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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |