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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 $4000-8000 body and can live with very poor ergonomics. But don't kid yourself, Canons are not good image shooters--in fact the avg shot out of them is simply terrible. Or as Sport Illustrated said about their 2004 all-Canon digital 1-series body workflow... "we got 15,000 pieces of crap." |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark M" wrote in message
news:wLo6d.87$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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 $4000-8000 body and can live with very poor ergonomics. But don't kid yourself, Canons are not good image shooters--in fact the avg shot out of them is simply terrible. Or as Sport Illustrated said about their 2004 all-Canon digital 1-series body workflow... "we got 15,000 pieces of crap." More crap from the Crap Master. Preddy is an idiot troll who doesn't own a camera. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message et... "Mark M" wrote in message news:wLo6d.87$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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player | Michael Shaw | Digital Photography | 2 | September 24th 04 10:10 AM |
My Sigma camera and lens collection | Giorgio Preddio | Digital Photography | 65 | July 7th 04 10:03 PM |
My Sigma camera and lens collection | Giorgio Preddio | 35mm Photo Equipment | 63 | July 7th 04 10:03 PM |