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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|