Sigma SD10

[Ray]

I sure hope this dream camera is not contravening the laws of physics.  

My explanation stands. Your reply adds nothing to what you're attempting to explain, and is again, simply wrong.

You're simply (conveniently?) confusing image size, sensor size, pixel count, colour depth and resolution.

If you remove colour for the moment and simpy look at the luminance information being gathered (which effectively is also spatial resolution) then it should be clearer.

Indendant tests have shown that what passes for enhanced resolution on the Foveon is actually a form of artifacting. This has been well documented in several independant tests.

In any event, I'm no expert in this area, and have no reason to believe that you are either. But I have talked extensively with experts in this regard and am comfortable with my understanding and explanation.

No need to flog this horse any further.

Michael

[BJL]

IMO, Sigma should manufacture the SD9/10 with Nikon & Canon mounts.

Unfortunately, Canon and Nikon probably disagree, and would probably not allow it; I presume that it is for licensing reasons that we get third party lenses, but never third party versions of lens mounts.

    That is why there is a bit more chance of Sigma going with a 4/3 mount, which they are allowed to do as a new member of the 4/3 consortium. Such bodies might make some sense after they start making 4/3 mount lenses, which Sigma has said is their goal in 4/3, for now at least.
   (With Panasonic also joining 4/3, and working with Leica on digital cameras, including a rumoured interchangable lens model, perhaps you can fantasize about using Leica lenses with an X3 sensor, if that combination appeals to you.)

[Frank L.]

The Sigma SD10 seems to excel in Landscape type photography (often low iso, tripod, saturated colours). It thus seems surprising to me that Michael hasn't reviewed this camera or the SD9 previously.  After scouring pbase.com, the sigma cameras seem to have a Velvia feel to them and seem superior, when light is abundant, to practically any other camera on the site.  Come on Michael, get your hands on one of these and give us your thoughts. I for one would ne very interested in what you have to say in your analysis of a very different image capturing system.

[Erik M]

Jonathan,

Understood. But I would add that with street photography aside most deliberate 20th Century creations of photographic art published in monographs and hanging in galleries today are easily accomplished (and were accomplished at time of creation) with low ISO film. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to call sunlight/studio light and tripod limiting. That's not to say that new vistas haven't been opened up by high ISO. But there are large portions of photography that simply don't require it; and some photographers may prefer to work in those areas entirely. I guess that was my point. I mean, why stop at ISO? What not call any camera that doesn't do 8fps limiting as well?  Of course I'm joking about that last point. But I think you see what I mean.

Erik
PS I enjoyed your article.

[Ray]

The Foveon chip doesn't have superior color rendition, if by rendition you mean the type of color pallette it outputs. The Foveon advantage is that the process by which color is measure in such a way that there is less resolution loss per pixel;

I'm glad you mentioned that, Erik. That's precisely as I understand it. A foveon pixel is more accurate than a Bayer type pixel. (Discounting clipping factors resulting in halos etc.).

This is why the 3MP Foveon sensor delivers approx the same resolution as the 6MP Bayer sensor. One has the advantage of greater accuracy, the other the advantage of greater numbers. The foveon sensor describes 3M separate 'spaces' with great accuracy. The Bayer type describes 6M separate 'spaces' with less accuracy. Net effect? Same image quality. (Discounting clipping factors resulting in halos   )

[janus]

I found that my friend's Canon D300/Rebel performs, colorwise, very similar to my Canon G3, and whole it is per say "bad", the colors of the SD10 are simply better, much better in fact.

IMHO, I have shot my G3 in RAW mode enough to know. But the RAW software by Canon does not compare favorably to the Sigma RAW software. Great, so your camera can shoot RAW, big deal. You need excellent software to bring that out. The Sigma software has been highly priased, although I like to see that dumb color wheel replaced with sliders as they have in the latest version of FotoStation. Unless you use RAW in PS7 or PS-CS, you are in bad shape with shooting RAW with a Canon.

[Lin Evans]

Thats incorrect...Both the SD9 and SD10 take M42 screw mount lenses (via a cheap Pentax K to M42 adapter, available in almost every camera store or a CSM422 SA to M42 adapter available from www.d-shell.net) and it takes Pentax K mount lenses (via a very easy small mod to each lens).

Mounting a lens and it being "compatible" are different animals. You have zero electronic connect with this combination, so you have just changed your camera to an all manual system - not exactly what most would want.

As for making a Canon EOS work - good luck - what you are hearing is pure "urban legend" and the best minds in Japan who create "adapters" have given up on trying to make any EOS mount compatible with the SD9/SD10. There's a remote possibility that you may eventually see a Nikon lens compatibility, but in no way will you see Canon EOS lenses mounted to the Sigma unless Sigma changes the mount itself.
It's too bad that they have elected not to do this because it definitely holds the Sigma back as a viable competitor to other dSLR systems.

Best regards,

Lin

[etmpasadena]

[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathan,

Always nice when you put in a positive comment.[/font]

[janus]

[font color=\'#000000\']To Wienke and 61 Dynamic:

Let's make one thing clear:
I never compared the SD10 to a 1DS.

Professional internet and printed reviews in general state that this camera can hold its own against 6MP bayer cameras.

I stand behind this. I have shot a Nikon 6MP camera and still have the files. The SD10 holds its own nicely.

To state that a SD10 produces noise when the exposure is off just a bit is also simply not true. The Foveon chip is quite forgiving and I have rescued files that were accidentally poorly exposed, without suffering noise. I will admit that I always shoot at 100 ISO whenever I can.

There are SD9/10 users out there who have their files enlarged to 2x3 feet and they cannot believe their eyes.
I enlarge regularly to 13x19 and even 16 x 20 and have no problems.

The RAW files from the cameras can be doubled in size by the SPP software. Some do it in Photoshop. This doubling has very little effect on image quality.

To 61D:
The best samples are the pbase galleries by different people.
I printed one 13x19 image from a jpeg sample posted by Champa before I bought the SD10, and here's the link to that photo:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23799244/original
Come on now, print it out.

Here's are other random samples:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28397513
http://www.pbase.com/image/28397513
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
and a pano: http://www.pbase.com/image/20255548
http://www.pbase.com/image/27315541 http://www.pbase.com/image/21254066
http://www.pbase.com/image/16177876
http://www.pbase.com/image/25222402
http://www.pbase.com/image/21254067
http://www.pbase.com/image/21254067
http://www.pbase.com/image/25288194

ETC !

I hate to sound like a salesman or Sigma spokesman, because I am not, but I strongly dislike any hitn of prejudice and innuendo.[/font]