to reviewers at extremely attractive
prices (not unadjacent to $0.00) is an added incentive to write a
favourable review. The promise of ongoing advertising revenue for the
publication helps seal the deal.


That is the key, the advertising $ potential is the hold back, rather
than being supplied lenses at good prices, except perhaps for very
expensive lenses. They could easily buy a lens from a store, review it,
sell it second hand. If the thing included decentering, they could use
that in the review, along with Sigma's response when they complained
about it.
Another problem with review sites, even those run by amateurs with money
is they need the products too soon. So they have to have access to the
manufacturers which means they are beholding to them.
  #5  
Old April 13th 12, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview


"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...
Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked ass.
Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.


What sort of "cheapskate" pays $8,000 for a camera? :-)

Trevor.


  #6  
Old April 13th 12, 04:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

In article , Bruce
wrote:

The Sigma 12-24mm is a better than average Sigma lens. I had two
replaced under Sigma UK's generous three-year warranty on account of
build quality issues. I sold the third lens (second replacement)
after only a few weeks because I was selling off all my Nikon gear, so
I never got to know if it stayed together for longer than the others.


if that's better than average i'd hate to see what average and below
average is.

I have never used the Sigma 120-400mm


it's very unreliable. lensrentals reports something like a 50% defect
rate.

but almost any brand of
telephoto zoom lens could improve on the woeful performance of the
80-400mm Nikkor which was made by a contractor


bull****.

- and not particularly
well. It was/is unsharp at any focal length and aperture.


bull****. yours was defective.

it's not that great past 300 or so and it's slow (non-afs) but
otherwise it's ok. it is long overdue for replacement though.
  #7  
Old April 13th 12, 09:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

Rich writes:

Bruce wrote in
:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Robert Coe writes:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:36 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked
: ass. Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.

I've had pretty good luck with several Sigma lenses (carefully
avoiding any that have a bad reputation or whose zoom ranges
challenge common sense). But I can't imagine buying one of their
cameras.

Well, I *am* a cheapskate.

The Sigma 12-24 full-frame has no competitor (at least, nothing that
reaches the extreme of 12mm). I got mine for $800 or some such. It's
been very handy to have (I lost my wide-angle when I went full-frame,
my Tokina 12-24 DX).

The Sigma 120-400 got a bunch of better reviews than the Nikon 80-400
when I bought it, and again was $800 or some such (I believe one was
$750 and one was $850 but I forget which was which) compared to (then)
$1300 for the Nikon.



Sigma lenses get far better reviews than they deserve because the
review samples are carefully hand-assembled with particular attention
paid to centering the lens elements.

They are therefore unrepresentative of the Sigma lenses sold to
real-world buyers which suffer from many flaws of which decentered
lens elements is the second most frequent (and serious) after
mechanical build quality. You don't get what you don't pay for.

It is almost impossible to find a Sigma lens from a store that
performs as well as one reviewed in a magazine. The fact that the
lenses are then sometimes offered to reviewers at extremely attractive
prices (not unadjacent to $0.00) is an added incentive to write a
favourable review. The promise of ongoing advertising revenue for the
publication helps seal the deal.


That is the key, the advertising $ potential is the hold back, rather
than being supplied lenses at good prices, except perhaps for very
expensive lenses. They could easily buy a lens from a store, review it,
sell it second hand. If the thing included decentering, they could use
that in the review, along with Sigma's response when they complained
about it.
Another problem with review sites, even those run by amateurs with money
is they need the products too soon. So they have to have access to the
manufacturers which means they are beholding to them.


Yes, to actually do a competent job they need to obtain *multiple*
samples through *normal retail channels*. Consumer Reports knows how to
do this, and takes the time / expense, even with things as expensive as
cars.

It's absolutely true that the consistency from lens to lens is one of
the important attributes of "quality" manufacturing. And examining one
sample tells you nothing about this; one hand-tuned sample tells you
less than nothing.

I take reviews based on a single sample, as is typicl of photo gear, to
represent the best possible performance that could be hoped for in a
product.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #8  
Old April 13th 12, 09:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

On 2012-04-12 22:52 , Trevor wrote:
"Mr. wrote in message
...
Does anyone care about Sigma? Their cameras have always sucked ass.
Only idiots and cheapskates buy their products.


What sort of "cheapskate" pays $8,000 for a camera? :-)


Over the many years, I've never seen a Sigma camera body (film or
digital) in use anywhere.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #9  
Old April 13th 12, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

nospam writes:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

The Sigma 12-24mm is a better than average Sigma lens. I had two
replaced under Sigma UK's generous three-year warranty on account of
build quality issues. I sold the third lens (second replacement)
after only a few weeks because I was selling off all my Nikon gear, so
I never got to know if it stayed together for longer than the others.


if that's better than average i'd hate to see what average and below
average is.


I've dealt with two samples, my own and one that I borrowed some years
earlier (and used only on DX then). Both were really quite good.

I have never used the Sigma 120-400mm


it's very unreliable. lensrentals reports something like a 50% defect
rate.


They certainly give lenses quite a workout. I'm much less hard on the
ones I own.

I couldn't consider buying the 200-400/4 from Nikon (though I'd have
loved to; the stop faster is of interest, and it's got a great rep).
But I didn't have $5000 available (and rarely do, as it turns out).

Possibly I should have just gotten Nikon's 1.4x and 2x converters (I
ended up getting the 1.4x anyway) and using them with the 70-200/2.8. I
don't have the 2x, so I don't know if the 70-200/2.8 with the 2x is
better or worse than the Sigma at 400mm.

A friend has the Nikon 80-400, but we haven't done comparative tests (he
uses it on a DX body, so just comparing to his photos isn't very useful
a test).

but almost any brand of
telephoto zoom lens could improve on the woeful performance of the
80-400mm Nikkor which was made by a contractor


bull****.

- and not particularly
well. It was/is unsharp at any focal length and aperture.


bull****. yours was defective.

it's not that great past 300 or so and it's slow (non-afs) but
otherwise it's ok. it is long overdue for replacement though.


Yeah, we've been expecting it for years.

(And the Sigma IS AFS, and has IS (Sigma calls it OS)).

I used the Sigma a lot at the zoo a couple of weeks ago, and will be
using it at least some at roller derby matches the next two weekends.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #10  
Old April 14th 12, 01:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma SD1 price drops by 70%, gets review on Dpreview

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Over the many years, I've never seen a Sigma camera body (film or
digital) in use anywhere.


at a local camera store a few months back, nikon, canon, sony, sigma,
tamron, lowepro, etc, all brought their stuff to show off. sigma had
lenses only. even sigma doesn't use sigma cameras.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma DP-1 review on dpreview, pretty decent output at low ISOs John P Sheehy Digital SLR Cameras 0 June 5th 08 01:33 AM
Sigma DP-1 review on dpreview, pretty decent output at low ISOs nntp.dsl.pipex.com Digital SLR Cameras 2 May 20th 08 08:10 AM
Sigma DP-1 review on dpreview, pretty decent output at low ISOs Myself Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 19th 08 09:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.