Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma ..

On 2008-02-22 22:43:55 -0700, nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <47bfa098$0$31375$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
> Tuthill <tuthill.TakeThisOut@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but pentax, olympus and sony didn't have to reinvent the wheel
>> and Sony just bought KM's technology for the most part.
>
> reinvent what wheel? sigma built off their film bodies just as pentax
> and k/m did. olympus did reinvent the wheel with 4/3rds with a totally
> new body/lens mount/frame size.

Well, they weren't faced with developing a new camera around a totally
new sensor as the bayer had been around for quite some time.

>
>> There's no
>> doubt they all have a head start in the marketing end also as their
>> brand is much better known than Sigma. I'd guess that your average
>> digital shooter has very little knowledge of Sigma unless they shoot
>> with a dslr (of course the same would appy to Tamron and Tokina).
>
> many people have heard of sigma lenses. virtually nobody knows that
> they make cameras.
>
>> I don't recall seeing a new camera introduction that
>> has garnered as much talk as the DP1.
>
> where were you when the nikon d3 and d300 came out?
>
>> We're seeing a lot more new
>> names showing up in the dpreview forum who have, or are entertaining,
>> picking up an SD14 as a result of curiousity over the DP1 and most who
>> do seem to quite happy with the IQ.
>
> now compare that to how many new names are showing up in the nikon and
> canon forums.

Well of course you're going to see many more new names showing up for
the big 2. I'm speaking in relative terms.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

"acl" <achilleaslazarides.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Anyway, one way or another, there are compatibility problems, so I
> don't know.

(The following is all "to the best of my knowledge" based on not having
noticed any complaints of problems on the Canon forums in a long time.)

Well, no. There _have been_ compatibility problems. Past tense.

As I understand it, there haven't been compatibility problems for a long
time, and the only lenses that had problems were ones that have been long
since discontinued.

Have I missed more recent problems? What's the most recent Sigma lens that
has failed to work on a newer body?

And even the claim that Sigma doesn't license the Canon interface sounds
like an urban myth.

Of course in this case the Sigma's excessive CA makes it a lens to be
avoided. Especially since the Tamron is so much better and cheaper. (The
similar Canon lens is almost three times the price (list price in Japan) of
the Tamron.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

On 2008-02-22, acl <achilleaslazarides RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:29 am, Chris Savage <spam.goes.h... RemoveThis @devnull.savvo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-02-22, acl <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 22, 11:38 pm, "Peter Stavrakoglou" <nto... RemoveThis @optonline.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Sigma does reverse engineer the protocol. Re-chipping is necessary because
>> >> Canon changes the protocol from time-to-time.
>>
>> > OK but then how come old canon lenses don't need rechipping if the
>> > protocol's changed?
>>
>> Because Canon has the specification of theprotocol.
>>
>> Sigma could only copy the bits they could see and knew nothing of the
>> parts that Canon later used.
>>
>
> The only way I can see that what we observe can occur is that stuff
> changes in newer bodies but they switch to the old protocol if the
> lens mounted is in some library (AF lenses transmit codes to the body,
> at least in Nikons they do). I find this hard to believe. For example,
> that means that if a lens isn't in the library it's assumed to be of
> the "new" type and you use the new protocol; but then the lens would
> either not work on older bodies, or it would also need to have a
> compatibility mode etc.
>
> The only way I can make sense of this is if the camera manufacturer
> does it deliberately to break compatibility. But then again, when the
> Nikon D200 came out there was a problem with sigma HSM lenses (they
> did not focus with the af-on button). This was fixed in the first
> firmware update...
>
> Anyway. I have no clue what is going on, and don't really want to
> argue, but what people say simply doesn't make sense. But then again,
> reality doesn't have to make sense.

Who's arguing? I just tried to answer your question.

There would be two ways to reverse engineer the lens-body protocol.

1. Observe signals on the wires and replicate the conversations you see.
2. Dump the ROMs, disassemble the codes therein.

1. Is easy, quick and cheap.
2. Is difficult, slow and expensive.

1. Leaves you open to the possibility of missing stuff that the
equipment you're analysing doesn't do.
2. Gives you a better chance of not missing that the equipment you're
analysing doesn't do.

I'm guessing Sigma went for 1. Just like anybody working to a budget and
timescale would.

The people you know who have reverse engineered ROMs maybe also had more
time on their hands than the guys Sigma hired to do the job on the Canon
mount.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <PcydneuiztNCgF3anZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:

> Have I missed more recent problems? What's the most recent Sigma lens that
> has failed to work on a newer body?

sigma hsm lenses did not focus on a d200 body when using the dedicated
af button on the back of the camera. nikon fixed this with a firmware
update.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

On 2008-02-23 12:02:37 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> said:

> In article <47bf7195$0$19527$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
> Tuthill <tuthill RemoveThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I think they've done pretty well considering they've only been in the
>> dslr business for around 6 years. How's the Nikon/Canon/Pentax
>> compacts with dlsr sized sensor developments coming along?
>
> So you have no problem with Homer Simpson skin tones, false sharpness,
> and overall oddball color renditions?

To tell you the truth I don't find the post processing of my Sigma
shots to be any more onerous than the adjustments required for my Nikon
shots. I shoot raw only and try to nail the exposure at the time of
the shot. A little thought and care while shooting can counter many
problems. As far as the Homer Simpson skin tones, that problem existed
to some extent with the SD9 primarily and with the SD10 to a lesser
extent.

Do you have a problem with how the bayer sensor sometimes creates mush
when it can't handle a particular situation or due to overenthusiastic
noise reduction?
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <47c07ec1$0$15039$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
Tuthill <tuthill RemoveThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:

> To tell you the truth I don't find the post processing of my Sigma
> shots to be any more onerous than the adjustments required for my Nikon
> shots. I shoot raw only and try to nail the exposure at the time of
> the shot. A little thought and care while shooting can counter many
> problems. As far as the Homer Simpson skin tones, that problem existed
> to some extent with the SD9 primarily and with the SD10 to a lesser
> extent.

You don't have any choice *but* to shoot RAW.

> Do you have a problem with how the bayer sensor sometimes creates mush
> when it can't handle a particular situation or due to overenthusiastic
> noise reduction?

I have 16x20s on my wall that you wouldn't be able to tell from film.
My camera uses tried & true technology with accurate color rendering,
and I have a wide choice of lenses and accessories. The manufacturer of
my camera accurately stated the megapixel count and didn't try to make
me think it was something else.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

On 2008-02-23 15:17:21 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> said:

> In article <47c07ec1$0$15039$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
> Tuthill <tuthill RemoveThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> To tell you the truth I don't find the post processing of my Sigma
>> shots to be any more onerous than the adjustments required for my Nikon
>> shots. I shoot raw only and try to nail the exposure at the time of
>> the shot. A little thought and care while shooting can counter many
>> problems. As far as the Homer Simpson skin tones, that problem existed
>> to some extent with the SD9 primarily and with the SD10 to a lesser
>> extent.
>
> You don't have any choice *but* to shoot RAW.

Well here's a scoop for you. Both my D200 and my SD14 will shoot in
jpeg mode. Don't use it on either though.


>
>> Do you have a problem with how the bayer sensor sometimes creates mush
>> when it can't handle a particular situation or due to overenthusiastic
>> noise reduction?
>
> I have 16x20s on my wall that you wouldn't be able to tell from film.
> My camera uses tried & true technology with accurate color rendering,
> and I have a wide choice of lenses and accessories. The manufacturer of
> my camera accurately stated the megapixel count and didn't try to make
> me think it was something else.

I'm sure you do have some very nice prints. Pretty well every dslr on
the market takes nice shots these days. As far as the megapixel count
goes, would you not concur that the bayer method of counting is kinda
stretching things? If you have a 10 mp rig does it have 10 mp red, 10
mp green and 10 mp blue photosites? For that matter does it even have
5 mp red, 5 mp green and 5 mp of blue?
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <47bf32c6$0$8098$607ed4bc@cv.net>, ntotrr RemoveThis @optonline.net
says...
-"acl" <achilleaslazarides RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
-news:85bedae6-743f-47eb-af2b-23ea55acc269@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
-> On Feb 22, 7:57 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r... RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> wrote:
->> In article
->> <3a6396d7-22d4-435e-90d5-9dea34bd0... RemoveThis @71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, acl
->>
->> <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
->> > Actually with all this talk about licensing I got curious. Does
->> > anybody have any idea if the communication protocol of canon, nikon
->> > etc are available for licensing to anybody? I seriously doubt this,
->> > but don't know of course.
->>
->> Probably available to anybody willing to write a check.
->
-> Right, but I was wondering if anybody actually had any idea. Because,
-> you see, I'd personally say "almost certainly not", so the situation
-> is like that in which I ask random people to estimate the length of
-> the nose of the Emperor of China and average the answers. So you see
-> the problem.
->
->>
->> > Then again I also find it pretty incredible that any company can't
->> > reverse engineer such a simple protocol (given that I know individuals
->> > who have reverse engineered whole proprietary computer languages by
->> > trial and error, essentially by locating where in rom the instructions
->> > were located by fishing for them), so what do I know.
->>
->> Well, look at how incompetent Sigma is at creating a digital camera
->> from scratch.
->
-> Well, I hate to be such an arsehole, but did you actually read the
-> paragraph, try to understand it and then replied, or did you just
-> randomly type something vaguely insulting to "sigma"? I mean, I don't
-> have a sigma camera, I don't particularly like sigma lenses and
-> actually I find their cameras laughable, so I don't think I am
-> particularly biased here. But I'm having problems understanding how
-> the inability to create a digital camera from scratch implies that one
-> is unable to reverse engineer a simple protocol (simple here is in
-> comparison to what I described above).
-
-Sigma does reverse engineer the protocol. Re-chipping is necessary because
-Canon changes the protocol from time-to-time.

so of course the canon lenses need rechipping?

-
-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield RemoveThis @verizon.net
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <47c07ec1$0$15039$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
Tuthill <tuthill.TakeThisOut@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:

> > So you have no problem with Homer Simpson skin tones, false sharpness,
> > and overall oddball color renditions?
>
> To tell you the truth I don't find the post processing of my Sigma
> shots to be any more onerous than the adjustments required for my Nikon
> shots. I shoot raw only and try to nail the exposure at the time of
> the shot. A little thought and care while shooting can counter many
> problems. As far as the Homer Simpson skin tones, that problem existed
> to some extent with the SD9 primarily and with the SD10 to a lesser
> extent.

there's still a problem with weird colour casts. in fact, there's a
thread going on right now in the sigma forum about cyan skies.

> Do you have a problem with how the bayer sensor sometimes creates mush
> when it can't handle a particular situation or due to overenthusiastic
> noise reduction?

how have you determined that the bayer *sensor* is responsible for the
'mush' you claim exists, and not something else?

and how have you determined the noise reduction is 'overenthusiastic',
particularly since it can be turned off?
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <47c09995$0$26122$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
Tuthill <tuthill RemoveThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:

> As far as the megapixel count
> goes, would you not concur that the bayer method of counting is kinda
> stretching things? If you have a 10 mp rig does it have 10 mp red, 10
> mp green and 10 mp blue photosites? For that matter does it even have
> 5 mp red, 5 mp green and 5 mp of blue?

a 10 mp bayer camera has 10 million spatial sensing locations, and
therefore 10 million pixels. there is no stretching things.

the foveon sensor in the sd-14 has 4.7 million spatial sensing
locations and therefore 4.7 million pixels. calling it 14 million
pixels *is* stretching things.

and the foveon sensor doesn't really have any red, green or blue pixels
at all. the layers have overlapping colour responses and require a lot
of math to extract rgb.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

On 2008-02-23 20:28:26 -0700, nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <47c07ec1$0$15039$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
> Tuthill <tuthill.DeleteThis@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> So you have no problem with Homer Simpson skin tones, false sharpness,
>>> and overall oddball color renditions?
>>
>> To tell you the truth I don't find the post processing of my Sigma
>> shots to be any more onerous than the adjustments required for my Nikon
>> shots. I shoot raw only and try to nail the exposure at the time of
>> the shot. A little thought and care while shooting can counter many
>> problems. As far as the Homer Simpson skin tones, that problem existed
>> to some extent with the SD9 primarily and with the SD10 to a lesser
>> extent.
>
> there's still a problem with weird colour casts. in fact, there's a
> thread going on right now in the sigma forum about cyan skies.

Yes, there are some problems in that area however it's not something I
find troubling. I get funny coloured skies with my D200 also,
particularly when shooting sunrises or sunsets.

>
>> Do you have a problem with how the bayer sensor sometimes creates mush
>> when it can't handle a particular situation or due to overenthusiastic
>> noise reduction?
>
> how have you determined that the bayer *sensor* is responsible for the
> 'mush' you claim exists, and not something else?

Well, whatever it is I see it on bayer shots and not typically on
foveon shots. I saw a shot posted the other day in which a red flower
turned to mush. I've seen it in my own shots where there was a maze
(for lack of a better term) of trees that my Nikon couldn't resolve but
that the Sigma could.

> and how have you determined the noise reduction is 'overenthusiastic',
> particularly since it can be turned off?

I can produce mush easily myself by being "overenthusiastic" with the
noise reduction. It's pretty well established that noise reduction can
lead to detail loss.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

On 2008-02-23 20:28:27 -0700, nospam <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <47c09995$0$26122$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
> Tuthill <tuthill DeleteThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> As far as the megapixel count
>> goes, would you not concur that the bayer method of counting is kinda
>> stretching things? If you have a 10 mp rig does it have 10 mp red, 10
>> mp green and 10 mp blue photosites? For that matter does it even have
>> 5 mp red, 5 mp green and 5 mp of blue?
>
> a 10 mp bayer camera has 10 million spatial sensing locations, and
> therefore 10 million pixels. there is no stretching things.

Well, the a foveon 4.7 mp sensor has 14 some on spatial sensing
locations. They just happen to be stacked instead of being adjacent to
one another. There's always going to be a problem comparing bayer and
foveon sensors insofar as megapixels is concerned as they're totally
unrelated to one another. Sigma is in the uneviable position of having
to compete in a market where the average Joe or Jill thinks more
megapixels is the defining factor behind a quality capture when it's
really just one factor. My personal opinion is that the SD14 produces
IQ comparable to a 10-12 mp bayer. It's clearly much better than a 6
mp bayer sensor. My experience has been that under some conditions my
D200 beats the SD14 and vice versa. At any rate, the bayer counts are
misleading, if not stretching things and the foveon 14 mp is
misleading, if not stretching things:-)

>
>
> the foveon sensor in the sd-14 has 4.7 million spatial sensing
> locations and therefore 4.7 million pixels. calling it 14 million
> pixels *is* stretching things.
>
> and the foveon sensor doesn't really have any red, green or blue pixels
> at all. the layers have overlapping colour responses and require a lot
> of math to extract rgb.

And the math is not perfect of course..pretty darn good, but not perfect.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma .. 

In article <47c09995$0$26122$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Michael
Tuthill <tuthill DeleteThis @nospamshaw.ca> wrote:

> Well here's a scoop for you. Both my D200 and my SD14 will shoot in
> jpeg mode. Don't use it on either though.

I thought the Sigma only did RAW. But, since I've never seen one in the
wild, I'm just going on what I've heard.

> I'm sure you do have some very nice prints. Pretty well every dslr on
> the market takes nice shots these days. As far as the megapixel count
> goes, would you not concur that the bayer method of counting is kinda
> stretching things? If you have a 10 mp rig does it have 10 mp red, 10
> mp green and 10 mp blue photosites? For that matter does it even have
> 5 mp red, 5 mp green and 5 mp of blue?

And the Foveon in the new Sigma is 14mp? I don't think so. Keep trying.
Sooner or later you'll see that you pissed away your money on that
piece of junk.
 >> Stay informed about: Which one to buy: Tamron SP 180mm F/3.5 Di Macro or Sigma ..