New Sigma Turd

In article <HJCdnSdmncGAyj_anZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>, Charles
<charlesschuler RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> > Remember, Sigma is a company known for lying in their advertising and
> > manufacturing substandard products.
>
> I'll not remember that because I do not buy it. Sigma is as "good" a
> corporation as the rest of them.

no other company blatantly misrepresents the number of pixels in the
camera. the sigma sd-14 and dp1 do *not* have 14 million pixels. they
have 4.7 million pixels with three layers per pixel, and their own
marketing materials even contradicts itself in how to count it.

> My limited Sigma purchases have provided
> more bang for the buck than those from Canon or Nikon. Note the word
> "limited." One must be careful when plunking down the cash.

some of their lenses are not too bad for the money, but like
everything, you get what you pay for.

> Admittedly, they are having one hell of a time trying to figure out how to
> enter the digital camera body market. I don't know if they will ever do it.
> The Foveon mistake was a big one.

that's definitely true.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <47a261c8$0$6325$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Peter Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote:

> A faster lens for a sensor of that size would require larger optics that
> would no longer make the camera compact. Oh, and the sensor is just fine,
> thank you.

the olympus xa had a 35mm f/2.8 lens using a full frame sized 'sensor'
(film). there are other pocket sized cameras with f/2.8 lenses too.

<http://www.cameraquest.com/xa4.htm>
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

On Jan 31, 2:02 pm, "Peter Stavrakoglou" <nto....DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote:
> A faster lens for a sensor of that size would require larger optics that
> would no longer make the camera compact.  Oh, and the sensor is just fine,
> thank you.

A 16mm f/2.8 lens is still going to be very small. The f/4 is not to
make it small it is to make it cheap.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:36:57 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
<rag.DeleteThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>
>Sigma has announced a new P&S, designated the DP1, which claims to be
>14 megapixels using their favored oddball Foveon technology. Full
>information can be found: http://www.sigma-dp1.com/.

Isn't this the same DP1 Sigma announced/pre-announced at Photokina
2006?

*smacks head*
Gee, I could've had a Ricoh GR....


I've got 50 quatloos that says the camera is as unimpressive as the
website Sigma is using to promote it. If you want to see the hype
without having to endure the "message movie" go to

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/main.html


TR
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <i8i4q39ouk5hsfm0gh2d8qkvc2ai4qr2ef.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, TRoss
<tross003.DeleteThis@tx.rr.com> wrote:

> Isn't this the same DP1 Sigma announced/pre-announced at Photokina
> 2006?

not quite the same. they scrapped the original camera and redesigned
the guts of it.

> I've got 50 quatloos that says the camera is as unimpressive as the
> website Sigma is using to promote it. If you want to see the hype
> without having to endure the "message movie" go to
>
> http://www.sigma-dp1.com/main.html

or download the brochure:
<http://www.sigma-dp1.com/catalog/DP1_Catalog2008_preview_EN.pdf>

note that it's limited to iso 100-200 in auto exposure mode and has a
fixed focal length lens with a 3x digital zoom. i guess that's what
they mean by 'a camera that belongs to no known category.' i'm still
puzzled about 'a camera with principles' thing, though. maybe it's a
comment on cameras that are called 'rebel'
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

Scott W wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:02 pm, "Peter Stavrakoglou" <nto... RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote:
>> A faster lens for a sensor of that size would require larger optics that
>> would no longer make the camera compact. Oh, and the sensor is just fine,
>> thank you.
>
> A 16mm f/2.8 lens is still going to be very small. The f/4 is not to
> make it small it is to make it cheap.

They go on about the quality of the lens. Chromatic aberration is
apparently a big booger for typical P&S so yeah price but also they're
making sure nobody can complain about image quality, no nasty purple
fringing will help.

But yes only f/4 and only ISO 800 max... man, that's a hard sell for a
high end P&S with expensive APS sensor.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <Pkvoj.6727$Rg1.5827@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
<paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> But yes only f/4 and only ISO 800 max... man, that's a hard sell for a
> high end P&S with expensive APS sensor.

assuming you want to use the exposure meter, it's iso 200 max
(according to the specs). otherwise, it's iso 400 with flash and 800
for full manual. i'm very interested to find out *why*.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

"nospam" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:310120081824308354%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <Pkvoj.6727$Rg1.5827@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
> <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> But yes only f/4 and only ISO 800 max... man, that's a hard sell for a
>> high end P&S with expensive APS sensor.
>
> assuming you want to use the exposure meter, it's iso 200 max
> (according to the specs). otherwise, it's iso 400 with flash and 800
> for full manual. i'm very interested to find out *why*.

Because it is a Foveon sensor and Foveon sensors do not do high ISO well.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <9WLoj.204$XI.1@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J Taylor
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, I was pointing out that Sigma was not the only company to use a dot
> count rather than an RGB pixel count.

I don't know of any other company that inflates their megapixel count.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <47a3b133$0$6368$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Peter Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr.DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote:

> > Nikon, Canon, and the rest don't invent new ways to count pixels.
>
> Nikon and Canon don't use the same kind of pixels.

Speaking for Canon users, we're glad of that.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

In article <47a3b133$0$6368$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Peter Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote:

> > Nikon, Canon, and the rest don't invent new ways to count pixels.
>
> Nikon and Canon don't use the same kind of pixels.

that doesn't matter. a pixel is a single spatial location. the sigma
sd-14 has a sensor that has 2640 x 1760 spatial sensing locations, for
a total of 4.65 megapixels, not 14 megapixels. end of story.
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

nospam wrote:
[]
> except that sigma isn't counting dots. they're counting stacked
> layers that are spatially co-located and calling them pixels. there
> is no resolution advantage, only a theoretical colour advantage, so
> the higher number is not justified. and it even contradicts their own
> claims -- they claim that each pixel senses all three colours, and if
> they count each layer as a pixel, that can't be true.

... as has been discussed before.

> counting dots (and calling it dots) is technically correct, however,
> it is still misleading.

I just checked the Nikon spec for the D300 LCD and they do speciify
"dots".

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1436/specific...ons.htm

However, DPReview call it 922,000 "pixels".

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page2.asp

Hum.....

David
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd 

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <47a3b133$0$6368$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Peter Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr.TakeThisOut@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Nikon, Canon, and the rest don't invent new ways to count pixels.
>>
>> Nikon and Canon don't use the same kind of pixels.
>
> Speaking for Canon users, we're glad of that.

In the product spec, at least, both Nikon and Canon specify "dots" for the
LCD. 922,000 for the Nikon D300 and 230,000 for the Canon 450D (the two I
happened to check). Once again, DPReview gets the units wrong:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012403canoneos450d.asp#specs

They say: 230,000 pixels.

David
 >> Stay informed about: New Sigma Turd