Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

In article , Rich
wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Rich
wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

Whose sleaze?

Gary Eickmeier

In article , Gary
Eickmeier wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

Whose sleaze?

sigma's sleaze. not only are they lying about the pixels, but they are
coming up with absurd claims and bogus math to justify it.

In article , Rich
wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

I hate to agree with Rich, but I've been doing photography for 44
years, many of them professionally. I've watched Sigma as a company
through the years, and their stuff is just crap.

Their digital cameras in particular are a bad joke. But there remain
some faithful who keep holding out hope that they'll get the Foveon
thing right some day. It's just overpriced and underperforming junk.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:28:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , Gary
Eickmeier wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

Whose sleaze?

sigma's sleaze. not only are they lying about the pixels, but they are
coming up with absurd claims and bogus math to justify it.

There are no "absurd claims" nor "bogus math" in that article. The only
thing that's bogus is your ability to comprehend how sensors work and
simple math. But then, since you've never owned even one camera in your
life, this is understandable why you'd reveal your ignorance and stupidity
as much as you do.

In article , TomTom
wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

Whose sleaze?

sigma's sleaze. not only are they lying about the pixels, but they are
coming up with absurd claims and bogus math to justify it.

There are no "absurd claims" nor "bogus math" in that article.

there definitely is.

In article
,
Rich wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:03*pm, TomTom wrote:
There are no "absurd claims" nor "bogus math" in that article. The only
thing that's bogus is your ability to comprehend how sensors work and
simple math. But then, since you've never owned even one camera in your
life, this is understandable why you'd reveal your ignorance and stupidity
as much as you do.

Is the P&S proponent sticking up for a DSLR?

looks that way

On 10-10-05 20:18 , nospam wrote:
In article0dqdnawLqtvlCTbRnZ2dnUVZ_g0AAAAA@giganews. com, Rich
wrote:

http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp

sleaze knows no bounds.

What sleaze? If they render spatial 15 Mpix and the color/luminance is
correct, then they have answered what "we" have been complaining about
for many (8) years now, and w/o interpolation issues.

The only caveat _might_ be aliasing, and it's not clear if they use an
AA filter. If they have not put one in, it could be very interesting.

I'd watch this with interest ... and wish that the Sigma body was
available in other lenses other than Sigma.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

What sleaze? If they render spatial 15 Mpix and the color/luminance is
correct, then they have answered what "we" have been complaining about
for many (8) years now, and w/o interpolation issues.

the sleaze in calling it a 46 megapixel camera when it's only 15
megapixels and then going to extreme lengths to justify the numbers,
with all that bull**** in the interview, including the things about
bayer that are totally false. it doesn't work the way they say it does.

The only caveat _might_ be aliasing, and it's not clear if they use an
AA filter. If they have not put one in, it could be very interesting.

sigma cameras do not use an aa filter. sigma (wrongly) claims that it's
not needed. aliasing artifacts on sigma aren't as ugly as with bayer,
but they're definitely there and since there's no aa filter, there's a
lot more aliasing.

I'd watch this with interest ... and wish that the Sigma body was
available in other lenses other than Sigma.

that's the big issue. nobody wants sigma mount lenses. nobody can even
find sigma mount lenses, even if they did want them. ever see a sigma
camera or sigma mount lens in a camera store that isn't b&h?