Sigma ads in photo mags

"Mark M" wrote in message news:dBs6d.873$Hz.803@fed1read04...
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

What Preddy has never recognized is that most of the same folks who note how
incredibly BAD the images from Sigma are actually would WELCOME a huge
success from the Foveon! If it was truly revolutionary---**WITH SUCCESS..as
in new found all-around quality--it would be GREAT for all of us.

For this reason, he can rest assured that it isn't simply Sigma-bashing.
People with trained eyes are honestly and with good reason simply find these
images severely lacking in the essentials. Sharpness is great, but not at
the cost of accuracy of texture, color rendition, and images that cannot
even be corrected to standard.

Outdoor Cnaon images are all blown. Including all of the outdoor and
all of the indoor shots of the Mk II's (all models) on dpreview. The
Canon CMOSs are very poorly fabricated, using Canon's absurdly
obsolete 386-486 level fabrication processes. Sigma's color is much
better than Canon's, noise is dramatically lower than Canon at ISO
100, and dynamic range is aat least 2 stops greater, more like 4
outdoors.

Canon DSLRs are fine if image quality is secondary to connectivtiy (to
included pooled lenses) and need a good solid $4000-8000 body and can
live with very poor ergonomics. But don't kid yourself, Canons are
not good image shooters--in fact the avg shot out of them is simply
terrible. Or as Sport Illustrated said about their 2004 all-Canon
digital 1-series body workflow... "we got 15,000 pieces of crap."

On 29 Sep 2004 08:36:52 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message news:dBs6d.873$Hz.803@fed1read04...
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

What Preddy has never recognized is that most of the same folks who note how
incredibly BAD the images from Sigma are actually would WELCOME a huge
success from the Foveon! If it was truly revolutionary---**WITH SUCCESS..as
in new found all-around quality--it would be GREAT for all of us.

For this reason, he can rest assured that it isn't simply Sigma-bashing.
People with trained eyes are honestly and with good reason simply find these
images severely lacking in the essentials. Sharpness is great, but not at
the cost of accuracy of texture, color rendition, and images that cannot
even be corrected to standard.

Outdoor Cnaon images are all blown. Including all of the outdoor and
all of the indoor shots of the Mk II's (all models) on dpreview. The
Canon CMOSs are very poorly fabricated, using Canon's absurdly
obsolete 386-486 level fabrication processes. Sigma's color is much
better than Canon's, noise is dramatically lower than Canon at ISO
100, and dynamic range is aat least 2 stops greater, more like 4
outdoors.

Canon DSLRs are fine if image quality is secondary to connectivtiy (to
included pooled lenses) and need a good solid $4000-8000 body and can
live with very poor ergonomics. But don't kid yourself, Canons are
not good image shooters--in fact the avg shot out of them is simply
terrible. Or as Sport Illustrated said about their 2004 all-Canon
digital 1-series body workflow... "we got 15,000 pieces of crap."

I see that guy who reads for you still isn't explaining what he reads.
That quote came from an actual article that people could read. The
"crap" comment was referring to images suitable for a cover image, and
had very little to do with the technical quality of the images, but
rather with the lack of an image that had the qualities that make a
great cover.
Your other comments are your opinion, which aren't shared by those who
use cameras for their livelyhood.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 29 Sep 2004 08:26:59 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

The SD9 has the best skin tones of any digital SLR, and I've used all
the decent ones.

LIAR!
You've said you will nto use a camera that interpolates, and you claim
that all Bayer DSLRs interpolate, so you absolutely could not have
used them.
And, since the Sigma SDx cameras also interpolate, you can't use them,
either.
You really should get your helper to write down the stories you tell,
so you can ask him to reasd them back to you later.
It's default WB is warmer than most, which is highly
desirable for a portrait shooter, but that remains completely
changable. SPP v2.1 makes for gorgeous people shots. Here are two
skin tone comparision samples from the SD9 and Canon 10D, both
straight out of the camera (set monitor color temp to 6000-6500 first,
most are set too blue at 9300)...

Again, your opinions are not shared by those who use cameras in their
work.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04...

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
t...
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A.
Stavrakoglou wrote:

Thus sayeth one of the clueless ones.

Let's see...3.42MP, proprietary lenses, crappy skin tones...I've seen
enough, thank you.

And we've all heard enough from you.

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

I'm neither - anything constructive you'd like to add perhaps, or just some
more bull like Randall?

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

You have conveniently omitted the fact that I've "sung the praises" for
quite a few cameras, not just my own. Unlike you, I don't paint things with
a broad and inaccurate brush.

Georgette Preddy wrote:

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message et...
"Caleb Thomas" wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed the skin color in the Sigma camera ads? The only
thing I can think of when I see one is of a wax museum...

Do they really look that way out of the camera?

I'll duck now..

Unless you've seen the subject in person it would be hard to judge whether
the color is accurate or not. I have an SD9 and get fine skintones from it,
despite what a few clueless posters in this group have to say.

The SD9 has the best skin tones of any digital SLR,

THUS YOU PROVE YOURSELF A NEWBIE,
A BEGINNER AT PHOTOGRAPHY,
AND A DISHONEST PERSON TO BOOT.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...

Outdoor Cnaon images are all blown. Including all of the outdoor and
all of the indoor shots of the Mk II's (all models) on dpreview. The
Canon CMOSs are very poorly fabricated, using Canon's absurdly
obsolete 386-486 level fabrication processes. Sigma's color is much
better than Canon's, noise is dramatically lower than Canon at ISO
100, and dynamic range is aat least 2 stops greater, more like 4
outdoors.

Canon DSLRs are fine if image quality is secondary to connectivtiy (to
included pooled lenses) and need a good solid $4000-8000 body and can
live with very poor ergonomics. But don't kid yourself, Canons are
not good image shooters--in fact the avg shot out of them is simply
terrible. Or as Sport Illustrated said about their 2004 all-Canon
digital 1-series body workflow... "we got 15,000 pieces of crap."

More crap from the Crap Master.

Preddy is an idiot troll who doesn't own a camera.

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
et...
"Mark M" wrote in message
news:wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04...

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
t...
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter
A.
Stavrakoglou wrote:

Thus sayeth one of the clueless ones.

Let's see...3.42MP, proprietary lenses, crappy skin tones...I've
seen
enough, thank you.

And we've all heard enough from you.

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

I'm neither - anything constructive you'd like to add perhaps, or just
some
more bull like Randall?

You are free to pursue anything you wish, of course.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
et...
"Caleb Thomas" wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed the skin color in the Sigma camera ads? The only
thing I can think of when I see one is of a wax museum...

Do they really look that way out of the camera?

I'll duck now..

Unless you've seen the subject in person it would be hard to judge
whether
the color is accurate or not. I have an SD9 and get fine skintones from
it,
despite what a few clueless posters in this group have to say.

The SD9 has the best skin tones of any digital SLR, and I've used all
the decent ones. It's default WB is warmer than most, which is highly
desirable for a portrait shooter, but that remains completely
changable. SPP v2.1 makes for gorgeous people shots. Here are two
skin tone comparision samples from the SD9 and Canon 10D, both
straight out of the camera (set monitor color temp to 6000-6500 first,
most are set too blue at 9300)...

http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing...24381/original
http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing...95832/original

Ah!
Sigma's yellowing of the skin is **almost** masked by shooting folks in cool
shadows! Good for you! -It's jsut too bad most of us shoot under settings
other than shade...

As for the second shot...
-How nice that you compare a **1600 ISO** Canon shot to Sigma's **100 ISO**.

What a joke.

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

The SD9 has the best skin tones of any digital SLR, and I've used all
the decent ones. It's default WB is warmer than most, which is highly
desirable for a portrait shooter, but that remains completely
changable. SPP v2.1 makes for gorgeous people shots. Here are two
skin tone comparision samples from the SD9 and Canon 10D, both
straight out of the camera (set monitor color temp to 6000-6500 first,
most are set too blue at 9300)...

The skin tones are awful even for a 3.42MP kiddie camera.