Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]
RPD is a bit of a poisoned well. I find myself now unable to review some
equipment - for example the Nikon D70 - because I am primed to look for
certain faults.
[]
David

David,

Whilst I can see what you mean, I would hope that when reviewing a camera
you should be looking for faults whatever the brand. If brand X is known
to have certain issues, it is possibly that brand Y also has these issues
but that they were not recognised at the time of review.

I would suggest that you should use knowledge of one brand's faults as a
way of extending your testing methods to look for that same defect in all
equipment. I was certainly grateful to one Web-based reviewer for
pointing out faults in one camera I was considering, as I would have been
very annoyed to spend several hundred pounds and only find the fault too
late to return the camera.

So, in this context at least, there is scope for re-writing history!
Well, re-writing reviews in any case!

Cheers,
David

thanks for sharing your experience DK

I think that's what the group needs - a good dash of plain old honesty
always does the trick

detail in the peacock is outstanding - it goes to show that quality is
always quality whatever words may be thrown at it

das B


"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...


Mark M wrote:


That's all very interesting.
However, who are you "recommending" this camera to--if not to
photographers?
As to rarely commenting on bad quality... The rarity of this was just
decreased...by this one article.



Don't misunderstand me; I'm careful to flag up potential problems. At
the time I reviewed the Sigma, I was not reading this NG, and because
no-one had primed me to look for things in the Sigma/Foveon images which
others seem to be obsessed by, I was judging them as an 'innocent'. I
simply wrote about what I found, and what I saw in the images.

RPD is a bit of a poisoned well. I find myself now unable to review some
equipment - for example the Nikon D70 - because I am primed to look for
certain faults. If I had experienced all the RPD negative opinion on the
Foveon/SD10, I would probably not have bothered even to review it, or I
would have set it straight to ISO 800, photographed a blue sky and
looked for the crap which results. Fortunately for Sigma, I got the
review camera and used it before encountering the Foveon demonology.

I have advised most photographers against buying the Sigma SD10. Their
concerns in life are different, and their knowledge of digital imaging
often limited by and to specific tasks. I would never suggest the SD10
for weddings and that's probably the one subject which concerns my
readers more than any other.

It strikes me as a very good tool for green landscape, architectural
exteriors (only with the 12-24mm lens though), objets trouvés, macro,
photomicrography, astrophotography, textile-driven fashion, hairstyling
(but not hair and beauty), text capture, copystand work, opthalmic and
medical, archaeological record, food, jewellery, pet portraits and some
wildlife, and some travel work.

I don't think I would like it for mountain or desert landscape, marine,
horticultural, events and parties, direct flash in general, concerts,
sports, news or celebrity, lifestyle interiors, location-driven fashion
or catwalk, portraiture (except male and genre, corporate or
theatrical), safari or wilderness, glamour/nude, family snaps, children,
snow scenes or skiing/alpine, low light work generally.

David

David J Taylor wrote:

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]

RPD is a bit of a poisoned well. I find myself now unable to review some
equipment - for example the Nikon D70 - because I am primed to look for
certain faults.

[]

David


David,

Whilst I can see what you mean, I would hope that when reviewing a camera
you should be looking for faults whatever the brand. If brand X is known
to have certain issues, it is possibly that brand Y also has these issues
but that they were not recognised at the time of review.

I would suggest that you should use knowledge of one brand's faults as a
way of extending your testing methods to look for that same defect in all
equipment. I was certainly grateful to one Web-based reviewer for
pointing out faults in one camera I was considering, as I would have been
very annoyed to spend several hundred pounds and only find the fault too
late to return the camera.

So, in this context at least, there is scope for re-writing history!
Well, re-writing reviews in any case!

Yes, I do learn - the lengthy discussions of anti-aliasing filters led
me to make specific tests of the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n to see whether
patterns were thrown up, and to publish the results. Same with the
queston of colour shifts across full frame sensors.

The difference is that this was a general awareness, not someone
repeatedly trashing the camera for hundreds of postings and some other
equal idiot constantly claiming it to be the best ever made bar none.

My old mate John Henshall has now gone a step further, because he got to
keep his Pro/n long-term and mine had to go back. He has the new
firmware and software, and in the latest THE PHOTOGRAPHER issue he shows
the effects of using the colour moire controls and also the
lens-specific colour shift/aberration corrections. I found his report
amusing because a colour pic which has bad colour aliasing could be
corrected - but all small details with a bright colour were turned to
monochrome! A yellow tower crane in his shot became grey. He noted this.
The sky stayed the correct blue.

It would be easy for me now to borrow a new Pro/n and try to induce all
sorts of good illustration examples. However, my approach with the Sigma
- to get the camera, and set off to shoot a couple of hundred shots with
it as my ONLY gear for a weekend where I actually wanted library shots,
is a much better test of real life experience. My reactions, emotions,
etc towards the camera were all REAL and echo what a buyer would feel if
they did the same. My disappointments, my surprise at the Fill Light
function transforming a shot I only bothered to snap without a tripod,
all this is responsible reporting in my view.

My 'test reports' never claim to be technical tests - I used to do that,
with lens charts and shutter speed measurement and calipers and scales
etc, 30 years ago. Then I realised, after many years, that such tests
are not objective. They just appear to be scientifically or technically
based, because of the use of measurements and facts and figures. Behind
such a facade, very opionated personal viewpoints can easily be masked
yet effectively expressed. These days I write 'reviews' or 'field
tests'; the opinions and reactions are clearly my personal opinion, I
show examples to back up any points made, and I do not pretend to be
anything other than a photographer and journalist.

The writing-about-Sigma-SD10 is not finished with and I have both
criticisms and further plus points to discuss in print.

David

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]
Yes, I do learn - the lengthy discussions of anti-aliasing filters led
me to make specific tests of the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n to see whether
patterns were thrown up, and to publish the results. Same with the
queston of colour shifts across full frame sensors.

The difference is that this was a general awareness, not someone
repeatedly trashing the camera for hundreds of postings and some other
equal idiot constantly claiming it to be the best ever made bar none.

I never regret the day I killfiled certain posters!

[]
My 'test reports' never claim to be technical tests - I used to do that,
with lens charts and shutter speed measurement and calipers and scales
etc, 30 years ago. Then I realised, after many years, that such tests
are not objective. They just appear to be scientifically or technically
based, because of the use of measurements and facts and figures. Behind
such a facade, very opionated personal viewpoints can easily be masked
yet effectively expressed. These days I write 'reviews' or 'field
tests'; the opinions and reactions are clearly my personal opinion, I
show examples to back up any points made, and I do not pretend to be
anything other than a photographer and journalist.

I think there is scope for both types of reports - unless you actually
measure something you cannot really judge a degree of improvement. Having
any subjective element in there makes reaching a conclusion more
difficult. I guess I am referring to the engineering process of refining
a single item here. Inter-brand comparisons are mich more difficult
because, for example, brand X uses more sharpening by default than brand
Y. So do you measure with the default settings (emulating what a
first-time user might do), or measure with all cameras set to produce a
similar picture? If you do the latter, you may be removing any lens
quality variation between brands! Testing digital cameras is much more
difficult than testing film cameras.

Sometimes I feel that many cameras at a similar price level have a similar
capability (e.g. current 8MP point and shoot) and you actually make buying
decisions on secondary features or the sort of field report that you
describe. I am sorry for those who cannot get their hands on a camera to
try in advance of purchase.

The writing-about-Sigma-SD10 is not finished with and I have both
criticisms and further plus points to discuss in print.

David

... and I will be interested to follow what you say, although I am no
longer in the market for buying a bulky and expensive DSLR.

Cheers,
David